4 ms·

but that is a failure of the current system after Congress passd a law to fix a number of representatives in the house. There used to be a much smaller proporti

but that is a failure of the current system after Congress passd a law to fix a number of representatives in the house. There used to be a much smaller proportion of citizens to representatives than there is today. The excuse they used to fix the number was that it was ridiculous the number of individuals that would be in the House, but personally, I don't care if they have to hold it in a football stadium---- I want a representative that I might have met at my local coffee shop. That's the ideal and we need to get back to it.

UncleMeat 3y ago
Sure, and that's a problem. It is true that uncapping the house and ending up with like 15,000 representatives would achieve a bunch of goals and IMO be a significant improvement, but I personally find this less likely to happen than to change from a geographic model of representation.
- SubiculumCode 3y ago
  Probably, but all this does is lead to more of what we have now: No trust in government because government is far away. No trust in your representative because they are some mega-rich millionaire (or hangs with them) and not only have you not met them, they don't even care about your hometown. And think of this. Today House members spend all their time mooching for donations, because to get elected requires a BUNCH of money. That money is increasingly dominated by money outside your district. If we have a Representative for every 20,000 citizens for you 15,000 number, that means you can run a small campaign for very little money. Heck you could just knock on doors for no money. THAT takes a lot of power away from moneyed interests. Also, 331,000,000 citizens / 50,000 citizens/rep = 6,600 reps
  - UncleMeat 3y ago
    To me, the distance to government doesn't really affect my trust in government. I agree that uncapping the house would improve things, but I do not think that it is fundamental to improving things.

UncleMeat 3y ago

Sure, and that's a problem. It is true that uncapping the house and ending up with like 15,000 representatives would achieve a bunch of goals and IMO be a significant improvement, but I personally find this less likely to happen than to change from a geographic model of representation.

SubiculumCode 3y ago
Probably, but all this does is lead to more of what we have now: No trust in government because government is far away. No trust in your representative because they are some mega-rich millionaire (or hangs with them) and not only have you not met them, they don't even care about your hometown. And think of this. Today House members spend all their time mooching for donations, because to get elected requires a BUNCH of money. That money is increasingly dominated by money outside your district. If we have a Representative for every 20,000 citizens for you 15,000 number, that means you can run a small campaign for very little money. Heck you could just knock on doors for no money. THAT takes a lot of power away from moneyed interests. Also, 331,000,000 citizens / 50,000 citizens/rep = 6,600 reps
- UncleMeat 3y ago
  To me, the distance to government doesn't really affect my trust in government. I agree that uncapping the house would improve things, but I do not think that it is fundamental to improving things.