Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, part of the value to being together in a House or Senate is the debate. Which we saw recently.
Maybe you missed it, we are engaging in a debate right now, and we're not face to face. Modern technology lets our legislators vote from their home districts, and to debate from their home districts. Who'd a thunk it?
EVERY developed country with a representative government has fewer constituents per representative.
Our lower house, the House of Representatives, has one representative per, on average, 725,000 people. In the United Kingdom, the lower house representation is one representative per 96,000 people. In Switzerland, it's per 40,000 people. In France, it's one per 115,000 people. In Germany, it's one per 130,000 people.
There are representatives in the United States who have constituencies of over a million people. That's overwhelming. It's far easier for a representative to take a meeting with a lobbyist who has a simple, straightforward agenda, and to adopt that position, rather than to try to figure out a position that adequately represents his constituency. And the representative likely gets money in the election warchest for taking that meeting.
The founding fathers didn't design the system with a cap on representation. The rest of the world recognizes the problems that come with such a cap. Here, we prefer to be short-sighted, and to blame the electoral college. Because actually thinking about why the electoral college isn't functioning properly is too darn difficult.
All that writing and you didn't answer my question at all.
What countries have significantly larger "houses of representatives"? I've seen videos of fist fights breaking out in other country's "houses of representatives".
Well, China has several thousand members of parliament.
And they're all one party.
I don't think they've had any fistfights breaking out...not that we'd ever know if they had.
EVERY developed country with a representative government has fewer constituents per representative.
Our lower house, the House of Representatives, has one representative per, on average, 725,000 people. In the United Kingdom, the lower house representation is one representative per 96,000 people. In Switzerland, it's per 40,000 people. In France, it's one per 115,000 people. In Germany, it's one per 130,000 people.
There are representatives in the United States who have constituencies of over a million people. That's overwhelming. It's far easier for a representative to take a meeting with a lobbyist who has a simple, straightforward agenda, and to adopt that position, rather than to try to figure out a position that adequately represents his constituency. And the representative likely gets money in the election warchest for taking that meeting.
The founding fathers didn't design the system with a cap on representation. The rest of the world recognizes the problems that come with such a cap. Here, we prefer to be short-sighted, and to blame the electoral college. Because actually thinking about why the electoral college isn't functioning properly is too darn difficult.
In a day that information moved no faster than 5-10 miles an hour, the Founding Fathers figured one representative for 20,000 people was sufficient. That was because there was never an intention for representatives to be in contact with every person in his district all the time or even most of the time.
And I seriously doubt that despite the difference in the number of constituents makes any critical difference in the amount of contact being made in other countries.
That's not the point of a representative democracy.
All that writing and you didn't answer my question at all.
Because your question was bullsh. My point is about representation, about how big the constituencies are that a representative has to represent. Your question ignores the fact that we are one of the largest countries in the world, so obviously we are going to have one of the largest legislatures in the world, though I will reiterate again, that EVERY developed nation has its representatives representing fewer constituents. EVERY one of them.
Which countries have larger legislatures? Brazil, China, Democratic Republic of Congo, Cuba, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, North Korea, Mexico, Morocco, Poland, Russia, Spain, and the United Kingdom.
In a day that information moved no faster than 5-10 miles an hour, the Founding Fathers figured one representative for 20,000 people was sufficient. That was because there was never an intention for representatives to be in contact with every person in his district all the time or even most of the time.
And I seriously doubt that despite the difference in the number of constituents makes any critical difference in the amount of contact being made in other countries.
That's not the point of a representative democracy.
Why would you doubt that having fewer constituents makes a difference in the amount of contact a representative has with his constituents? Constituents that want to see their representative that aren't competing with 999,999 other constituents for that time, and who don't have to travel across the country are clearly going to have better access.
I'm pretty sure that access is the point of a representative democracy.
And there is no "abuse"--the system works as it should to prevent heavily populated states from having permanent dominance over less populated states.
There is no reason Montana or Wyoming should agree to give up power to New York or California.
This narrative keeps getting repeated incessantly. So, let’s examine it again.
At the moment, the ratio of electors to citizens, is higher in Wyoming than in California. By this criterion, a voter in Wyoming, has proportionately more say at the national level, than does one in California. California and New York are actually giving up power to Wyoming and Montana.
Second, the bigger problem is within each state, and not between the states. Philadelphia and Pittsburgh would vote heavily Democratic, while the rest of Pennsylvania would vote heavily Republican. Pennsylvania becomes a “swing state” because the two dueling large partisan majorities are roughly comparable. Regardless of which portion wins, the other portion will lose. For such a divided state, a state-wide mandate is meaningless. The solution is to rescind the winner-take-all scheme, instead apportioning electors by congressional district.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
A popular vote removes power from small states and instead one only has to really run in California, Texas, New York, Michigan, Illinois and Florida to win. ....
Similar narrative to that above. Let’s examine this one too.
Per my first posting in this thread, if a candidate wins a simple majority in the 12 most populous states, that’s 273 electors, clinching the presidency. The candidate could win zero votes in all of the other 38 states, and still win. How, pray tell, would a direct popular vote, be yet more inferior to this current situation?
If however one elector were apportioned per congressional district, then campaigning in say LA, SF, NYC and Chicago might garner the candidate electors from all of those districts. Great. But what about the other districts in those states, and other districts in other states?
Last edited by ohio_peasant; 08-09-2017 at 02:36 PM..
Maybe you missed it, we are engaging in a debate right now, and we're not face to face. Modern technology lets our legislators vote from their home districts, and to debate from their home districts. Who'd a thunk it?
Actually, this is not a real debate at all. Real debates are face to face. Just ask John McCain.
Because your question was bullsh. My point is about representation, about how big the constituencies are that a representative has to represent. Your question ignores the fact that we are one of the largest countries in the world, so obviously we are going to have one of the largest legislatures in the world, though I will reiterate again, that EVERY developed nation has its representatives representing fewer constituents. EVERY one of them.
Which countries have larger legislatures? Brazil, China, Democratic Republic of Congo, Cuba, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, North Korea, Mexico, Morocco, Poland, Russia, Spain, and the United Kingdom.
It wasn't a bull**** question at all. Here it is: "What countries have significantly larger "houses of representatives"?" And if it was a bull**** question, why did you just answer it? Why didn't you answer it before instead of being insulting.
Now let's take a look at France as compared to the United States. To have representation equal to France's, our House Of Representatives would have to have 2,781 members. I'm sorry, I just don't think that's practical. Nor would it make much difference when many, if not most, votes are pretty much along party line.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
