Enlarging congress, real campaign finance reform?

[charrison]

Right now each congress critter represents about 600,000 people. When the constitution was written, the founding fathers worred about congressional districts that were larger than 20,000 people. Right now the US has one of the lowest ratios of representation in the world with only 435 people in congress to represent almost 300 million people.


I dont know of it would be possible to have a congressman represent 20,000 people as there would 15,000 people in congress. Even at a level of 100,000 that would still be 3000 people. This however would greatly reduce the cost of getting elected to congress.



Thoughts/comments?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Might work...but making them voluteer positions would help too

CkG

 

[amok]

While great in theory, I don't think it would really work out in practice. TV ads are popular for politicians, and they reach 600,000 as easily as 100,000 and cost the same. The same is true with most popular forms of media, at least in metropolitan areas. In those areas especially, the costs would escalate for the simple reason that you have more people spending nearly the same amount of money. In rural areas, it would be offset by more people spending less money.

Secondly, how does increasing the number of congressmen effect the cost of government? Consider it a hunch, but I don't think costs will go down . I also have doubts as to whether or not increased representation will really increase the number of people who are willing to listen on congress.

 

[Strk]

Personally, instead of increasing the size of Congress, I'd rather see it switched to a proportional representation system as well as terms changed to match presidential elections.(ie: have all Congressional and Executive elections at the same time, both state and federal, and all switched to a 4 year term.)

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: amok
While great in theory, I don't think it would really work out in practice. TV ads are popular for politicians, and they reach 600,000 as easily as 100,000 and cost the same. The same is true with most popular forms of media, at least in metropolitan areas. In those areas especially, the costs would escalate for the simple reason that you have more people spending nearly the same amount of money. In rural areas, it would be offset by more people spending less money.

Secondly, how does increasing the number of congressmen effect the cost of government? Consider it a hunch, but I don't think costs will go down . I also have doubts as to whether or not increased representation will really increase the number of people who are willing to listen on congress.

Tv media is effective for getting from the politician to the people, the reverse is not true.
This would also make it easier for anyone to get into politics as the bar would get lowered on what it takes to get elected(less political interests could be given to a single candidate)

This would also help get rid of political gerrymandering as political districts would be much smaller.

 

[LunarRay]

I would think our local elected folks could just as easily vote from here our wishes. We don't need them all in one place, I don't think. We have 5 counsel folks and we are about 13000 so why do we need congress folks. Do it on the internet..

 

[amok]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I would think our local elected folks could just as easily vote from here our wishes. We don't need them all in one place, I don't think. We have 5 counsel folks and we are about 13000 so why do we need congress folks. Do it on the internet..

IMO, there might be too much on some people's plates doing that. If local officials had to deal with national issues as well, there would be times where a lot was going on at one time and they might not get to research all the issues as well as they should.

However, I don't think that politicians staying local would be a bad idea at all. Easier access to be sure, and they would be kept more aware that they are in their positions to serve those that elected them.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: amok
While great in theory, I don't think it would really work out in practice. TV ads are popular for politicians, and they reach 600,000 as easily as 100,000 and cost the same. The same is true with most popular forms of media, at least in metropolitan areas. In those areas especially, the costs would escalate for the simple reason that you have more people spending nearly the same amount of money. In rural areas, it would be offset by more people spending less money.

I see that as part of the problem. TV advertising tends to be big on sound bites and hair-dos but devoid of useful content. If districts were really small, broadcast advertising in general and TV in particular would no longer be cost-effective. Politicians would have to fall back on local events and printed materials to spread their message.

Secondly, how does increasing the number of congressmen effect the cost of government? Consider it a hunch, but I don't think costs will go down . I also have doubts as to whether or not increased representation will really increase the number of people who are willing to listen on congress.

Maybe. If you had several thousand Congressman, it seems much more difficult to strike personal deals where Congressmen agree to support each other's pork. That alone could reduce government spending.

Even more, corporate lobbying becomes more expensive and less effective. A company would have to buy a lot more Congress-critters to ram through the most expensive and most odious corporate welfare. It seems like corporate money would lose influence for all but the very deepest pockets.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison
Right now each congress critter represents about 600,000 people. When the constitution was written, the founding fathers worred about congressional districts that were larger than 20,000 people. Right now the US has one of the lowest ratios of representation in the world with only 435 people in congress to represent almost 300 million people.


I dont know of it would be possible to have a congressman represent 20,000 people as there would 15,000 people in congress. Even at a level of 100,000 that would still be 3000 people. This however would greatly reduce the cost of getting elected to congress.



Thoughts/comments?

There isn't a snowball's chance of it happening, but it's a fascinating idea. I can see a lot of potential upside as I mention above. The logisitics would be a nightmare. It would also probably shift too much power to the Senate unless we increased its size too, maybe eight to ten people per state.

 

[Bitdog]

With the political cut throating going on, where it's one political party against the other,
takes priority to representing the people, any kind of major change in our government is to invite takeover.
Redistricting was a recient political take over tactic. That was in Bushes home state of Texas wasn't it ?

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Bitdog
With the political cut throating going on, where it's one political party against the other,
takes priority to representing the people, any kind of major change in our government is to invite takeover.
Redistricting was a recient political take over tactic. That was in Bushes home state of Texas wasn't it ?

Redistricting is nothing new, but yes, there is an issue in Texas with redistricting.(I forget the exact issue though)

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Strk
Personally, instead of increasing the size of Congress, I'd rather see it switched to a proportional representation system as well as terms changed to match presidential elections.(ie: have all Congressional and Executive elections at the same time, both state and federal, and all switched to a 4 year term.)

Proportional representation is what already exists, with an absolute minimum requirement.

If the terms were changed to everything expire at once, the complete political system would enter the election year gridlock. Also, the turnover within the congress potentially could be so large as to handicap operations for a couple of years. It takes anywhere from 6-18 months for a freshmand congressmand to become aware of how things work. Many depending on the staff. That would then generate a stronger influence by existing staff and lobbiests in the control (see the movie with Eddie Murphy as a congressman from FLA).

Staggered terms expiration is much better.