Actually the idea --see other e-mail-- is for a new kind of official. Could be called anything. Seneschal. Major Domo. Neighborhood Chief But "Precinct Leader" sounds better. Nothing to do with Precinct Captains, who are party workers. Who gets the ear of the Representative ? As things are, he / she hears out constituents in local town halls, maybe, since some don't do this, or lobbyists, plus favorite cronies and local office holders like mayors. This would give neighborhoods representation by way of an official office for the purpose, but keeping the number of members of the House within reason. I think we would get a zoo if the number was increased to 1500. But I get the argument that when there are hundreds of thousands who are represented only a few selected interests actually are heard. This is not a big priority of mine, however, the subject simply came up in conversation and sounded interesting. Billy -------------------------- 11/29/2011 6:40:28 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
Ironically, the Constitution does not have the number of congress-critters etched in stone. It lets Congress itself decide. The current 435 ceiling came into being early last century. It wasn't until the 1960s that the courts got involved in making all districts within a state have the same population. At least for Texas. In 1960, rural Wharton County with a population of 40,000 had a state representative. Harris County had 4. "So what?" one might say. Harris County is Houston, 800,000 at the time. One per 40,000 for Wharton, 1 per 200,000 for Harris. Rich ranchers ruled the state (like LBJ). Texas currently elects precinct captains for each party. If no one runs, then the County level party appoints someone. I take it you would have these run against each other for the "actual" precinct captain. No? David _ "Remember, to a liberal, anyone who makes money in an endeavor frowned upon by liberals is 'greedy' and any person who expresses an idea contrary to basic liberal dogma is preaching 'hate.' How shallow these people are."— Neal Boortz On 11/29/2011 1:16 AM, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) wrote: 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11/28/2011 9:26:50 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) writes: 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
