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.
My representation (Independent) is not structured into your proposed system. This affiliation allows me to vote for individuals, not group agendas. As such, I'd have to give you a no on the idea. I also would not support ahigher number of representatives. We have enough. The problem I have is that representatives are not currently allocated on a per capita basis. This has not been properly updated to reflect changes in regional demographics in about 10 years. As such, the West is getting screwed. Change that!
It would seem to me to be a good idea to expand this to 1000 representatives. Might make the representatives a little more in touch with voter sentiments.
That is an interesting idea. Unfortunately the constitution has the limit capped at 435.
That is an interesting idea. Unfortunately the constitution has the limit capped at 435.
My assumption in this thread is that we are discussing how we think things should be, not what is constitutionally mandated.
Think about the number of folks in the US at the time the US Constitution was drafted, and think about how many reps we would have today to keep the same ratio (waaayyyy more than 1,000). While we're at it, I would also propose that we elect about twenty-twenty five "at large" Senators, who wouldn't be focused on satisfying local issues. To prevent loading up the Senate with either party, this could be done as an even split between the parties.
Just trying to think about what may help the country run a bit better.
To me, this seems like it would increase partisanship. I would like to get rid of the parties. I want people to tell me what they think rather than what they think they should say based on their party affiliation. This might also force the public to pay attention rather than voting for R or D.
My assumption in this thread is that we are discussing how we think things should be, not what is constitutionally mandated.
Think about the number of folks in the US at the time the US Constitution was drafted,
You got me on the constitutional mandates, the whole idea of proportional representation is very unconstitutional.
They didn't put a cap on it until the 19th early 20th century, before that they just kept adding reps. Maybe they should have kept that up.
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.
