Alaska sues to avoid federal oversight of elections (wages, taxes)

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by Marty Van Diest

This is a good point. But in Alaska it would require a constitutional amendment to change the number of legislators. They should have built in a change from the beginning but didn't.

We get to vote on whether we should have a constitutional convention every ten years...this is the year. I vote yes ever time. This is another reason to vote yes. But I'm on the losing side every time.

It would indeed require an amendment to the State Constitution, but I think it should be doable. After all, it is in the voter's best interest. Proportional representation benefits the voter, whereas fixed representation benefits the politician.

I do not think a State Constitutional Convention is necessary, unless you have other changes you would like to make (I can think of a few). However, in regard to proportional representation they should establish two numbers - 1) the minimum number of voters per representative; and 2) the maximum number of voters a representative may represent before their district is divided into two separate districts and another representative added to the State House.

The US Constitution establishes a minimum of 30,000 citizens for every representative, with at least one per State. However, that pertains to Congress, not State legislatures. These minimum and maximum numbers can be anything, but once established should remain fixed and the number of representatives change according to the census, not the districts.

If, for example, we establish a minimum number at 20,000 and the maximum number at 40,000, then if the population of a district exceeds 40,000 it should be split in half and another representative is added to the State House. If the population of a district falls below 20,000, then it should be combined with the least populated contiguous district and a representative is removed from the State House.

Like I said, these numbers are completely arbitrary and could be any minimum and maximum range you think is more appropriate.

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by jdhpa

I think originally there was 1 representative for every 60,000 people. With 300,000,000 people in the country now that would be 5,000 people in the House of Representatives. That's just too many to be effective (not that they're hugely effective now).

The US Constitution only establishes a minimum number of citizens per House Representative. Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 states in part "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative..." There was no maximum number established. However, according to the Federal Papers:

At the expiration of twenty-five years, according to the computed rate of increase, the number of representatives will amount to two hundred, and of fifty years, to four hundred. This is a number which, I presume, will put an end to all fears arising from the smallness of the body.

The Federalist Papers
No. 55: February 15, 1788

Currently the US has a population of 311,591,917 and 435 voting House Representatives, which equates to an average of 716,303 citizens per House Representative. If you think one House Representative can represent a million people, then the number of House Representatives would be closer to 311 or 312. However, if you think 500,000 is a more reasonable number a member of the House can represent, then we would need 623 to 624 House Representatives. Whatever that number is, it should be fixed and the number of representatives increased or decreased based upon the census.

In the case of the US Constitution, no amendment would be necessary, just the repeal of Public Law 62-5, a.k.a. the "Apportionment Act of 1911".

[jdhpa]

Originally Posted by Glitch

The US Constitution only establishes a minimum number of citizens per House Representative. Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 states in part "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative..." There was no maximum number established. However, according to the Federal Papers:



Currently the US has a population of 311,591,917 and 435 voting House Representatives, which equates to an average of 716,303 citizens per House Representative. If you think one House Representative can represent a million people, then the number of House Representatives would be closer to 311 or 312. However, if you think 500,000 is a more reasonable number a member of the House can represent, then we would need 623 to 624 House Representatives. Whatever that number is, it should be fixed and the number of representatives increased or decreased based upon the census.

In the case of the US Constitution, no amendment would be necessary, just the repeal of Public Law 62-5, a.k.a. the "Apportionment Act of 1911".

From this:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...qjEPbWamXvt9Xw

The population in 1790 was 3.4 million, and from this:

History of the United States House of Representatives - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There were 65 representatives, so it worked out to about 52K people per representative originally.

But rather than choosing a number of people per representative, I think you need to choose a maximum size of the House. Imagine trying to get anything done with 5000 members!

Certainly you could divide it up differently. You could say the smallest state gets 1 representative, and all other states get (population of their own state) / (population of the smallest state) representatives, rounded to the nearest whole number, and have some method for capping the total number of representatives if the population distribution is too skewed. That might be a little more equitable than it is now.

But I don't think Congress' gridlock and ineffectiveness are because of the specific people elected or how many members there are, I think voters are divided and it's reflected in Congress. I.e., it isn't that people disagree with politicians from the other party so much as they disagree with the voters who elected them.

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by jdhpa

But rather than choosing a number of people per representative, I think you need to choose a maximum size of the House. Imagine trying to get anything done with 5000 members!

That is what we have had since 1911, fixed representation. Congress abolished proportional representation, which means your vote is worth considerably less than your father's, and his vote was worth considerably less than his father or your grandfather. By the time your son votes his vote will count only one quarter as much as his great-grandfather's vote.

Originally Posted by jdhpa

Certainly you could divide it up differently. You could say the smallest state gets 1 representative, and all other states get (population of their own state) / (population of the smallest state) representatives, rounded to the nearest whole number, and have some method for capping the total number of representatives if the population distribution is too skewed. That might be a little more equitable than it is now.

But I don't think Congress' gridlock and ineffectiveness are because of the specific people elected or how many members there are, I think voters are divided and it's reflected in Congress. I.e., it isn't that people disagree with politicians from the other party so much as they disagree with the voters who elected them.

Congress has become less representative because each representative has more and more constituents to represent. I do not pretend to know what the perfect number might be, but it is painfully obvious that one million citizens per representative is too many. They cannot even represent the 716,303 citizens per House Representative now. Perhaps a more reasonable number, like 500,000 citizens per House Representative. The actual number is not as important as sticking to that number, whatever it may be. Do not change the districts, change the number of representatives instead.

[starlite9]

Vote for the new guy! As long as they are Conservative!

Tired of giving away all our money to buy votes. The Feds mess things up worst than the locals do, don't really need them in out election back yard as well.

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by starlite9

Vote for the new guy! As long as they are Conservative!

Tired of giving away all our money to buy votes. The Feds mess things up worst than the locals do, don't really need them in out election back yard as well.

I do not think that will make a difference, since the conservatives now caucus with the Democrats with Democrat Senator Hollis French as their leader.

Fortunately, I have one of only four Republican Senators that refused to join the caucus, Senator Charlie Huggins. So he will be getting my vote. My House Rep. is Republican Mark Newman, and he is a long time big spender. If he has a fiscally responsible opponent, I will vote for them instead of Newman.

[Moose Whisperer]

Fortunately, two of the traitors lost their primaries last night. Maybe there is a glimmer of hope now.

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by Glitch

I do not think that will make a difference, since the conservatives now caucus with the Democrats with Democrat Senator Hollis French as their leader.

Fortunately, I have one of only four Republican Senators that refused to join the caucus, Senator Charlie Huggins. So he will be getting my vote. My House Rep. is Republican Mark Newman, and he is a long time big spender. If he has a fiscally responsible opponent, I will vote for them instead of Newman.

Well, apparently Mark Newman's opponent, Pam Rahn, is not conservative. She is a big union supporter, wants to increase property taxes, and soak the "evil rich" oil companies for even more money. So much for being fiscally responsible.

Source: http://pamrahn4house.vpweb.com/default.html

Is there not a candidate I can vote for that comprehends that what the State is spending is not sustainable or viable in the long term?

I cannot vote for Rep. Newman, and I will not vote for Pam Rahn.

It looks like Prop. #1 failed, but just barely: 51,370 in favor, 52,518 against. Prop. #2 got defeated by a landslide: 39,624 in favor, 64,210 against, which I am glad to see.

[Marty Van Diest]

I voted against prop 1. And I hate property taxes.

[phlinak]

Originally Posted by starlite9

Vote for the new guy! As long as they are Conservative!

Tired of giving away all our money to buy votes. The Feds mess things up worst than the locals do, don't really need them in out election back yard as well.

Just out of curiosity, what are conservatives conserving? The status quo? Or are they suppose to take us back to the "good old days", like when blacks were 3/5 of a man and women weren't allowed to vote?

What's the deal?