On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 9:59 PM, Gruss G wrote: > > > RoMunn wrote: > > - that so many people believe this paranoid fantasy > > I'd be really concerned if I was still a Republican. By allowing > these people to define them - and they are - they're essentially > becoming the party of tin-foil hat and black helicopter. >
Which is funny because that is where the Democratic Party was circa 2003. Power corrupts for those in power, but for those out of power it causes tremendous fear and anxiety - the fear of the tyranny of the majority. As a society, we have every reason to fear the tyranny of the majority, whoever is in power. Obama was elected in part by people who wanted to change the dialog. But remember 2000, when Bush won with the notion of changing the dialog in Washington? The problem is not the players, the problem is the game. Why is it that a handful of people in a nation of 300 million can make all the rules? Look at these numbers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment#House_size Ratio of representation in the House, 17891923 Years Source Constituents per Representative 17891793 U.S. Constitution 30,000 17931803 U.S. Census of 1790 33,000 18031813 U.S. Census of 1800 33,000 18131823 U.S. Census of 1810 35,000 18231833 U.S. Census of 1820 40,000 18331843 U.S. Census of 1830 47,700 18431853 U.S. Census of 1840 70,680 18531863 U.S. Census of 1850 93,425 18631873 U.S. Census of 1860 127,381 18731883 U.S. Census of 1870 131,425 18831893 U.S. Census of 1880 151,912 18931903 U.S. Census of 1890 173,901 19031913 U.S. Census of 1900 194,182 19131923 U.S. Census of 1910 212,407 In 1789 there were 30K people per rep in the United States. Today that number is almost 700,000. So we have become 200x less representative than we were when the Constitution was ratified. I propose, as a realignment with the original intentions of the founders of Congress, that we go back to the original 30K per rep. formula, and adapt our way of governance to the age of information. Why does Congress have to meet in person in Washington? It doesn't, that's an anachronism of another era. We need radical de-evolution of power from the hands of a few people into the hands of many people. Reagan tried, but his goal was to push the power back to the states. That's better than the current situation, but it fails to address the root problem - that a really small group of people in Washington, DC wields a ridiculous amount of power over the lives of th ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:294706 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
