The point is ultimate size. Where do you draw the line ? Ideally 30,000 seems about right. But with current population that would require 10,000 Congressmen / women. Even a limit of 150,000 and that still is around 2000 people in Congress. OK, there is no Constitutional conflict, even if this does not seem right, maybe I am thinking of Congressional rules, in any case, where is there support for a greatly expanded Congress ? And in what sense should this be a priority at this time ? Why not a precinct system ? Than you could have 10,000 Precinct Leaders, or 25,000, and it would not matter. Even 3rd party politicos could sometimes win local elections. What would matter would be direct and regular access to members of Congress, which we do not have now --unless someone is a local power broker. And is representation the only role of a Congressman ? There also is leadership more generally, hence a need for name recognition, in which case you could argue for even fewer members of Congress. Note the e-mail : Absolutely right. The main issue for me about this silly idea to make a giant congress is it's already difficult for most people to keep track of the people at various levels who represent them. It would actually be much easier for special interests, who often have PACs who have a $5k donation limit that they could afford to give to tons of congresspersons, while regular people have a limited amount of funds that would be spread even more thin. It would be much harder for the media to keep track of them locally... it's just a big mess.
Solomon Kleinsmith ----------------------------------- Well, the idea has been worth kicking around. At some point, after still more thought on the subject, maybe it should be crafted into a new Amendment. Billy 11/29/2011 8:18:32 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes: This is a sticking point because increasing the size of the House will make it considerably easier to get our people elected. Smaller districts drive the cost of running an election way down; you can actually win an election of 150,000 residents by fostering permanent relationships without relying on costly and ineffective commercials and media. Running a campaign in districts with over 700,000 residents becomes a money battle, which minor parties and factions don't have. Then, even after election, Representatives spend half their career outside their district. Decorum: Size of the legislature has no direct correlation to the level of decorum of the body. South Korea, known for its all-out brawls, has 299 members. Taiwan, much the same situation, has 113 members. Griswold and Lyon went at it in the U.S. House in 1798 when it had 106 seats. I'd argue that it's the tradition of the country that defines the level of tact of the body. After the Civil War, the U.S. House became a distinctly more civil organization. Let's not also forget that standing rules of order, such as the U.S. House rule that disallows direct mention of another member on the floor. Constitution: The Constitution has only one mention of congress size: (Art. 1 Sec. 2) The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand. There is not one conflict in the U.S. Constitution that I can find. Costliness: Let's break down current costs: 435 * $174,000 = $75,690,000 - Salary 435 * ~$1,000,000 = $435,000,000 - Staff (18 employees at an average salary of $75,000), Office ($18,000 per year), Travel (~$10,000 per year), Franking (which alone averages $43,000 per district) Total: $510,690,000 Let's say we have 2,000 congressmen at $90,000 each, 45-75 shared research staff per state at $50,000 each, and a communications/ professional assistant for each congressman at $60,000. We eliminate franking, and allot three allowances for DC travel each year ($10,000 per congressman), to be adjusted as needed. We also create the same initial allowance for international travel, to be adjusted as requested. Finally, we give each a telecom allowance of $10,000. 2,000 * $90,000 = $180,000,000 - Salary 60 * 50 * $50,000 = $150,000,000 - Staff 2,000 * $60,000 = $120,000,000 - Personal Assistant 2,000 * $10,000 = $20,000,000 - Travel 2,000 * $10,000 = $20,000,000 - International Travel 2,000 * $10,000 = $20,000,000 - Telecom Total: $510,000,000 -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
