Skip to main content

View Diary: Reid, McConnell square off on money in politics (67 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  money speech (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MPociask, Amber6541

    it would be better if congress was working on an amendment prohibiting gerrymandering
    and increasing the size of the house
    which has not changed since 1911 with a pop of 91 million
    today 312 million
    the Senate has increased by 8 members since 1911
    meaning 4 states have joined the Union but no additional members of the house

    •  I agree with this right here an awful lot (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joseph Westfall, cjtjc

      The whole concept of The House was that it was supposed to scale up based on the population growth, so each representative had a small pool size of constituents, and they would be accessible for petitioning.

      The fact that concept was kicked in the nuts just because it would cost a lot to achieve, it disappointing to say the least.

      Imagine if the number of reps had remained at the same 1:30,000 ratio as it was on day 1 of the United States....

      10,500 representatives would be in The House!  Holy smokes!  Costly, sure, add not at all realistic.  But, I'd bet we'd get much better representation.

      •  money speech (0+ / 0-)

        thank you I did the same math
         in 1920, the Republicans removed the Democrats from power

         taking the presidency and both houses of Congress.

         Due to increased immigration
        and a large rural-to-urban shift in population
         from 1910 to 1920,

        the new Republican Congress refused to reapportion
         the House of Representatives with the traditional contiguous, single-member districts stipulations because such a reapportionment

         would have redistricted many House members out of their districts.

        A reapportionment in 1921 in the
        traditional fashion would have increased the size of the House to 483 seats,

        bit no reapportionment happened until 1929

      •  Absolutely yes to these two points (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jimborino

        The only thing that I would add is this.  While the total population figures themselves are illustrative, it's even worse when you think about how relatively "close to the voters" today's House members are. Consider today that we have universal suffrage for all men and women above the age of 18.  (For simplicity's sake, we'll toss to the side issues like disenfranchised convicts, or how it was easier to get full rights as a citizen in 1800, so that we didn't have a huge pool of non-voting eligible immigrants.)

        When the Constitution passed, voting was largely restricted to white, land-owning adult males.  So if you were campaigning for the House, how many voters did you have to convince?  Well, if Wikiepedia is accurate, in New York somewhere between 600 and 2500 votes made you a US Representative.  Link.  Today's massive media campaigns and huge districts would be incomprehensible to the founding fathers.

        •  My Usual Rant (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Necrothus, thanatokephaloides

          We have a system designed for
          information moving at the speed of Horse
          serving about 0.1% of the present population
          we need more feedback channels for informed opinion

          the IRS could make a big dent in the money problem by using a more realistic definition of social welfare organization
          revoking the fake non-profit status of all the political organizations
          tax em at 50%, use to proceeds to fund air time for challengers...

          Congress could of course pass a bill or 2 along the same lines

      •  Or more interesting gridlock... (0+ / 0-)

        ?

        Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

        by a gilas girl on Tue Jun 03, 2014 at 01:00:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Your proposals decrease the power of members (0+ / 0-)

      They will not vote to decrease their own individual power.

      The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

      by nextstep on Tue Jun 03, 2014 at 11:50:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site