4 ms·
Great comment! Also to add to the "folks that lived down the street" aspect of the House of Representatives: when we started out, we had 1 rep for something lik
by dangoor 10y ago
Great comment! Also to add to the "folks that lived down the street" aspect of the House of Representatives: when we started out, we had 1 rep for something like 35,000 people. Now it's more like 1 rep per 750,000 people. That undoubtedly makes a big difference in how the rep views their individual constituents.
- bbctol 10y agoI think this is actually more important than the "too much democracy" argument top comment was heading towards. Representatives are supposed to do just that: represent their communities. They should be voted in based on how much the voters trust them to represent their interests, rather than along more abstract political orientations. When the community is small enough that everyone can easily see their representative speak, attend local debates, and here how they respond to questions, you can vote for someone based on your personal liking; when the community is too large for that, you need to vote based on party affiliation and stump speeches. This inherently leads to polarization: you're not voting for a person, you're voting for a team, and trying to beat the other team.
- throwaway2048 10y agomore represensitives means each representivies voice matters less. If there were 6000 representivies rather than the 300odd there are now, political parties would dominate things even more than they already do.
- russdpale 10y agoCould we not then assert that perhaps we are at the useful limit of representative governments? 1 per 750,000 is not representations. And dammit, no taxation with representation.