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.
Running up to the American Revolution, the cry of "Taxation without representation is Tyranny" was a battle cry. Up until the 1920's the US House of representatives increased in number based on population. then it was capped at 435. Since that time the population represented by a given house member has continued to rise. In the UK, a member of The House of Commons represents today about 90,000 citizens, the US HoR represents about 711K, up 64K from 2000. At what point can one reasonably consider the United States to have crossed a line wherein we no longer have adequate representation and are on the road to tyranny? 800K, 900K, 1 Million per rep? Have we crossed that line already? If so, what solution do you propose. What about state representative bodies? California Senate at 467K per elected rep?
Last edited by Ibginnie; 05-10-2015 at 08:19 AM..
Reason: off topic
Americans have representation at so many levels that I feel like we're ultimately covered. We can't reasonably expand the U.S. House much more or we'd have even more chaos than we do now.
Gerrymandering has been done to such an extreme that most districts are fairly homogenous. The people in this country who aren't "represented" are the odd ducks in their districts. I didn't understand this fully until I moved from NYC to SC: You're smart to live where your representation actually represents you. Then you won't even think to ask a question like yours.
Great point, I lived in MD for a number of years and forgot about that. Why do you think the citizens of DC are so tolerant?
They aren't tolerant. It says "Taxation Without Representation" on their license plates. But if they HAD representatives, those persons would be Democrats. Republicans are therefore opposed.
Great point, I lived in MD for a number of years and forgot about that. Why do you think the citizens of DC are so tolerant?
They are taken care of by the federal government. If DC had to rely on businesses to float the town it would go under tomorrow. They best they have is tourism and whatever tourists spend there. Tourists also spend their money in MD or VA and sometimes opt for those two.
Sure, residents of DC may cry "Taxation without Representation" but think of what the alternative is. They have no businesses to support the city as the government does it for them. How many DC residents are in the tax bracket which includes "don't pay any"? For the most part, DC is a socialist city.
Americans have representation at so many levels that I feel like we're ultimately covered. We can't reasonably expand the U.S. House much more or we'd have even more chaos than we do now.
Gerrymandering has been done to such an extreme that most districts are fairly homogenous. The people in this country who aren't "represented" are the odd ducks in their districts. I didn't understand this fully until I moved from NYC to SC: You're smart to live where your representation actually represents you. Then you won't even think to ask a question like yours.
Location: When you take flak it means you are on target
7,646 posts, read 9,956,572 times
Reputation: 16466
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
How much representation do poor Americans have?
They have Jesse Jackson?
I would say taxation without representation has been going on since the 50's. When you can no longer obtain an audience with your "representative." It is over. Try getting to actually speak with a Senator - for more than 15 seconds in a glad-hand photo op. Well, unless you drop a $50,000 check on their re-election committee.
Running up to the American Revolution, the cry of "Taxation without representation is Tyranny" was a battle cry. Up until the 1920's the US House of representatives increased in number based on population. then it was capped at 435. Since that time the population represented by a given house member has continued to rise. In the UK, a member of The House of Commons represents today about 90,000 citizens, the US HoR represents about 711K, up 64K from 2000. At what point can one reasonably consider the United States to have crossed a line wherein we no longer have adequate representation and are on the road to tyranny? 800K, 900K, 1 Million per rep? Have we crossed that line already? If so, what solution do you propose. What about state representative bodies? California Senate at 467K per elected rep?
Mods, please feel free to move to political if you wish.
My state, New York, has 19 million residents yet we have 2 US Senators, the same number that the 750,000 North Dakotans have, which gives ND as much power in the Senate as NY ... or Texas ... or California ... or any large state. Each NY Senator represents about 9.5 million people while ND senators only represent 375k people. Now, that's much a more grievous lack of representation than about 700k per Representative across the board.
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.
