1 vote

Expand the House of Reps to at least 932, or perhaps as many as 1,761

On Politics - Expand the House? - NYTimes.com

"The lawsuit asks the courts to order the House to fix the problem by increasing its size from 435 seats to at least 932, or perhaps as many as 1,761. That way, the plaintiffs argue, every state can have districts that are close to parity."

http://bit.ly/Sy5n5

Sounds good to me.
___

435 Representatives Can NOT Faithfully Represent 300 Million Americans! http://thirty-thousand.org/

Here's Senior Fellow of the Mises Institute, Dr. Mark Thorton on the Lew Rockwell Show: The Case for 'Bigger' Government
http://bit.ly/Goi04

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

It should be a 1/1 ratio

1 Representative for every Individual.

There should be over 10,000

There should be over 10,000 representatives.

http://www.thirty-thousand.org/

The comment section at the NYT makes me want to throw up.

People complaining about the Senate not having enough people. They are clueless.

Take this comment:
"Where else in any so-called democracy on the planet can a miniscule percentage of the population carry as much weight as areas one hundred or more times their size?

Oh, that's right. We're NOT a democracy, we're a Republic....to our great detriment, I believe."

Columbus, Ohio

Sounds great

We'll pay them all $9.50 an hour.

Gov't is ever expanding -- Politicians are "managers"

and celebrities -- they are re-election seekers and thus they need a large staff to get through the "grind" work we think we are hiring them for.

Thus if you increase the number of politicians you increase their staff size alone -- thus the budgetary / tenure process.

Additionally you create a bigger Lobbying landscape and thus a smaller amount of control (senior politicians who control junior politicians by control over the war chest and special committee seats -- which in turn lead to greater lobbying potential).

Gov't is too big -- hiring more managers is not going to make things better, just dilute your pointless voting / lobbying schemas.

Expand the House?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/us/politics/18baker.html

the bit.ly link in the original post didn't work for me....

EXPAND, you got to be

EXPAND, you got to be kidding, RIGHT ?
Good people do Good deeds
Good people make it happen

impailed2x; If we

impailed2x;

If we consolidated the House and Senate into one body of, say 50 members, would that make the government bigger or smaller?

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

EXPAND

i thought so too until i listened to the arguments.

expand the house: moderator action please.

hey moderators:

can one of you put paste:

Here's Senior Fellow of the Mises Institute, Dr. Mark Thorton on the Lew Rockwell Show: "The Case for 'Bigger' Government" - http://bit.ly/Goi04

into this topic?

thanks!
95687-for-rp

p.s. am I able to do edit this post? I can't figure out how.

wolfe's picture

There should be an edit tab up near the title...

Just click on it and it will switch to an edit view..
___________________________________
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

moderator help pls

that tab isn't there for this post of mine... the tab is there for other posts I made that are not on the front page. any ideas?

towneforcongress.com
randpaul2010.com
schiffforsenate.com
kokeshforcongress.com

Whoa! Hold up...

It sounds to me like we are trying to fix the problem of our federal government not adhering to the principles of states rights and federalism by increasing the number of ignorant boobs in congress. We need to fix the system itself not tweak it and hope it works better that way. This fix to our problems seems like it would fit well with the problem solving skills of our federal government. "We need to add more regulation to fix the problem we created with more regulation." Adding more people to the lawmaking branch of our federal government risks putting more people in power who have no understanding of the constitution. I agree that our representatives should be more responsive to the people but that is a problem that our constitution already handles through federalism (the division of power between federal and state governments.) Much like Ron Pauls solutions to so many problems the answer here is also quite simple... we merely have to enforce the law that we already have!

With Respect... and In Liberty.

The degree of boobishness is directly proportional to the size

of the constituency.

Larger districts = less representation and more dumb congressman.

Smaller districts = more responsive and easier to vote out congressman.

Right now only 435 people can go to Congress. Not too much chance of getting a responsible Representative. With districts so large that you have to appeal to the lowest common denominator to win them the Candidate will not have the first clue about the Constitution.

With districts of only 50,000 as apposed to 500,000 or even 1 million in some states, you would have over 6,000 representatives and a far greater chance that a larger proportion would have a clue, or else face a much easier defeat in 2 years.

This is true. In smaller

This is true.

In smaller districts, personal accomplishment and word of mouth play a greater role.

In large districts, a few media corporations almost always decide the winner.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

Power Remains the Same

Adding more people to the lawmaking branch of our federal government risks putting more people in power who have no understanding of the constitution. QUOTE

The power of the House of Representatives is not increased by dividing it up and putting it into more hands.
The present membership understands the Constitution well enough to know it prohibits most of what they do. This is why they ignore it.
If reform is based on the idea, "if we just return to obeying the original meaning of the Constitution", there will be no reform. We need to deal with our world as it is, not as we wish it to be.
One reform at a time is difficult enough with attempting some quantum leap. As always, by doing one reform at a time we can attract allies who don't support the total agenda. Ron Paul's "Audit the Fed" bill is a relevant example.
The bottom line is your vote is for the status quo.

Agreed...

I agree with most everything you said. I guess my concern is that adding more people to the House has no more probability of fixing the problem as it does of making it worse, in my opinion. In the original post it seemed to me as though the problem being addressed by adding more people was that there is no more abbountability to "we the people." We are fighting to get "constitutional" candidates in office now. I do concede that this would be easier on a smaller scale but do we have the manpower to help those candidates in 900 new elections? Just concerned... our end goals are the same.

Now... the disagreement. My vote is for the status quo? Incorrect sir... we agree that the status quo is not following the constitution or the federalism model so if I argue for federalism how is this the status quo? In addition, using your logic, Ron Paul (and most of the people here) are also voting for the status quo by advocating a return to the Constitution since it is already the law but not followed.

With Respect... and In Liberty.

shwade80 Not Following the Constitution

I've great sympathy for your point of view, but our opponents insist they are following the Constitution. They'll never admit otherwise and court opinions from here to infinity will support them.
We assume the Constitution means what it meant in 1787 assuming even then there was unanimous agreement. Our opponents assume the Constitution is a "Living Constitution", its meaning changes over time.
The meaning can be changed without amendment.
Any time we say we should return to the Constitution, they say we're following it. Nothing is changed
Our side tends to worship a Constitutional meaning that no longer exists in law, and because we worship it we're loathe to amend it. The other side just does what it wants, what it can get away with..They seek incremental change meaning they either win or break even. We generally oppose change meaning we either lose or break even. In the long term they win.
Once we stop treating the Constitution like scripture, then we can propose amendments, get them ratified and achieve reform.
Until then the words, "going back to the Constitution" are just words achieving nothing. An amended Constitution is still the Constitution.
We should always remember we're not going back to olden times. Much of what the Feds do is unconstitutional by 1787 standards.
Anyone who puts himself in the position that Social Security, Medicare is unconstitutional loses because our opponents will say it certainly is.
We can't retreat to the past, but can move forward. Reforms, one at a time.

adding people

Adding people to the House of Reps will:
make it more difficult for the lobbyists to get to each and every Rep;
give each Rep less overall power/influence;
give each citizen more chance to access their Rep because each Rep will have fewer constituents.

Less lobbyist influence. More citizen influence. Good things!

YES!

...and the Representatives to the National Legislature have a DUTY to keep the Federal from overstepping their respective STATE's boundaries!!

The Federal Government has TWO purposes - Punishment of Evil Doers, and National Defense - everything else is up to the STATE's

One State can push Marxist Socialism - another can push Christian Homeschooling Curriculum and Worldview - may the BEST STATE WIN and set a model for other state's - the Federal Government stays OUT OF IT!

I feel that it is needed.

There are districts that one party always get the seat. Even though 30 to 40 percent of that district always votes for the other party. Lets take the 1st congressional district in Indiana. In densely populated Lake County, it has the cities of Gary, Hammond, Whiting, East Chicago etc. That vote heavily democratic. Now in the south part of the county and about four other counties that are also in the 1st distict. It's less populated and these people vote Republican. So if there was an additional congressional seat added the people of both halves of the now 1st district would be more represented as of their political beliefs. Meaning more representation. And the representative would be closer to his constituency.
Now.... Having a strangle hold on the polictical parties. The two party system cannot be penetrated. If there are more seats to challange. I think it would be easier to run a third party from this. The candidates running for congressional office under the Inderepubdemo Party would have fewer voters to reach. Also the strangle hold of the state newspapers, tv, radio couldn't stop all challanges to the two party system. Likewise, the powers that be, the special interests, and the lobbiests would have a tougher time to control a larger body.
I think this is a great idea. I'm pro!

***********Ron Paul for POTUS 2012***********
*************Obama Is A Communist!************
**********Repeal the 17th Amendment**********
Double the size of the House of Representatives
$$$$$$$$$AUDIT THE FEDERAL RESERVE$$$$$$$$$$

. . . . . . _ . . . _ _ .
. _ . . _ _ . . . . _ _ . . . . . . . _ . . _ . .
. _ . . _ _ . . . . _ _ . . . . . . . _ . . _ . .

Well Said

You give the practical reasons for more members in the House.

I'd be concerned that we

I'd be concerned that we then would end up with several times as many yahoos trying to make a name for themselves by coming up with even more legislation, but at the same time recognize that smaller districts may make each rep more responsive to his constituency's concerns.

With few exceptions the yahoos now represent

.the special interests. They take their money and call it business as usual.
In better times those who bribed and those who accepted them were called crooks.

James Madison had a proposal

James Madison had a proposal to gradually increase district size as population grew. If extended mathematically, it went like this:

START

30,000 people per rep.

40,000 people per rep, when House gets to 100 members

50,000 people per rep, when House gets to 200 members

60,000 people per rep, when House gets to 300 members

etc.

If projected to today's population of 300 million people, we would have a House size of about 1740 (4 times what we really have), and each district would be about 1/4 as big; (about 175,000 people per district).

Madison's plan balanced the need to keep the House from getting too giant, with the need for the House to represent the people.

Madison, as usual, got it right.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

I can't believe this is a Discussion: Is Ron Paul or Mises

in favor of this?

If Ron Paul would argue for "more gov't" as a tool to give back greater "self-rule" then I'd quit Daily Paul and all political commentary (forever).

Mises argues for "lesser" Gov't.

This "bigger" gov't model is a perversion of failed Rothbardian logic (not blaming Rothbard).

The "children" of Rothbard cannot "really" get anyone interested in their non-transitionary Anarcho-Capitalist cooings, so when they step into the world of Constitutionalism they create another absurdity.

Remember Mises and Rothbard disagreed over "who" the Individual was in a free-society. Rothbard being a Propertarian-Individualist and Mises a Consumer-Individualist.

I can't stress what an enormous rift this is in down-stream philosophy -- Imagine leaving the Port of San Francisco (two ships) both heading do west. One veers slightly (1 degree) north-west -- after one thousand miles do the ships reach the same destination?

Rockwell and Thornton are absurd for trying to make "this" Constitutional argument.

Ron Paul and Mises: Smaller Gov't Consumer-Minarchism into an eventual Consumer-Individualism

Octobox

Abstractions of abstractions

To assume that increasing the size of our national House of Representatives would increase it's power is ludicrous. Your assertion is made flatly with no basis of truth. With term limits in place and the repeal of the 17th amendment a larger House of Representatives would ensure that everyday citizens who have shown financial prudence could, in time, pursue a Congressional campaign. The math is simple, less people to canvass and inform the less money is needed, thus the variety of candidates will increase.

How can a minarchist NOT support smaller campaigns with more choices?

Why would a Consumer - Individualist such as your self invoke the name of the (non) leader of the (non) movement? I do enjoy your stance on many topics, I do not enjoy stifling conversation on what very well could be part of the transitional phase of government.

Ron Paul REPRESENTS SOME of my beliefs, he does not dictate them.

Think twice, type once.

JamesC: "ludricrous" you say?

Your assertion is made flatly with no basis of truth.

Nope, just all of human history -- when you put more men in power you get "bigger" gov't -- bigger costs -- bigger deficit spending. Show me when we went from small gov't to big gov't and that worked out for "us" (the common man).

When Abdication or Self-Rule goes up so does the "cost" -- welfarism.

With term limits in place and the repeal of the 17th amendment a larger House of Representatives would ensure that everyday citizens who have shown financial prudence could, in time, pursue a Congressional campaign. The math is simple, less people to canvass and inform the less money is needed, thus the variety of candidates will increase.

Wow! Your "math" excludes a lot of common sense. I don't care about the cost of campaigns -- I care that people "think" they need a representative.

You do not understand Consumer-Minarchism. The "consumer" leads -- not the 'workers' not the 'propertarians' and not gov't.

Thornton and the "big names" who support this "rule of 30K" thing want "no term limits" -- They will lead the charge not you.

Here's what I support -- 1-Term in Office. Reduce Gov't by 90% at the Federal Level and 80% at the State.

Ron Paul talks about all the department's he'd eliminate and you want to increase representation assuming what -- all those people will pick libertarians? Once you have 10,000 representatives, what they are going to vote for greater self-rule?

How can a minarchist NOT support smaller campaigns with more choices?

Easy -- It cost $607M (non-hidden costs) to support the idiots we have now (535) -- chosen by the same intelligence (civilians) you want to put in charge to pick an even larger number of people.

Now if we follow Thornton's rule of 1 rep per 30,000 civilians then that means we need 10,233. The total cost for that debacle (salary and yearly budget) will be over $10B.

So, 1.8M with an average salary of $50K currently cost $90,000,000,000 (90 billion).

Will the proposed 10,233 increase this cost, decrease it, or keep it the same?

Why would a Consumer - Individualist such as your self invoke the name of the (non) leader of the (non) movement? I do enjoy your stance on many topics, I do not enjoy stifling conversation on what very well could be part of the transitional phase of government.

Who's the non-leader of the non-movement? Are you talking about "Rothbard?"
---Well Rockwell and Thornton the biggest names in this push for "30K" (the Constitution) are both Rothbardians.

Octobox

Octobox, by arguing against

Octobox, by arguing against more representation, you seem to be arguing for the status quo. And if you like how it is now, why not shrink the House of Reps to 200 or 100 or 1?

Yes, increasing the people in the House of Reps would put more men in power but it wouldn't create more power for those men. Therefore they would share the existing power (not create more power) and each Rep would then have less power.

More Reps will bring easier constituent access and make the lobbyists' jobs more cumbersome.

Riverrun: Obviously you don't read my threads/posts if you

suggest that I argue for the "status quo," smile.

You are not allowing my argument -- which is a far older argument; one that Ron Paul and Mises support; like I said you are not allowing it or considering before you jump on the Rothbardian bandwagon.

Mises (Mises Institute and Father of Modern Austrian Economics) and Rothbard (Founder of Anarcho-Capitalism) differed fundementally over who the individual is in society -- without knowing this you don't know who to protect.

Rothbard was a Propertarian-Individualist
Mises was a Consumer-Individualist

That is a HUUUUUUUGE difference.

Everyone is a Consumer, but not everyone is an Owner / Worker.

Adding more men to a Owner / Worker Perpetual War (voting / lobbying) is not going to "reduce" anything -- it will add more voices to the fire.

Also, you are ignoring one simple fact. Our gov't now is controlled by "senior" politicians.

If we move from a 535 Gov't to a (1 rep per 30,000 civilian) 10,233 Gov't you will still have the same number of "seniors" controlling.

What do they control?

1) Special Committee Seats
2) Party War Chest
3) and thus; the Votes of all Junior Politicians who want lobby-profits

You can't change that by a bigger abdication model -- Only by reducing abdication and increasing self-rule can you change that.

Your argument sounds like everyone elses on this page -- not well thought out; you try to discredit me rather than deal with the content of my debate.

Octobox

Increase it

They key to remember here is variety. The smaller the districts the more focused the representative MUST be to his constituency. If you have a district with, say, 50k voters with a 25/20/5 split then the actual number of individuals you must canvass to swing the percentages is drastically reduced. We're talking about making a congressional campaign cost about as much as a modern state representative campaign. I can tell you from experience you can put on a grass roots state rep campaign for less than $50k and run with the big boys if you canvass.

If the campaigns are cheaper the choices will grow, thus the content of the campaigns is more about substance and local needs rather than the current party rhetoric. One added bonus to this system is that the voters are exposed to a larger variety of subjects and even political philosophies via the voter's pamphlets. Once the voters see the vast array of viable options, party lines begin to blur behind personally identifiable and pertinent issues.

It has also been said that larger houses have more meaningful debates and less corruption.

One last thing, this plan is useless without term limits and appointed senators. End the 17th amendment - Restore States Rights -