Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-09-2012, 10:57 AM
 
14,917 posts, read 13,097,029 times
Reputation: 4828

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by doctrain View Post
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 235 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

The 545 People Responsible For All Of U.S. Woes

Nope. We don't need anymore of these guys. Nope.
Absolutely. 545 is way, way, way too many people and constitutes way too much intrusion into our lives. I think we should cut that number down to 1. A dictator would be much more streamlined and much less intrusive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-09-2012, 10:58 AM
 
4,410 posts, read 6,137,103 times
Reputation: 2908
I believe there needs to be much more representation in government. I have no problem increasing the number of representatives. Assuming we can take money out of politics, we should implement additional changes.

We have the technology for all elected officials to remain in their home states (eliminating travel expenses). Correspondence on all matters can be via email and Internet conferencing. Voting can be electronic as well. All forms of communication would be monitored and recorded including phone calls, all of which would be available for scrutiny by the public.

I think one representative per 100,000 people is sufficient for now. The more elected officials, the less probable any attempt would be that tries to concentrate power into fewer hands. If 3,000 elected officials are determining the fate of legislation, it would be nearly impossible to sidetrack them for other purposes or divide them into two warring factions that just gridlock themselves into futility.

Instead of decennial redistricting, legislative districts would consist of contiguous zip codes, not the designed gerrymandering that attempts to wield influence to the dominant party. While not perfect because it can still be somewhat influenced as populations change, it uses a system that is independent of demographics. Zip code areas are not dependent on the characteristics of those served within them.

I am a proponent of larger government--by means of participation and representation--UNTIL we see improvements. Once the government is running smoothly, and by smoothly I mean our problems are being addressed and infighting and political posturing are minimized, THEN we can reduce the government. Any attempt to shrink it when it doesn't work will only serve to corrupt it further and place it in the hands of those who crave the power and have the desire to abuse it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2012, 11:03 AM
 
12,997 posts, read 13,640,148 times
Reputation: 11192
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
Absolutely. 545 is way, way, way too many people and constitutes way too much intrusion into our lives. I think we should cut that number down to 1. A dictator would be much more streamlined and much less intrusive.
It's a snarky way to make a point, but it's a very valid one. Those of you who hate government the most should get behind this. More representatives means far more representation -- diffuse power is a good thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2012, 11:06 AM
 
12,997 posts, read 13,640,148 times
Reputation: 11192
I agree on all points. I wish I had the free time to start an advocacy group to push for this kind of reform. It would be a huge uphill battle -- the lobbyists would fight this tooth and claw -- but it would get America back on track to being more of what it was meant to be. Don't worry elitists -- you still have 100 Senators to buy, sell and trade.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhouse2001 View Post
I believe there needs to be much more representation in government. I have no problem increasing the number of representatives. Assuming we can take money out of politics, we should implement additional changes.

We have the technology for all elected officials to remain in their home states (eliminating travel expenses). Correspondence on all matters can be via email and Internet conferencing. Voting can be electronic as well. All forms of communication would be monitored and recorded including phone calls, all of which would be available for scrutiny by the public.

I think one representative per 100,000 people is sufficient for now. The more elected officials, the less probable any attempt would be that tries to concentrate power into fewer hands. If 3,000 elected officials are determining the fate of legislation, it would be nearly impossible to sidetrack them for other purposes or divide them into two warring factions that just gridlock themselves into futility.

Instead of decennial redistricting, legislative districts would consist of contiguous zip codes, not the designed gerrymandering that attempts to wield influence to the dominant party. While not perfect because it can still be somewhat influenced as populations change, it uses a system that is independent of demographics. Zip code areas are not dependent on the characteristics of those served within them.

I am a proponent of larger government--by means of participation and representation--UNTIL we see improvements. Once the government is running smoothly, and by smoothly I mean our problems are being addressed and infighting and political posturing are minimized, THEN we can reduce the government. Any attempt to shrink it when it doesn't work will only serve to corrupt it further and place it in the hands of those who crave the power and have the desire to abuse it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2012, 11:15 AM
 
Location: Portland, OR
8,802 posts, read 8,895,580 times
Reputation: 4512
The problem is that the Greens (true progressives) and the Libertarians don't have representation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2012, 11:17 AM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,446,502 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctrain View Post
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 235 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

The 545 People Responsible For All Of U.S. Woes

Nope. We don't need anymore of these guys. Nope.

Do you consider yourself well-represented today?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2012, 11:18 AM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,446,502 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTHokieFan View Post
The problem is that the Greens (true progressives) and the Libertarians don't have representation.

I'm a member of an economic minority that also lacks representation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2012, 11:21 AM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,446,502 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
Absolutely. 545 is way, way, way too many people and constitutes way too much intrusion into our lives. I think we should cut that number down to 1. A dictator would be much more streamlined and much less intrusive.

If that is way too many, why are there demographic sectors which have no representation at all?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2012, 11:25 AM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,446,502 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
Another reason to have the states run things. At least the backroom deals would be amongst instaters and the local voters can vote them out.

As a near-poor American, I absolutely do not trust states with broad powers. As they have demonstrated, they have a vested interest in attracting wealthy residents and, importantly, repelling poor people.

Why would I want my state to have even more power to screw me over?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2012, 11:26 AM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,446,502 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
So lets elect 1000 Presidents, problem solved.
Quit looking for government to run your lives.

I' m looking to government to restrain the states from screwing over poor people, or at least providing redress and compensation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:16 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top