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, 11:58 AM
 
4,734 posts, read 4,330,273 times
Reputation: 3235

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by tluv00 View Post
http://http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/09/opinion/flynn-expand-congress/index.html?hpt=hp_t3 (broken link)

What are people's thoughts on this? I think there are some very valid points especially in regards to the number of constituents one represents and how much that has grown.
What's wrong with the American government is that it relies on a constitution that is increasingly outdated. The other problem is that, unlike the late 18th Century, we don't have an elite group of wealthy intellectual architects who are capable and influential enough to make the necessary adjustments to make our country functional again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-09-2012, 12:19 PM
 
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
11,157 posts, read 14,001,750 times
Reputation: 14940
I feel that increasing the size of the house and senate only makes the problems with government worse. The problem is that we have career politicians who ar looking out for the lining in their own pockets more so than anything else. I feel this way about many Democrats and Republicans alike. People are people regardless of party affiliation. The longer they sit in Washington the worse they become.

I think that the single most effective fix is term limits. 2 terms for U.S. Senators and 6 terms for Representatives. Someone could spend 24 years in the house/senate. This is potentially too long, but it makes for a nicely aligned system. Furthermore I believe that each state should set the salary levels for its senators and representatives. I even believe that state voters should be able to approve pay raises or propose cuts in pay for their representation to Washington. Make the government beholden to the people. That's way it was supposed to be in the first place. Furthermore, this would make it more difficult for big money to buy politicians. Sure, they could still do it, but it would be more expensive because they would have to do it more often.

Everyone should read the Federalist Papers. Specifically #51. This stuff should be required reading for every student in public schools and universities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2012, 12:26 PM
 
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
11,157 posts, read 14,001,750 times
Reputation: 14940
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas View Post
What's wrong with the American government is that it relies on a constitution that is increasingly outdated. The other problem is that, unlike the late 18th Century, we don't have an elite group of wealthy intellectual architects who are capable and influential enough to make the necessary adjustments to make our country functional again.
No, what's wrong with government is that it DOESN'T rely on the Constitution. The Constitution is not a "living document." It is the foundation for the building that is this country. Have you ever seen a building that had a movable foundation? Engineers can move a building, but the foundation stays in place or is destroyed. Once a building has been moved, engineers can alter the foundation by adding to it or taking away from it. Likewise the Constitution can be changed if needed. We tried some things that didn't work (Prohibition comes to mind) and we have gotten it right on other occasions. The problem is not that the Constitution is outdated. The problem is that too few within our government are relying on it as they execute the duties of their offices.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2012, 01:16 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,450,574 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Obviously there are numerous issues that have to be considered. I don't think the number of Electoral College votes is as pressing an issue as, for instance, the issue of just how to house the additional representatives and their staff. I worry that I and many others get bogged down by our ways of thinking about this problem. We have so much new technology at our disposal, and when it comes to government legislatures, federal and state, we don't use it. Do our Congressional members have to have a designated office in DC as well as offices in their home districts. Why not have those offices open to whichever representatives are in DC, with a staff on hand to serve them? Do our Congressional members have to be present in DC to vote? Why not let them vote electronically? As large as our country has become, would it be worth considering a third tier of the legislature? I'm just tossing this idea out, I haven't really thought it through, but what if you had a third tier that exclusively proposed legislation, and then the House and Senate hashed out the actual laws? That third tier could be tied to a much smaller number of constituents, and not even have offices in DC. Just boon-doggling a little, here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestCobb View Post
Something to consider, if we did expand the House to a realistic number (which would easily be ten times its size now), the Senate would become a much more important lordly body -- as was intended by the Constitution. The House would become a much more dynamic and responsive organ -- the Senate would act like a censor keeping a lid on all of the radical proposals (radically left, right and center) coming out of the House.

With today's technology, there is no reason we have to spend more on the House either. Why do we STILL send congressmen to Washington D.C.? Is that really necessary? Keep them in the neighborhood amongst the peoeple they represent. Let them legislate virtually. Let them travel to D.C. once a year or so -- that's about it. We need to leverage 21st century technology toward getting back to 18th century democracy. If you were a white man with property in 1790, you had a lot more say in your government than you have now.
The biggest problem with having the Representatives spread out across the country is how to determine whether or not they have a quorum. I am certain all the other technical details, such as secure communications, voting, etc. could be worked out rather easily.

According to Robert's Rules of Order, the "requirement for a quorum is protection against totally unrepresentative action in the name of the body by an unduly small number of persons." So there needs to be a way to ensure a minimum number of Representatives are available for a debate or a vote.

-----------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by 01Snake View Post
What's wrong with Congress is you have no term limits. Career politicians that are simply looking out for THEIR best interests is a huge problem.

Time to put a stop to this crap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kkaos2 View Post
Much of the problems that people like to point out would be solved by increasing the size of the legislature could more simply and easily be solved with term limits.
I completely disagree about term limits in the House. In both the House and Senate the real power (who chairs which committee) is determined by seniority. By imposing term limits in the House you would be taking power from all the small populous States and giving it to the States with the largest populations.

In the Senate, seniority is not as important because every State has two Senators. However, in the House seniority is critical considering that the only way for a small populous State to ever chair any committee is by getting reelected until they have the most seniority.

I, for one, do not want to see the nation run exclusively by California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois. Which is what term limits in the House would create. The only term limit that should be imposed on Congress should be determined by the vote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2012, 01:24 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,450,574 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas View Post
What's wrong with the American government is that it relies on a constitution that is increasingly outdated. The other problem is that, unlike the late 18th Century, we don't have an elite group of wealthy intellectual architects who are capable and influential enough to make the necessary adjustments to make our country functional again.
Actually, the US Constitution was last updated with the 27th Amendment in 1992. That is hardly "outdated."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2012, 01:29 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,874,717 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
The biggest problem with having the Representatives spread out across the country is how to determine whether or not they have a quorum. I am certain all the other technical details, such as secure communications, voting, etc. could be worked out rather easily.

According to Robert's Rules of Order, the "requirement for a quorum is protection against totally unrepresentative action in the name of the body by an unduly small number of persons." So there needs to be a way to ensure a minimum number of Representatives are available for a debate or a vote.

-----------------





I completely disagree about term limits in the House. In both the House and Senate the real power (who chairs which committee) is determined by seniority. By imposing term limits in the House you would be taking power from all the small populous States and giving it to the States with the largest populations.

In the Senate, seniority is not as important because every State has two Senators. However, in the House seniority is critical considering that the only way for a small populous State to ever chair any committee is by getting reelected until they have the most seniority.

I, for one, do not want to see the nation run exclusively by California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois. Which is what term limits in the House would create. The only term limit that should be imposed on Congress should be determined by the vote.
It's easy to determine if there is a quorum. Count the votes. The quorum is just about numbers.

As for term limits, we have term limits, they're called elections. As long as a representative is doing his job, his constituents can keep voting him in. When he stops doing his job, representing the people, his constituents can vote him out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2012, 01:30 PM
 
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
11,157 posts, read 14,001,750 times
Reputation: 14940
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
I completely disagree about term limits in the House. In both the House and Senate the real power (who chairs which committee) is determined by seniority. By imposing term limits in the House you would be taking power from all the small populous States and giving it to the States with the largest populations.
How do you figure this? Due to the larger states having more representatives in the Congress? If so, then I would suggest that as we impose the term limits on the legislation that systems be designed to prevent such a thing. Of course, this may not be needed anyway. Representatives often have more loyalty to other representatives within their party but from other states than they do to representatives from within their state but from the other party.

Problems, problems...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2012, 01:47 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,874,717 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by iknowftbll View Post
How do you figure this? Due to the larger states having more representatives in the Congress? If so, then I would suggest that as we impose the term limits on the legislation that systems be designed to prevent such a thing. Of course, this may not be needed anyway. Representatives often have more loyalty to other representatives within their party but from other states than they do to representatives from within their state but from the other party.

Problems, problems...
"Representatives often have more loyalty to other representatives within their party...." is an irrelevant remark. Since the appointments that Glitch is talking about aren't made by state delegations, they are made by the party leadership. And Glitch's point that larger states and more urban states have more power within the political parties, thus leading to larger and urban states chairing more committees and having more power in Congress, is a good point. Term limits don't lead to better, more representative Congresses, they lead to Congresses that are dominated by states with larger populations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2012, 01:51 PM
 
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
11,157 posts, read 14,001,750 times
Reputation: 14940
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Term limits don't lead to better, more representative Congresses, they lead to Congresses that are dominated by states with larger populations.
But not if they put in the appropriate controls when term limits take effect. This government loves to come up with regulations, so why not make them regulate themselves? Like I said, everyone needs to read Federalist #51.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2012, 01:52 PM
 
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
11,157 posts, read 14,001,750 times
Reputation: 14940
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
"Representatives often have more loyalty to other representatives within their party...." is an irrelevant remark. Since the appointments that Glitch is talking about aren't made by state delegations, they are made by the party leadership.
Oh, and this was my point.
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 03:29 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