0 votes

THIS part of the U.S. government is too SMALL!!!

The following idea was suggested by economist Walter Williams of George Mason University (Ron Paul mentioned him as a possible vice presidential running mate if he had won the primary) and that is quite the endorsement!.

Williams points out that when our founders established the House of Representatives the idea of it was to GROW WITH THE POPULATION which is the BIGGEST REASON they established a CENSUS.

George Washington wanted 1 representative for about every 35,000 people (it's in the Constitution).

AND...as the country grew, so indeed did the House of Representatives to REFLECT that.

UNTIL EARLY LAST CENTURY...

In 1911, Congress passed Public Law 62-5, which limited the size of the House of Representatives to 435 MEMBERS. That law took effect in 1913 and that number still stands today (NOTE THAT THIS WAS THE SAME YEAR THAT THE FEDERAL RESERVE AND THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX WERE CREATED--A VERY TOUGH YEAR FOR THE REPUBLIC).

This means that today, there is an average of 700,000 PEOPLE PER EACH MEMBER OF THE HOUSE REPRESENTATIVES.

NO WONDER THEY ARE OUT OF TOUCH WITH US.

By George Washington's standards for congress, today there would be around 7000 members of the US House of Representatives!!!

NOW THAT would be representing the people!

SO...

...THE VERY SEGMENT of government that SHOULD have grown was HALTED at 435 while EVERY OTHER aspect of government (WHICH DOESN'T REPRESENT THE PEOPLE) has grown to COMMUNISTIC LEVELS.

But this was by design so that the House could be much easier to control, persuade and corrupt (after all they only need 218 votes to pass a bill in the House).

IT IS ALWAYS easier to persuade a smaller number of people to do wrong than to convince a LARGER number to do the same.

AND THAT is why growth in the House of Representatives was limited to that small a number BUT it is a great DIS-SERVICE to the people AND to the Constitution. Practically CRIMINAL in intent.

AND WHAT REALLY AMAZES ME is that they didn't even need an amendment to the Constitution to CHANGE THE INTENT of the founders on this subject.

AGAIN...THE VERY SEGMANT OF GOVERNMENT WHICH SHOULD HAVE GROWN WITH THE COUNTRY WAS INTENTIONALLY STIFLED SO THE WE THE PEOPLE COULD MORE EASILY BE UN-REPRESENTED.

The year 1913 was DISASTEROUS for the UNITED STATES AND WOODROW WILSON SHOULD HAVE BEEN TRIED AS A TRAITOR (You might as well throw William Howard Taft in there too because the Federal Income tax was actually HIS idea but it was instuted in 1913 under Wilson).

This posting was presented by "pawnstorm12" who sometimes wonders if he would be happier living in ignorance as he did before the Ron Paul phenomenon.

Comment viewing options

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

It makes sense. Are representatives even needed anymore?


Since putting thousands of people in the same room does not really make any sense, what if In this day and age of computer networking and live video, your representatives actually stayed at home in your district, in touch with the community, and simply voted and debated electronically?

Actually, with computer technology do we even really need representatives anymore? Every single person could actually place a vote in an instant, if there was something constitutional to vote on.


Ron Paul's Convention Speech

wolfe's picture

Watch this... :)

You'll love it...

http://vodo.net/usnow
_________
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

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

You really bring up a good point.

In theory the best representative of the people are the people themselves!

Communication being poor back in 1789 meant that there was a need for representatives.

In fact I think the electoral college system of voting for president is way outdated. Why not just let EVERY VOTE COUNT?

The electoral college system is also kept in place to allow the true will of the people to be altered.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

Representation is stunted, yet the census continues...

...and the questionnaire grows. :(

If only 1% of the population are dedicated to freedom,

does it matter how we are represented. In any case we are overwhelmed by being a small fraction having a small influence.

I think the result is the same whether we are 350 out of 35,000 or 3,500,000 out of 350,000,000. Plunder and control wins in either case.

Wake up. The problem is not the design of the representative system, it is your neighbor and his perception that security is more valuable than freedom. You are a minor part of the population, and even many of those here on this site are not true supporters of freedom, but rather those who just want government to use force over a different part of our lives than the part that those currently in power chose.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

I was not complaining about the design of our system...

I was complaining that the founders' original intent for the House of Representatives to grow with the country was changed because whoever proposed that law felt that the people were "too represented."

I understand your point about such a small percent of the populace being dedicated to freedom, but if you look at the history of our country, I believe most of our problems (mainly regarding foreign wars and interventions) really started after 1913 when a couple years later we were in World War One.

Most of the people were AGAINST WW1 and many other military actions we have embarked on since then, but all they had to do was convince 218 members to vote FOR a military action.

Think about it - ONLY 218 people with the power to speak for 300 MILLION. The percentage is WAY off compared to what it would be if the representatives had grown with the population.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

wolfe's picture

Here are just a few reasons.

Is it easier to bribe 435 or 4350? Corporate resources are large but not unlimited. So the first thing it would do is to decrease the corporate influence over our congress, which is a good thing.

Next, is it easier to get 435 to agree on something or 4350? The more, the more difficult. So it would produce the effect of slowing down all new laws considerably.

If there were 4350, the power dilution would be enough to discourage people from seeking office for the sole sake of power, money and control. There would still be some, but far fewer would seek office for that purpose.

If each one only had to fight for around 18,000 votes in order to win, the cost of running for election would be far less, and far more achievable by the average Joe. We may be small in numbers, but we are large when it comes to donations and effort. With the effort one of our guys would be willing to put in, they could likely meet every potential voter, assuming they didn't already know him. And with the resources we could provide, we could sweep congress, one by one.

Every representative would have the opportunity to meet his constituents, every one of them, and have to look them in the eye. This would have stopped something like the bailout which NO ONE was on board with.

I have more if these aren't convincing enough... :)
_________
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

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

Absolutely. Great points all around.

Pawnstorm

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

See the Bilderbergers knew it would be a lot harder to pay off

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine

The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!

7,000 politicians than 435, man they are truly some of the greatest chess players ever!!

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine

The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!

i love this idea

i think combining this strategy, with another idea ive read here on dailypaul of having representatives stay at home in their districts and use the internet to vote on issues rather than having them all in Washington near all those lobbyists... imagine if lobbyists would have 7000 reps to deal with all living in their homes states, instead of 435 reps conveniently accessed in Washington.. i think these to actions alone would dramatically help our cause.

Competition of ideas.

If you post a thought on the internet, and the internet is very small so that most people can evaluate it, then you might have an impact.

But if the internet is very big, meaning that millions of people are posting thoughts, then your impact becomes diluted. So if you are amongst 35,000 others who ask one person to represent you, and then that one person is such a small part of the ultimate outcome, then it seems to me that your influence is just as diluted as under the present system of plunder and control.

I have great respect for so much of Walter Williams thinks. This one thought of his seems to have little impact on me.

The real problem is that most of our fellow citizens do not have a desire for freedom. Maybe 3 million out of 350 million have any concept of freedom, the results of the present slave system, or what the future will bring under this system of plunder and control. It is not how our desires are transmitted to the top, but what the plurality desire, and that is security, not freedom.

Do you even have any influence over your State Representative, or your County or Municipal officials?

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

Yep, it works for NH with a

Yep, it works for NH with a 400 member house. Wikipedia says the average is 1 rep for every 3,000 people. Everyone's rep lives in the same community.

---
"Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils." -- General John Stark.

---
"Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils." -- General John Stark.

This example shows how it

This example shows how it works. For the people.

wolfe's picture

One more thought...

some good food for thought along the same lines:

http://vodo.net/usnow

It's a free download. You can use Torrent software, or the BitLet provided.
_________
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

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

From

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_app...

"The ideal number of members has been a contentious issue since the country's founding. George Washington agreed that the original representation proposed in the Constitution Constitutional Convention (one representative for every 40,000) was inadequate and supported an alteration to reduce that number to 30,000.[7] This was the only time that Washington pronounced an opinion on any of the actual issues debated during the entire convention. In Federalist No. 55, James Madison addressed the claims that the representation will be inadequate and proposes that the major inadequacies are of minimal inconvenience since these will be cured rather quickly by virtue of decennial reapportionment. He noted, however, "I take for granted here what I shall, in answering the forth objection, hereinafter show, that the number of representatives will be augmented from time to time in the manner provided by the Constitution. On a contrary supposition, I should admit the objection to have very great weight indeed." He also argued against the assumption that more is better, "Sixty or seventy men may be more properly trusted with a given degree of power than six or seven. But it does not follow that six or seven hundred would be proportionably a better depositary. And if we carry on the supposition to six or seven thousand, the whole reasoning ought to be reversed. ... In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever character composed, passion never fails to wrest the sceptre from reason."[8]
The first proposed amendment to the Constitution attempted to set a pattern for growth of the House along with the population, but was never ratified. There has been debate over why the amendment was altered by a joint House and Senate subcommittee to cripple its chances for ratification."

Looks like Washington and Madison didn't quite see eye to eye on this one. I suspect most libertarians will side with Washington, as his focus is on enabling the citizens to monitor their representative, while Madison seems chiefly concerned with making it easier for the elected (elites) to do good things.

Very good info on George washington's ideas about this.

Thanks for posting.

When you think about it, tyranny is defined as power assigned to 1 person - an absolute ruler.

So the idea is that when you spread power around among more individuals it dilutes the power which is why we have 3 branches of government in the first place.

And that certainly goes for the House of Representatives too.

It is just plain more difficult to corrupt more people all at once than to corrupt less of them.

Take the Senate (with its mere 100 members) which seems much easier to control. A great example was the Senate vote in 2008 to PASS the BAILOUT BILL- AFTER the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES had voted it DOWN.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

Gee, I am so glad I read this.

I really learned something. Thank you for sharing this with us.

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

wolfe's picture

Good post...

I love it every time this subject comes up because I think it would go a VERY long way to correcting the mess for many different reasons.

If this idea goes mainstream, especially if we could get the seemingly in power liberals (not the politicians) on board, this could pick up some steam and make serious headway.

It also allows for an incremental effect. We don't have to have one big massive win in order to move forward. If we could just start by even adding a few seats at a time, that would be awesome.
_________
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

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

couldn't agree more. This is

couldn't agree more. This is a HUGE part of our problem.

Ventura 2012

wow

I had no idea that took place in 1913 as well!

Mises.org
Know your stuff, learn real history and economics @LibertyClassroom.com

Hmmmm. I guess you could argue that we have taxation without...

...(proper) representation!

And as I recall.... thems fightin' words!

I may not know the truth, but I know when I'm being lied to...

I may not know the truth, but I know when I'm being lied to...

Indeed! Seems to me another revolution was fought over

the lack of representation in a distant land ;-)

What are you fightin' for?
Caught in the middle?
Freedom is only for those with the guts to defend it!

What are you fightin' for?
Caught in the middle?
Freedom is only for those with the guts to defend it!

And now that distant land is located on the Patomic River.

~

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

SD LA small State Lawsuits

What is going on with the small state lawsuits that SD and LA broght up a few months back.

Great post...

as I am learning the Constitution, I came across this information also and think like you do.

I asked my rep. how many people he has and if I remember correctly, it was over 150,000 constituents. Our county alone has a pop. of 45,000 people.

Thanks for the information

I've never heard or thought about it.before.

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle." Sun Tzu - The Art of War

back to the front page with u!

~bumpage~
cuz I like it
it's good discussion
and I can find it easier later
=]

Great Post pawnstorm12

And thanks for this historical info.

Thank you...

I only learned this by being a part of this Revolution.

And I constantly learn untold new things from the wise contributors to this great site!

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

Pawnstorm12...I too believe I would be happier in ignorance

Ignorance is bliss...I need to find something to take my mind off the crude world. I am with Scott Horton, its all Woodrow Wilson's fault. Him dragging us into WWI caused WWII. He signed the Federal reserve act. And all that was 100 years ago...so the chances of a political campaign reversing 100 years of brainwashing on the population are slim.