3 ms·

The local congressman is doing something for his voters. It's his job. It's also why Americans think dimly of congress as a whole.

by kiba 12y ago

mcv 12y ago
Is his job as a federal congressman to only think of his own state at a cost to the rest of the country? If that's the case, then maybe it's time that the US got a national parliament (with proportional representation) unencumbered by the district system.
- raldi 12y ago
  Unfortunately, this is literally the one thing that even a constitutional amendment can't do. The part of the US constitution that describes the process of amending specifically forbids any amendment from depriving any state of its equal senate representation.
  - inclemnet 12y ago
    Honest question: is it legally impossible to first amend the constitution to remove that restriction?
    - Zach_the_Lizard 12y ago
      You might be able to do that, but the clause in Article Five itself doesn't say the Senate can't be killed; it says "no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." You could abolish the Senate if all states agree to remove equal Senate suffrage.
  - Zach_the_Lizard 12y ago
    > that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. Above is the relevant section of Article Five. If every state agrees to removing the Senate, the Senate could be killed off entirely. Failing that, it may be possible to remove any power the Senate has in an amendment and grant states the ability to not have members of the Senate if they so choose, with the Senate to be abolished if no state puts forth a senator. Of course, such an amendment is virtually impossible to get passed considering that it would greatly reduce the power of states like North Dakota that have tiny populations.
  - mcv 12y ago
    Just the Senate? I'd gladly accept just proportional representation in the House, as long as the Senate is restricted from meddling in party politics, and just oversees the division of power between the federal level and the states, and the constitutionality of laws.
    - seanflyon 12y ago
      I don't think "restricted from meddling in party politics" means anything unless you want to establish another political body with the power to overrule the Senate if they think they are "meddling". Also, it is the Supreme Court that has the job of determining the constitutionality of laws.
- seanflyon 12y ago
  I wonder, does the European Space Agency have the same problem? They have the same potential for conflict of interest, but perhaps individual politicians have less say in how money is spent.
gadders 12y ago
No, he is trying to get re-elected, which is his job. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice#Special_interests http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice#Special_interests
- whistlerbrk 12y ago
  all of this, every time: mayday.us

The local congressman is doing something for his voters. It's his job. It's also why Americans think dimly of congress as a whole.

by kiba 12y ago

The local congressman is doing something for his voters. It's his job. It's also why Americans think dimly of congress as a whole.

mcv 12y ago

Is his job as a federal congressman to only think of his own state at a cost to the rest of the country? If that's the case, then maybe it's time that the US got a national parliament (with proportional representation) unencumbered by the district system.

raldi 12y ago
Unfortunately, this is literally the one thing that even a constitutional amendment can't do. The part of the US constitution that describes the process of amending specifically forbids any amendment from depriving any state of its equal senate representation.
- inclemnet 12y ago
  Honest question: is it legally impossible to first amend the constitution to remove that restriction?
  - Zach_the_Lizard 12y ago
    You might be able to do that, but the clause in Article Five itself doesn't say the Senate can't be killed; it says "no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." You could abolish the Senate if all states agree to remove equal Senate suffrage.
- Zach_the_Lizard 12y ago
  > that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. Above is the relevant section of Article Five. If every state agrees to removing the Senate, the Senate could be killed off entirely. Failing that, it may be possible to remove any power the Senate has in an amendment and grant states the ability to not have members of the Senate if they so choose, with the Senate to be abolished if no state puts forth a senator. Of course, such an amendment is virtually impossible to get passed considering that it would greatly reduce the power of states like North Dakota that have tiny populations.
- mcv 12y ago
  Just the Senate? I'd gladly accept just proportional representation in the House, as long as the Senate is restricted from meddling in party politics, and just oversees the division of power between the federal level and the states, and the constitutionality of laws.
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    I don't think "restricted from meddling in party politics" means anything unless you want to establish another political body with the power to overrule the Senate if they think they are "meddling". Also, it is the Supreme Court that has the job of determining the constitutionality of laws.
seanflyon 12y ago
I wonder, does the European Space Agency have the same problem? They have the same potential for conflict of interest, but perhaps individual politicians have less say in how money is spent.

gadders 12y ago

No, he is trying to get re-elected, which is his job. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice#Special_interests http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice#Special_interests

whistlerbrk 12y ago
all of this, every time: mayday.us