3 ms·

There are huge problems with that idea. California represents 10% of the population. Good luck convincing the other 49 states to give up that much power. Anoth

There are huge problems with that idea. California represents 10% of the population. Good luck convincing the other 49 states to give up that much power. Another huge problem with that idea is that congress is not held accountable for their decisions by the public. In my opinion, this is because they are able to split the blame 100 different ways in the senate and 435 different ways in the house, making no one responsible for any given decision. Your suggestion makes this problem much, much worse and guarantees more bureaucracy.

danieltillett 11y ago
California would still have 10% of the representatives, they would just have many more like everyone else. There would be no power shift from state to state. So you are saying the problem is no one is held accountable now, but the problem will be worse with smaller districts because then no one will be held accountable? I think having smaller electorates where you can get elected by knowing your constituents personally rather than via advertising and attack ads would be an improvement.
- such_a_casual 11y ago
  The second part is just my own bullshit, but yes. I think that we want to be able to point to someone and say that it's their fault. I think that's why we don't care who our representatives are. We don't see them as being directly responsible for what happens. Even if I'm wrong, more representatives will mean more bureaucracy, which means slower governing.
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    If you could personally call up and speak to your representative and they had to speak to you in person to get elected then I think you would be happier. You could at least hold them responsible for their actions and your vote would count much more for them than it does now. I don’t see how having more representatives will increase bureaucracy. We would basically shift from having one representative with 19 staff to having 20 representatives with no staff. The net cost should be zero.
    - such_a_casual 11y ago
      It's my own bullshit, but I just think that when something comes up like a drug company raising the price of aid's meds from $13.50 per tablet to $750 that we want the ability to point to a single person and be like, "this is your fault. you are supposed to be making sure this kind of stuff doesn't happen." Right now, no one is held responsible. You can't blame the people who run the company. They're just trying to make money like the rest of us. They're following the law. Just my opinion. > I don’t see how having more representatives will increase bureaucracy. For the same reason a dictator is the most efficient form of government. It's just how governing works.
      - danieltillett 11y ago
        Dictatorships have a massive problem with bureaucracy. They have all the normal bureaucrats and then on top of this they need another whole set to watch the first set. Lean government and dictatorship are not concepts that readily go together.

danieltillett 11y ago

California would still have 10% of the representatives, they would just have many more like everyone else. There would be no power shift from state to state. So you are saying the problem is no one is held accountable now, but the problem will be worse with smaller districts because then no one will be held accountable? I think having smaller electorates where you can get elected by knowing your constituents personally rather than via advertising and attack ads would be an improvement.

such_a_casual 11y ago
The second part is just my own bullshit, but yes. I think that we want to be able to point to someone and say that it's their fault. I think that's why we don't care who our representatives are. We don't see them as being directly responsible for what happens. Even if I'm wrong, more representatives will mean more bureaucracy, which means slower governing.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  If you could personally call up and speak to your representative and they had to speak to you in person to get elected then I think you would be happier. You could at least hold them responsible for their actions and your vote would count much more for them than it does now. I don’t see how having more representatives will increase bureaucracy. We would basically shift from having one representative with 19 staff to having 20 representatives with no staff. The net cost should be zero.
  - such_a_casual 11y ago
    It's my own bullshit, but I just think that when something comes up like a drug company raising the price of aid's meds from $13.50 per tablet to $750 that we want the ability to point to a single person and be like, "this is your fault. you are supposed to be making sure this kind of stuff doesn't happen." Right now, no one is held responsible. You can't blame the people who run the company. They're just trying to make money like the rest of us. They're following the law. Just my opinion. > I don’t see how having more representatives will increase bureaucracy. For the same reason a dictator is the most efficient form of government. It's just how governing works.
    - danieltillett 11y ago
      Dictatorships have a massive problem with bureaucracy. They have all the normal bureaucrats and then on top of this they need another whole set to watch the first set. Lean government and dictatorship are not concepts that readily go together.