>
> --
> "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
> of society but the people themselves; and
> if we think them not enlightened enough to
> exercise their control with a wholesome
> discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
> them, but to inform their discretion by
> education." - Thomas Jefferson
> http://GreaterVoice.org/extend
>
Hi, quick sideline re house of reps as per your sig. link.
I basically sure do agree with your ideas re expanding the Reps
significantly in an effort to become more trully "representative".
I wonder why it could not be sensible and feasible, and wise, to also
expand
the Senate to 200 [ 4 per state ] or thereabouts, as well as using a
pro****tional voting system vs first past the post. It would break the back
of the Two party system and allow a more democratically accurate
representative mix of people in the senate.
ALSO at 30,000.org link on ur site was the following:
The solution is to substantially increase the number of Representatives in
accordance with the original vision of the Founding Fathers.
Thirty-thousand.org advocates the bill passed by the House in 1789: to
require there be at least one Representative for every 50,000 people. At
the
current population level of approximately 300 million people, that
formulation would require a minimum of 6,000 Representatives.
---
My 1st question is, did the founding folks mean "people" or actual voters?
The 6,000 reps above is based on total people per district. I understand
that in the US, voting is not compulsory, and that maybe less than 40%
vote.
In my country voting is compulsory, but our electorates are counted as
actual voters, and not all people.
Shouldn't the MIX of Reps be based upon actual voters, and not people in a
district? This would in fact be a strong motivation for people to register
to vote as the more who vote the greater representation of a state/area in
the house of reps. Isn't that also a more pure form of "democracy" at
work,
vs # of reps per population who aren't even interested in politics or
voting??
-----
2nd query, is anyone in the US recommending a change in the timing of
elections?
eg changing Congressional elections to be held as a 4 yr term [ not 2yrs
],
and at the same time as the president.
and changing the Senate to be 8 year terms, with 50% going to the polls
every 4 years.
I see no reason why senators couldn;t also be restricted like the
president
to a maximum of two terms [ ie 16years maximum ] , or even one 8 year term
maximum.
seems to me, the whole system would be more effective by dropping the 2 yr
system which ends up being expensive, repetetive and almost non-stop
"electioneering" with less time to actually work as a representative.
I also think that the "system" would work better as the people set in
motion their wishes for a 4 year term, and everyone gets down to work, and
then all are judged accordingly at the same time. Surely it would
"harmonize" things, and reduce the burden on the voters overall. would
save
a fortune in costs at least, and maybe FORCE the Reps/senate/president to
knuckle down and work out issues rather than hoping the next congressional
election will break any impasse in legislation. 4 year terms are not
uncommon in other stable democracies today.
just a few thoughts, i find this interesting. cheers.
|
