4 ms·

We used to have a limit in place where each representative in Congress had no more than 40,000 constituents. This allowed a single individual to have a meaningf

by jrs95 8y ago

We used to have a limit in place where each representative in Congress had no more than 40,000 constituents. This allowed a single individual to have a meaningful influence if they wanted to and kept people engaged. Now elections are so large that there's almost nothing you can do as an individual to make a substantial difference without having vast sums of money.

Balgair 8y ago
I also agree that a much larger congress would be a better thing. Returning to less large rep districts would be more representative. Granted, the House would become geometrically more chaotic (handshaking problem), but I think a better system would emerge. That said, I don't think you are correct, at all, when you say that money is the only thing that matters. Votes matter. For example: The Nov 2012 Los Angeles elections. I voted in those elections. Mayor Garcetti won the election with only 5.4% of the city voting for him [0]. That means that I voted for ~20 Los Angelenos with my single ballot. Basically, I voted for half my homeroom in High School. You cannot buy votes nor stuff ballot boxes at the exchange rate I was able to affect with my single vote. And this was a presidential election, where turnout is typically higher. For the majority of local elections, I was voting for nearly my entire graduating class! Another good example was Eric Cantor's primary election in 2014 [1]. Despite being the House Majority Leader, and despite outspending his opponent not just 2 to 1, not just 10 to 1, but 40 to 1, Cantor LOST. And it wasn't close, he lost 45% to 55%, a 10 point difference. Cantor resigned as Majority Leader on July 31st. Money does not count. Your. Vote. Counts. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_mayoral_election,_2013 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_mayoral_election,_... [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Virginia,_2014#District_7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Represe...
- jrs95 8y ago
  I didn't make it clear what I meant about money. The issue now is that each district is so large that in order to have an influence beyond your own vote you need a lot of money. You can't just talk to people in your community and have a noticeable impact on the outcome. If this were the case, the public would have a lot more influence over government. As it currently stands, one form of mass manipulation or another greatly outweighs what individual activism can achieve.
fullshark 8y ago
It's at the point now where it's irrational to pay attention / partake in national politics at all unless you have said money. For most individuals it makes sense to treat national politics as basically the weather, and instead just invest in local politics. But that's not what partisans do by and large outside a few key ones, because in the end for most partisans it's not about policy proposals or trying to steer the gov't, it's about identity.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> We used to have a limit in place where each representative in Congress had no more than 40,000 constituents. Even if you erased state boundaries (if you don't, the actual number goes up a bit), that would lead to a minimum of 8,143 members in the House. You'd, IMO, actually do more to improve quality of representation and less to make the House unwieldy if you kept the current number of districts and made each district a 5-member constituency with STV or a similar candidate-centered proportional method of election.

by jrs95 8y ago

Balgair 8y ago

I also agree that a much larger congress would be a better thing. Returning to less large rep districts would be more representative. Granted, the House would become geometrically more chaotic (handshaking problem), but I think a better system would emerge. That said, I don't think you are correct, at all, when you say that money is the only thing that matters. Votes matter. For example: The Nov 2012 Los Angeles elections. I voted in those elections. Mayor Garcetti won the election with only 5.4% of the city voting for him [0]. That means that I voted for ~20 Los Angelenos with my single ballot. Basically, I voted for half my homeroom in High School. You cannot buy votes nor stuff ballot boxes at the exchange rate I was able to affect with my single vote. And this was a presidential election, where turnout is typically higher. For the majority of local elections, I was voting for nearly my entire graduating class! Another good example was Eric Cantor's primary election in 2014 [1]. Despite being the House Majority Leader, and despite outspending his opponent not just 2 to 1, not just 10 to 1, but 40 to 1, Cantor LOST. And it wasn't close, he lost 45% to 55%, a 10 point difference. Cantor resigned as Majority Leader on July 31st. Money does not count. Your. Vote. Counts. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_mayoral_election,_2013 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_mayoral_election,_... [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Virginia,_2014#District_7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Represe...

jrs95 8y ago
I didn't make it clear what I meant about money. The issue now is that each district is so large that in order to have an influence beyond your own vote you need a lot of money. You can't just talk to people in your community and have a noticeable impact on the outcome. If this were the case, the public would have a lot more influence over government. As it currently stands, one form of mass manipulation or another greatly outweighs what individual activism can achieve.

fullshark 8y ago

It's at the point now where it's irrational to pay attention / partake in national politics at all unless you have said money. For most individuals it makes sense to treat national politics as basically the weather, and instead just invest in local politics. But that's not what partisans do by and large outside a few key ones, because in the end for most partisans it's not about policy proposals or trying to steer the gov't, it's about identity.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> We used to have a limit in place where each representative in Congress had no more than 40,000 constituents. Even if you erased state boundaries (if you don't, the actual number goes up a bit), that would lead to a minimum of 8,143 members in the House. You'd, IMO, actually do more to improve quality of representation and less to make the House unwieldy if you kept the current number of districts and made each district a 5-member constituency with STV or a similar candidate-centered proportional method of election.