Mike :
I take it that this is a subject that has special
interest for you.
Since I'm not quite as bent out of shape about it, my
response
will be somewhat briefer.
Suppose we set the "ideal" ratio of citizens to
representatives at 30,000 : 1.
Given current population this translates into about
10,000 Congressmen / women.
OK, this is unrealistic, we cut that by half, to 60,000
: 1, that still is 5,000 representatives.
Too large ? Very well, how about 120,000 :
1.? That is 2,500 in Congress.
Repeat the process, a quarter of a million to one = 1,
250 members.
Granted the House of Commons has more MPs that we have
Congressspersons,
but have you ever watched Parliament in action ? They
show it on C-Span
now and then. What a travesty. Constant shouting, zero
decorum on many
occasions, boos, loud noises when someone deigns to
speak, and on and on.
I really am not impressed.
I will stick to the principle that 500 is an approximate
upper limit for
an actually deliberative body. Could be more if they were
all
Buddhist monks or Catholic bishops, but I don't see this
as a likely future for Congress.
Using your figures as a rough guide, each Congressman /
lady, costs us
about $ 3 million per year, including 18 staffers,
franking, office space, etc,
So we increase their number to 1250. That is over 800 new
representatives.
The increase comes in at about $ 2-1/2
billion per year.
$ 25 billion over 10 years.
$ 50 billion over 20 years.
We find all kinds of economies, do some drastic cutting,
down by 50 %,
and that still would be about $ 12.5 billion each
decade.
$ 25 billion for 20 years.
All right with you ?
And, O yeah, there is that awkward document called the US
Constitution.
We forget about it ? Just a detail we don't need to worry
about ?
Ummm, seems to me that this is a MAJOR issue,
anything but a footnote to our considerations.
-----
Re : " there is no business that can be
done face to face that
can't be done hundreds of miles away."
Only for some
functions.
I would compare this with telecourses / education. Sure,
content can
be imparted via TV, but missing is ( most ) student
interaction, teacher-student
"real time" interaction, informal discussions after
class, and a lot of
intangibles that are probably unquantifiable but
important nonetheless.
Telecourses are a lot better than nothing, but not as
good as in-person classes.
To me, this is an unarguable fact.
Sure, to switch metaphors, you could marry a woman via
computer
but I doubt if you would say that in a marriage "there is no business that
can be done face to face
that can't be done hundreds of miles away."
Not quite the same thing,
but to get the idea across. Besides, given
examples like Herman Cain
and Bill Clinton ( and God only knows
how many others ), the
comparison has some merit.
I am anything but a technophobe, but technology
has serious limitations.
Anyway, no argument that we need a better system of
representation,
but what is wrong with adding a new kind of local gvt,
consisting of
elected leaders at the precinct level who , by law, are
able to meet 1 : 1
with House members on a regular basis ?
Not "precinct captains" who are appointed by local party
bosses, but elected
officials who could be from any party, including "3rd
parties."
Costs per precinct leader would be a small fraction of
that for Representatives in DC.
This system also has the advantage of least amount
of messing with the Constitution.
Reaction ?
Billy
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argument:
There are benefits to in-person argument and discussion.
Response:
As technology has adjusted to the demands of interpersonal
communication, there is no business that can be done face
to face that
can't be done hundreds of miles away. I would respond that
there is no
measurable benefit to convening in D.C. outside of
traditional
circumstances (SOTU, major speeches, etc.)
Argument:
There are size limitations on the effectiveness of
deliberative
bodies- likely about 500.
Response:
The United Kingdom operates with 650 MPs and 744 Lords,
one of many
stable legislative systems that break that treshold.
Argument:
We could not find a way to pay these extra $1,000-2,000
congressmen
without adding to our debt problem.
Response:
The salary of a congressman ($174,000) is just a drop in
the bucket
compared to their franking privileges, the district office
rental,
their up to 18 permanent staff members at up to $150,000
each, and
domestic travel (minimum of $9,700). We can certainly
reform the
system and cut costs.
We have, as a proportion, nearly the poorest
representation in the
entire Western hemisphere. If America had the same level
of
representation as Canada, we would have 2,778
congressional districts.
In pure numbers, we're beaten by Mexico, Cuba, and Brazil.
The New
Hampshire House of Representatives (population 1.3
million) has nearly
as many members as the U.S. House (population 312
million). We can't
even get residents of our capital their own voting
representation.
Meanwhile, we have a series of 435 feifdoms headed by a
body with a
95% re-election rate. Strongmen in the Middle East are
more likely to
be removed from office than our representatives, even at
an 13%
approval rate.
But, even through all this, our legislative system is not
broken.
We're stable. We don't resort to violence and
assassinations to
influence policy. We can still do better, though.
--
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
