6 ms·

Yep, I was aware it was going to be around 11k legislators. Makes it a hell of a lot harder to buy them out, and use the money->influence pipeline. And with ne

Yep, I was aware it was going to be around 11k legislators. Makes it a hell of a lot harder to buy them out, and use the money->influence pipeline. And with newer tech, like the Internet (which was an academic curiosity when the 535 rule was enacted) can now easily network 11k representatives. There's now very little reason to meet physically in a room. Especially if we value transparency.

jdmichal 9y ago
Devil's advocate: That same networking also makes it drastically easier for a single representative to network with a larger constituency.
- crankylinuxuser 9y ago
  Fair enough. I'd like to see that there is an effective communication going on between citizens and their representatives. Right now, with the current system, I see a few ways to communicate. Physical letter: form letter or nothing Phone: automated system recording Email: form letter or auto-subscribed to email list Facebook: Ignored, form statement, or banned Twitter: Ignored, form statement, or banned What I do see that works is what lobbyists do: they have face-time with their legislators. The current contention rates of up to 500k people per representative makes that avenue nearly impossible currently. Unless you happen to get a glimpse at a talk, you have close to 0% chance of talking with your rep. With a contention ratio of 30k to 50k/rep, would make meeting your representative much more likely. It would also reduce money effects, since now elections are a local thing instead of a moneyball contest.
  - jdmichal 9y ago
    As I said, that was definitely a devil's advocate position, and on this I very much agree with you in principle but not on approach. The approach I would rather see is to devolve power the federal government has managed to aggregate back down to the states, and hopefully even more local levels. I've commented on this before; I'll just link those instead of repeating myself: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11966167#11969956 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11966167#11969956 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12530363#12532344 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12530363#12532344

jdmichal 9y ago

Devil's advocate: That same networking also makes it drastically easier for a single representative to network with a larger constituency.

crankylinuxuser 9y ago
Fair enough. I'd like to see that there is an effective communication going on between citizens and their representatives. Right now, with the current system, I see a few ways to communicate. Physical letter: form letter or nothing Phone: automated system recording Email: form letter or auto-subscribed to email list Facebook: Ignored, form statement, or banned Twitter: Ignored, form statement, or banned What I do see that works is what lobbyists do: they have face-time with their legislators. The current contention rates of up to 500k people per representative makes that avenue nearly impossible currently. Unless you happen to get a glimpse at a talk, you have close to 0% chance of talking with your rep. With a contention ratio of 30k to 50k/rep, would make meeting your representative much more likely. It would also reduce money effects, since now elections are a local thing instead of a moneyball contest.
- jdmichal 9y ago
  As I said, that was definitely a devil's advocate position, and on this I very much agree with you in principle but not on approach. The approach I would rather see is to devolve power the federal government has managed to aggregate back down to the states, and hopefully even more local levels. I've commented on this before; I'll just link those instead of repeating myself: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11966167#11969956 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11966167#11969956 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12530363#12532344 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12530363#12532344