6 ms·

1. The original 1787 apportionment would result in a House of Representatives of ~30k members[1]. 2. That's obviously unwieldy, and so we haven't had a bump in

1. The original 1787 apportionment would result in a House of Representatives of ~30k members[1]. 2. That's obviously unwieldy, and so we haven't had a bump in seats since ... 1910. 3. 'Factions' were viewed dimly by the Founders. I would argue in favor of two immediate changes: - Term limits for everything, including shorter max civil service careers. Capitol Hill, like any compost heap, benefits from regular turning. - A "bidder bunch" rule, whereby if Congress can't manage its key function--that of producing a budget--then none of these goofs (even the ones I admire) get to run for their seat when next up. There are copious talented alternative people to put on ballots. Do your job or face corporate punishment, say I. [1] https://thirty-thousand.org/ https://thirty-thousand.org/

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> A "bidder bunch" rule, whereby if Congress can't manage its key function--that of producing a budget--then none of these goofs (even the ones I admire) get to run for their seat when next up This creates an obvious and huge perverse incentive to throw a wrench into the works any time you want a do-over.
- smitty1e 2y ago
  And copious peer pressure not to be That Guy.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > copious peer pressure not to be That Guy How? You don’t think you could find Democrats, today, who wouldn’t roll the dice on a new Congress? The proposal essentially gives a narrow minority the ability to call no confidence.
    - smitty1e 2y ago
      ...and self-immolate. You don't work that hard to get elected and then piss it away.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > You don't work that hard to get elected and then piss it away If it gives your party a chance at retaking power? It would be an obvious trade for an administration to do.
        smitty1e 1y ago
        So, you're saying that a large number (say, 100) of minority members of the House would scuttle their current seats in order to blow away the majority party's seats? I remind you that, under the current regime, Sen. Schumer (D-BY) played along with the GOP Continuing Resolution* not because he fancied the CR, but to avoid giving the Treasury the power of the purse that would come with a shutdown. *And took a napalm shower for it in social media.
- morpheuskafka 1y ago
  Not having a real budget is just a parliamentary procedure tactic, creating pressure opportunities when various continuing resolutions come up. If they have to make a budget they’ll make one, that doesn’t mean they’ll actually stop being partisan fools and put together a good one. It'll still be subject to all the usual nonsense.
  - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
    Yep. The US has had several years without a budget, and it meant exactly nothing. Sort of like the debt limit, it leads to a lot of political maneuvering but doesn't actually limit anything.
    - smitty1e 1y ago
      > meant exactly nothing. "Excuse me?" said the burgeoning national debt.
s1artibartfast 2y ago
30k electors sounds great to me. One for ever ~12k people. It could be unpaid citizen body.
- smitty1e 1y ago
  Would likely prove unwieldy. They don't call for a vote without a known outcome; politics hates surprises.
  - s1artibartfast 1y ago
    sounds better and better
    - smitty1e 1y ago
      The whole point of a Federal government is to make the year-on-year business of government more predictable. The question here is how to add enough feedback to keep the corruption minimal. We've known anecdotally for a long time that our government has gone to seed; DOGE has both broadcast the problem and generated will to reform.
      - s1artibartfast 1y ago
        with 30k electors in the house, I expect it would be much more predictable. It seems plausible to me that it would decrease corruption. It is a lot easier for power brokers and interests to lobby a 435 member house, than 30K member house. Inversely, it is a lot easier for a citizen to lobby their representative when they are 1/12,000 instead of 1/800k.
        smitty1e 1y ago
        I submit that Dunbar's Number plays a role. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number 30k members--that's a couple of Army Divisions--is more likely to form rigid authoritarian groupings simple to get in and out of the building in a reasonable amount of time. People don't scale. The overhead of coordinating among so many people would be stifling. No, the correct approach in my view is to delegate as much as possible back to the States.
AngryData 1y ago
I find it hard to believe the House of Reps could be any more unwieldy than it already is though. More seats would make it far harder to buy and corrupt legislation votes and make it easier for independents and 3rd parties to gain seats.
- wqaatwt 1y ago
  Just replacing FPTP or any other proportional non-party list system would accomplish that.
  - smitty1e 1y ago
    You can't physically seat them in the current venue, for starters. Also, for all of the defects of First Past the Post, it's well-understood and supports entry-level participation. The theoretical superiority of Ranked Choice Voting is overshadowed by the hidden assertion that everyone casting a ballot in RCV has done the homework. Having served as an election officer for the last 12yrs, the KISS superiority of FPTP is the least-worst alternatives. I wouldn't want RCV even at the county level.
    - wqaatwt 1y ago
      > can't physically Why? There is no need to increase their number. > overshadowed by the hidden assertion Even then it’s still superior. Even if everyone ignores the individual candidates and votes for a party in e.g. a 5 member constituency where the vote is split ~70:30 the minority party would likely get at least one seat when now votes are effectively thrown into the thrash bin. > Having served as an election officer for the last 12yrs The implication being that it would make the job too hard for you? FPTP is a horrible system any way you look at it. It results in almost 50% of the votes being outright discarded and permanently entrenches a 2 party system.
      - smitty1e 1y ago
        > It results in almost 50% of the votes being outright discarded and permanently entrenches a 2 party system. I don't see how either of these assertions follow. The size of the mandate is important, and the connection between a 2 party "system" and FPTP is something that you'd need to elaborate upon, because there is nothing about the ballot as such stipulating the number of parties. I. Fact, other parties are frequently on the ballot, so the dominance of 2 parties is not obviously connected to FPTP as such.
wqaatwt 1y ago
> were viewed dimly by the Founders Hypothetically that was true. Until those founders started engaging in actual politics and became rabidly partisan. There was a brief period when the Federalists collapsed and US effectively became a single party state with the Democratic-Republicans controlling everything but that was decades after the constitution was signed.
- smitty1e 1y ago
  Inviting the question of whether parliamentary systems offer substantial improvement. For a glance at Europe, I'm firmly in the skeptical camp.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> A "bidder bunch" rule, whereby if Congress can't manage its key function--that of producing a budget--then none of these goofs (even the ones I admire) get to run for their seat when next up This creates an obvious and huge perverse incentive to throw a wrench into the works any time you want a do-over.

smitty1e 2y ago
And copious peer pressure not to be That Guy.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > copious peer pressure not to be That Guy How? You don’t think you could find Democrats, today, who wouldn’t roll the dice on a new Congress? The proposal essentially gives a narrow minority the ability to call no confidence.
  - smitty1e 2y ago
    ...and self-immolate. You don't work that hard to get elected and then piss it away.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > You don't work that hard to get elected and then piss it away If it gives your party a chance at retaking power? It would be an obvious trade for an administration to do.
      - smitty1e 1y ago
        So, you're saying that a large number (say, 100) of minority members of the House would scuttle their current seats in order to blow away the majority party's seats? I remind you that, under the current regime, Sen. Schumer (D-BY) played along with the GOP Continuing Resolution* not because he fancied the CR, but to avoid giving the Treasury the power of the purse that would come with a shutdown. *And took a napalm shower for it in social media.
morpheuskafka 1y ago
Not having a real budget is just a parliamentary procedure tactic, creating pressure opportunities when various continuing resolutions come up. If they have to make a budget they’ll make one, that doesn’t mean they’ll actually stop being partisan fools and put together a good one. It'll still be subject to all the usual nonsense.
- amanaplanacanal 1y ago
  Yep. The US has had several years without a budget, and it meant exactly nothing. Sort of like the debt limit, it leads to a lot of political maneuvering but doesn't actually limit anything.
  - smitty1e 1y ago
    > meant exactly nothing. "Excuse me?" said the burgeoning national debt.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

30k electors sounds great to me. One for ever ~12k people. It could be unpaid citizen body.

smitty1e 1y ago
Would likely prove unwieldy. They don't call for a vote without a known outcome; politics hates surprises.
- s1artibartfast 1y ago
  sounds better and better
  - smitty1e 1y ago
    The whole point of a Federal government is to make the year-on-year business of government more predictable. The question here is how to add enough feedback to keep the corruption minimal. We've known anecdotally for a long time that our government has gone to seed; DOGE has both broadcast the problem and generated will to reform.
    - s1artibartfast 1y ago
      with 30k electors in the house, I expect it would be much more predictable. It seems plausible to me that it would decrease corruption. It is a lot easier for power brokers and interests to lobby a 435 member house, than 30K member house. Inversely, it is a lot easier for a citizen to lobby their representative when they are 1/12,000 instead of 1/800k.
      - smitty1e 1y ago
        I submit that Dunbar's Number plays a role. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number 30k members--that's a couple of Army Divisions--is more likely to form rigid authoritarian groupings simple to get in and out of the building in a reasonable amount of time. People don't scale. The overhead of coordinating among so many people would be stifling. No, the correct approach in my view is to delegate as much as possible back to the States.

AngryData 1y ago

I find it hard to believe the House of Reps could be any more unwieldy than it already is though. More seats would make it far harder to buy and corrupt legislation votes and make it easier for independents and 3rd parties to gain seats.

wqaatwt 1y ago
Just replacing FPTP or any other proportional non-party list system would accomplish that.
- smitty1e 1y ago
  You can't physically seat them in the current venue, for starters. Also, for all of the defects of First Past the Post, it's well-understood and supports entry-level participation. The theoretical superiority of Ranked Choice Voting is overshadowed by the hidden assertion that everyone casting a ballot in RCV has done the homework. Having served as an election officer for the last 12yrs, the KISS superiority of FPTP is the least-worst alternatives. I wouldn't want RCV even at the county level.
  - wqaatwt 1y ago
    > can't physically Why? There is no need to increase their number. > overshadowed by the hidden assertion Even then it’s still superior. Even if everyone ignores the individual candidates and votes for a party in e.g. a 5 member constituency where the vote is split ~70:30 the minority party would likely get at least one seat when now votes are effectively thrown into the thrash bin. > Having served as an election officer for the last 12yrs The implication being that it would make the job too hard for you? FPTP is a horrible system any way you look at it. It results in almost 50% of the votes being outright discarded and permanently entrenches a 2 party system.
    - smitty1e 1y ago
      > It results in almost 50% of the votes being outright discarded and permanently entrenches a 2 party system. I don't see how either of these assertions follow. The size of the mandate is important, and the connection between a 2 party "system" and FPTP is something that you'd need to elaborate upon, because there is nothing about the ballot as such stipulating the number of parties. I. Fact, other parties are frequently on the ballot, so the dominance of 2 parties is not obviously connected to FPTP as such.

wqaatwt 1y ago

> were viewed dimly by the Founders Hypothetically that was true. Until those founders started engaging in actual politics and became rabidly partisan. There was a brief period when the Federalists collapsed and US effectively became a single party state with the Democratic-Republicans controlling everything but that was decades after the constitution was signed.

smitty1e 1y ago
Inviting the question of whether parliamentary systems offer substantial improvement. For a glance at Europe, I'm firmly in the skeptical camp.