On Mar 17, 4:30 pm, BretCah...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> > > "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
ex=
pand
> > 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=
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
voter=
s?
> > 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%
v=
ote.
> > 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
regist=
er
> > 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
wo=
rk,
> > 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
presid=
ent
> > to a maximum of two terms [ ie 16years maximum ] , or even one 8 year
te=
rm
> > 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=
set in
> > motion their wishes for a 4 year term, and everyone gets down to work,
a=
nd
> > then all are judged accordingly at the same time. Surely it would
> > "harmonize" things, and reduce the burden on the voters overall. would
s=
ave
> > a fortune in costs at least, and maybe FORCE the Reps/senate/president
t=
o
> > knuckle down and work out issues rather than hoping the next
congression=
al
> > 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
Based off of what criteria would you reduce the number of congress
"people". A straight percentage? Or a more "progressive" scheme?
|
