5 ms·

You just need to increase the number of representatives multiple orders of magnitude. Imagine if we had 10000+ congressmen, it would much much harder to buy inf

You just need to increase the number of representatives multiple orders of magnitude. Imagine if we had 10000+ congressmen, it would much much harder to buy influence or lobby. The votes would eventually start to resemble the will of the people. Bernie and Trump were just the beginning, the internet has allowed the people to wake up and field their own candidates instead of just taking what the political old guard give us.

AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
>Imagine if we had 10000+ congressmen, it would much much harder to buy influence or lobby. The votes would eventually start to resemble the will of the people. I agree, but there would be interesting ramifications. Almost like direct democracy but not quite there. So, essentially you have to earn the right to vote. Very close to what founders thought who should be voting. Mind blown!
- padobson 9y ago
  The Reapportionment Act of 1929[0] is the culprit for this problem. Up until then, the size of the house grew with the population of the country. It was one of a series of early 20th century foundational changes to American government that opened us up for the legalized corruption we're suffering from now. The 17th amendment[1] is another, which allowed for the direct election (and thus hyper politicization) of Senators. With 50 states, the country would still have 100 senators, but special interest groups would have to write checks to thousands of state assembly members to influence the election of Senators, rather than just writing a few dozen to influence the Senators directly. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929 [1]https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am17.html https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am17.html
  - thoth 9y ago
    >The 17th amendment[1] is another, which allowed for the direct election (and thus hyper politicization) of Senators. The time before the 17th Amendment wasn't exactly all roses, that was the age of outright bribery of state legislatures for Senate seats. William Clark's famous quote "I never bought a man who wasn't for sale" was about this and the surrounding corruption of his election brought the 17th Amendment around.[0] Listen to the 6th episode of the Constitutional podcast for some extra background, it is very interesting. Some states really wanted this because they were unable to even elect Senators due to political parties of the time simply not agreeing on anybody.[1] [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Clark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Clark [1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/podcasts/constitutional/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/podcasts/constitutional/
- thucydides 9y ago
  I suspect the number of influential representatives in a body is something like sqrt(n). When Pericles lived, the Athenian assembly was similarly large but only a handful were consistently influential (like Pericles)
drewrv 9y ago
Gerrymandering would be a lot harder with more representatives too.
craftyguy 9y ago
Might as well do away with the position of president too. That's way too much power in the hands of a single person who, as donald regularly demonstrates, could act arbitrarily.
- rukittenme 9y ago
  I don't think you would need to do away with the presidency. But it does need additional controls and safeguards put in place. Controls and safeguards that have existed but have been removed over successive generations.
- padobson 9y ago
  What's interesting is we already have the political infrastructure in place to do this. Lose the presidency and let each member of the cabinet run their own section of government. In addition to losing the single executive, you'd need to make some other constitutional tweaks e.g. deploying the military would require a consensus between the Secretaries of State, Defense, and DHS (and maybe Treasury?). Something like that could end the imperial executive branch with a very simple distribution of power.
- krapp 9y ago
  >Might as well do away with the position of president too. I actually half support this idea. Why do we need a President? What powers does that one person in that one office have which couldn't better be delegated to the states?
- AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
  Actually presidential election is only time where special interests can't tip the scale easily. Right now that's the only change where people get their say. Just 1/3rd of senators get elected every two years and only handful among those races are balanced where special interest can tip scales with little effort. Same for congressional elections, few places with 50/50 spread where money can easily gain influence. Presidential election is too big, at the exact same time, for money to wield influence. I for one am glad that we have presidential elections, people have some voice, at least.
- 9y ago

AmIFirstToThink 9y ago

>Imagine if we had 10000+ congressmen, it would much much harder to buy influence or lobby. The votes would eventually start to resemble the will of the people. I agree, but there would be interesting ramifications. Almost like direct democracy but not quite there. So, essentially you have to earn the right to vote. Very close to what founders thought who should be voting. Mind blown!

padobson 9y ago
The Reapportionment Act of 1929[0] is the culprit for this problem. Up until then, the size of the house grew with the population of the country. It was one of a series of early 20th century foundational changes to American government that opened us up for the legalized corruption we're suffering from now. The 17th amendment[1] is another, which allowed for the direct election (and thus hyper politicization) of Senators. With 50 states, the country would still have 100 senators, but special interest groups would have to write checks to thousands of state assembly members to influence the election of Senators, rather than just writing a few dozen to influence the Senators directly. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929 [1]https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am17.html https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am17.html
- thoth 9y ago
  >The 17th amendment[1] is another, which allowed for the direct election (and thus hyper politicization) of Senators. The time before the 17th Amendment wasn't exactly all roses, that was the age of outright bribery of state legislatures for Senate seats. William Clark's famous quote "I never bought a man who wasn't for sale" was about this and the surrounding corruption of his election brought the 17th Amendment around.[0] Listen to the 6th episode of the Constitutional podcast for some extra background, it is very interesting. Some states really wanted this because they were unable to even elect Senators due to political parties of the time simply not agreeing on anybody.[1] [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Clark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Clark [1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/podcasts/constitutional/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/podcasts/constitutional/
thucydides 9y ago
I suspect the number of influential representatives in a body is something like sqrt(n). When Pericles lived, the Athenian assembly was similarly large but only a handful were consistently influential (like Pericles)

drewrv 9y ago

Gerrymandering would be a lot harder with more representatives too.

craftyguy 9y ago

Might as well do away with the position of president too. That's way too much power in the hands of a single person who, as donald regularly demonstrates, could act arbitrarily.

rukittenme 9y ago
I don't think you would need to do away with the presidency. But it does need additional controls and safeguards put in place. Controls and safeguards that have existed but have been removed over successive generations.
padobson 9y ago
What's interesting is we already have the political infrastructure in place to do this. Lose the presidency and let each member of the cabinet run their own section of government. In addition to losing the single executive, you'd need to make some other constitutional tweaks e.g. deploying the military would require a consensus between the Secretaries of State, Defense, and DHS (and maybe Treasury?). Something like that could end the imperial executive branch with a very simple distribution of power.
krapp 9y ago
>Might as well do away with the position of president too. I actually half support this idea. Why do we need a President? What powers does that one person in that one office have which couldn't better be delegated to the states?
AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
Actually presidential election is only time where special interests can't tip the scale easily. Right now that's the only change where people get their say. Just 1/3rd of senators get elected every two years and only handful among those races are balanced where special interest can tip scales with little effort. Same for congressional elections, few places with 50/50 spread where money can easily gain influence. Presidential election is too big, at the exact same time, for money to wield influence. I for one am glad that we have presidential elections, people have some voice, at least.
9y ago