Public Forum

I believe we should try to keep it simple. We cannot change human nature. We cannot get 99% of people to agree to save the environment, ensure a single-payer health care system, stop wars, or really any single goal. However, 99% of people will agree to an ideal; they want their voices to play a role in their government. James Madison ( the "Father of the Constitution") wanted a large House of Representatives, one of his greatest fears was a too small House. He wanted each Representative to represent no more than 50,000 citizens. The House was envisioned to grow with the country, but in the early 1900's congress decided to limit the House to 435 people. This was a mistake. Let's try to fix this error by calling an Article V convention to amend the Constitution and place this concept back into our government. The OWS movement is spreading to every state and to call a convention only requires 2/3 of the States to do so.Let's get petitions signed and get the process moving. Google "thirty thousand house of Representatives" for a website with more info.

4 Comments

Read the Rules

[-] 1 points by L0tech (79) 13 years ago

I appreciate your intent, and this could be VERY effective, but only after:

1) Get big money out of politics

2) Get big money off "welfare"

3) Simplify the legislative process

Could you imagine how long it would take for 6,000 legislators to hash out a decision on one of today's bloated bills? How many piggybacked add-ons would be involved? How many "trade-offs" negotiated to get those last few hundred hold-out votes?

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] 1 points by Moonhead (3) 13 years ago

to address your points 1. this would effectively get the money out of the house. its easy for corporations to buy off 216 Representativesbut fairly hard to buy 2501 Representatives. Anyone could be elected to the federal government. My cousin (My family is from an appalachian county in tennessee with about 35,000 residents) just won a local county election. He literally went door to door and talked to people. His whole campaign cost about $5000. If you were talking to only 50,000 voters you don't need as much money.

  with 5000 Representatives who are personally known by their constituents corporations and big money will have a harder time getting influence.

  With 5000 Representatives neither fringe will win out though they will of course be represented. Right now a guy in north dakota has twice the voting power of someone in a more populated state. To pull this off you would have to decentralize the house to regional capitals and use video conferencing to vote and debate. The house members would end up spending more time in their districts. More people would mean the rules of the house and the legislative process would have to be simplified so pushing a constitutional amendment would eventually result in this goal.

  Your point is well taken but the difference is between the 6,000 and the 435 is the 435 are the professional class of politicians with loyalty to their party above their loyalty to their constituents. Anyone could run if the cost of running is low enough, so you would have more than two parties being elected. You would have green party from California, liberterians from texas, and people have will do the job for a term and then move on after they deal with some issue. All around that sounds better than the mere goal of quick legislation. Typically more people mean more oversight and less spending. Say you want a bridge to where to sign off on a piece of legislation, you will have to get tons of people to go with you on it and for the most part people will have a hard time justifying your bridge to their constituents, so they will not vote with you.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] 1 points by Wearetheonepercent (4) 13 years ago

Yes! This is the type of thinking we need you to have to stay at the top. https://www.facebook.com/WeAreThe1Percent

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] 1 points by imrational (527) 13 years ago

I appreciate what you're saying, but how would that improve things? I think it would just bog down our government even more and slow change.

Personally, I think that seeing we have 50 states, we should be running 50 different socio-political experiments. I think we should have one state eliminate elections for the House. Instead, have a random lottery for interested individuals. Each potential candidate would have to acquire 25 signatures from people in their district that know them and will attest to their integrity and soundness of mind. This would allow a potential candidate would then be allowed to enter their name into the lottery.

This would re-enfranchise citizens. It would give proportional representation. It would encourage civil debate (no one wants to get into a shouting match with their neighbors).

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink