> > "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
expa=
nd
> the Senate to 200 [ 4 per state ] or thereabouts, as well as using a
> pro****tional voting system vs first past the post.
As with "pure" democracy it would be unmanageable. We probably would
do better by _decreasing_ the number of congressmen.
> It would break the back
> of the Two party system and allow a more democratically accurate
> representative mix of people in the senate.
How?
> 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
t=
he
> 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%
vot=
e.
> 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
presiden=
t
> 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.
>
> =EF=BF=BD I also think that the "system" would work better as the people
s=
et 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
sav=
e
> 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.
Bret Cahill
|
