2 ms·

No matter how trustworthy someone is when they get elected, there is always a chance for them to become corrupt once in office. After all, before they've actual

No matter how trustworthy someone is when they get elected, there is always a chance for them to become corrupt once in office. After all, before they've actually held public office, there's little to no incentive or opportunity to be corrupt—and the higher the office, the higher both become. We need effective rules of ethics (with teeth) and oversight procedures. I don't think that forcing every politician to wear a camera 24/7 is really the best solution, but it's hopelessly naïve to think that some of them aren't literally going to bed with the people who are trying to get favorable legislation passed. A society like the US is just too diverse—not so much in heritage, but in cultural values (or at least subcultural values) to be able to "just elect people who can be trusted."

maxwell 3y ago
How about we just go back to expanding the House based on population instead of keeping it static at 435 forever? We're approaching a million constituents per representative. Corruption seems a mathematical certainty.
- danaris 3y ago
  That would genuinely make a huge positive difference (though it would not, of course, fix the whole system, since the House is not the only place with problems). There's no need, in this day and age, to have the entire House of Representatives meet physically in one building.
  - maxwell 3y ago
    Agreed. Let's go fully remote, sell off most federal property in DC, and retrocede Washington back to Maryland (like Alexandria County back in 1846), dissolving DC and draining the swamp for good. Then we can take proposals for creating a District of Lincoln or Roosevelt for meetings and events closer to the center of population, e.g. Kansas City (near mean center) or the confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio (near median center). https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/zoom-congress-perfectly-constitutional/610057 https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/zoom-congr...

maxwell 3y ago

How about we just go back to expanding the House based on population instead of keeping it static at 435 forever? We're approaching a million constituents per representative. Corruption seems a mathematical certainty.

danaris 3y ago
That would genuinely make a huge positive difference (though it would not, of course, fix the whole system, since the House is not the only place with problems). There's no need, in this day and age, to have the entire House of Representatives meet physically in one building.
- maxwell 3y ago
  Agreed. Let's go fully remote, sell off most federal property in DC, and retrocede Washington back to Maryland (like Alexandria County back in 1846), dissolving DC and draining the swamp for good. Then we can take proposals for creating a District of Lincoln or Roosevelt for meetings and events closer to the center of population, e.g. Kansas City (near mean center) or the confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio (near median center). https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/zoom-congress-perfectly-constitutional/610057 https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/zoom-congr...