4 ms·

Maybe increase the number? That would make bribing effort a little harder since it would require spreading the money to more people. Wasn't the house of represe

by nkassis 15y ago

Maybe increase the number? That would make bribing effort a little harder since it would require spreading the money to more people. Wasn't the house of representative supposed to be sized in proportion with the population of the US?

dkokelley 15y ago
That's how it works now. The size of Congress is a function of the population, while the Senate is a fixed 2 per state. You're correct though that a larger legislature (in terms of number of representatives) would make bribes (including political favors often used to pass unpopular legislation) more difficult, because the marginal return on each bribe is diminished.
- ianferrel 15y ago
  No, the size of the House is fixed at 435 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929). The apportionment of the seats to the various states is based on population, but the overall size is not.
  - dkokelley 15y ago
    You are correct. I should have said "the proportion of Congressional representation is a function of local population densities." I knew that the representative to population ratio had been shrinking, but I didn't know they had since set a fixed limit.
- jhancock 15y ago
  How about we increase the size of congress to 1 member per voter? What kind of problems would have then?
  - dkokelley 15y ago
    I can't tell if you're joking or seriously advocating a pure democracy. A pure democracy is nice in theory, but it's effectively mob/majority rule. It is also a considerable burden to write, read, and vote on every piece of legislation. A representative democracy mitigates those issues by appointing a single person to represent the wishes of his or her constituents. This also slows down the progress of democracy by forcing voters to wait until they can elect a new representative. But is that a bad thing? The waiting is effectively what prevents the mob rule syndrome. Then again, it would be difficult to bribe >50% of the population to pass a bill.
    - jhancock 15y ago
      Wasn't really joking or advocating it. Just a thought experiment on the thread we were on. I suppose the answer would have to wait a few hundred years after we initiated the experiment to see where it goes off the rails. Another variable, you mention, is term of office. If voters only "remember 6 months back" then would having elections every 6 months instead of 2 years help?

by nkassis 15y ago

dkokelley 15y ago

That's how it works now. The size of Congress is a function of the population, while the Senate is a fixed 2 per state. You're correct though that a larger legislature (in terms of number of representatives) would make bribes (including political favors often used to pass unpopular legislation) more difficult, because the marginal return on each bribe is diminished.

ianferrel 15y ago
No, the size of the House is fixed at 435 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929). The apportionment of the seats to the various states is based on population, but the overall size is not.
- dkokelley 15y ago
  You are correct. I should have said "the proportion of Congressional representation is a function of local population densities." I knew that the representative to population ratio had been shrinking, but I didn't know they had since set a fixed limit.
jhancock 15y ago
How about we increase the size of congress to 1 member per voter? What kind of problems would have then?
- dkokelley 15y ago
  I can't tell if you're joking or seriously advocating a pure democracy. A pure democracy is nice in theory, but it's effectively mob/majority rule. It is also a considerable burden to write, read, and vote on every piece of legislation. A representative democracy mitigates those issues by appointing a single person to represent the wishes of his or her constituents. This also slows down the progress of democracy by forcing voters to wait until they can elect a new representative. But is that a bad thing? The waiting is effectively what prevents the mob rule syndrome. Then again, it would be difficult to bribe >50% of the population to pass a bill.
  - jhancock 15y ago
    Wasn't really joking or advocating it. Just a thought experiment on the thread we were on. I suppose the answer would have to wait a few hundred years after we initiated the experiment to see where it goes off the rails. Another variable, you mention, is term of office. If voters only "remember 6 months back" then would having elections every 6 months instead of 2 years help?