• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

There should be fewer people in the House and Senate

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,491
553
126
I agree, halve the HoR and halve the terms for all of congress. Too many cooks in the kitchen. It's also harder to gerrymander with fewer districts. And get rid of the electoral college.
So you want the term for Representatives to be 1 year? Or did you mean institute term limits?
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,497
3
0
So you want the term for Representatives to be 1 year? Or did you mean institute term limits?
Yes, each Rep up for reelection every year. Fewer gerrymandered districts plus the much more watchful eye and longer memory the internet gives the people I think would make term limits largely irrelevant.
 

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
I'd actually extend it to three years. Already for House members they are constantly fundraising. Because people know who their president is but not many really know about their congressman, and in such low-information contests, money really does play a huge factor.

But on that point, I don't think many people really pay that much attention to their congressperson. People pay more attention to the president.
 

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,528
621
126
I would not want less people in the House and the Senate. If I want to contact and talk to my congressman/senator, I can presently. Less representatives would reduce the opportunity for me to have a say and speak to my representative about issues that concern me.

I wonder if anyone here has actually spoken to or corresponded with any of their representatives.

Having an election every year is going to make it mighty expensive for corporations to own congressional pets.
And provide no time for your congressman to do their job, they would be spending all of their time campaigning.
 
Last edited:

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
I would not want less people in the House and the Senate. If I want to contact and talk to my congressman/senator, I can presently. Less representatives would reduce the opportunity for me to have a say and speak to my representative about issues that concern me.

I wonder if anyone here has actually spoken to or corresponded with any of their representatives.



And provide no time for your congressman to do their job, they would be spending all of their time campaigning.
for all the talk about states rights and local governance, you can make contact with your local state representative.
 

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
/facepalm

Which I already do but doesn't allow me to voice my concern around national issues.
I don't think that's such a big deal though. national issues are big things like national defense and entitlement reform, while local issues are about local stuff like cops, land issues, etc. I suppose there is like the EPA to contend with, but generally you will encounter them at a fraction of the rate that you have to deal with state and local government.
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,491
553
126
I would not want less people in the House and the Senate. If I want to contact and talk to my congressman/senator, I can presently. Less representatives would reduce the opportunity for me to have a say and speak to my representative about issues that concern me.

I wonder if anyone here has actually spoken to or corresponded with any of their representatives.
I've spoken with Senator Lugar before -- 23 years ago. :D Also emailed both of my Senators and Representative and have gotten replies.

And provide no time for your congressman to do their job, they would be spending all of their time campaigning.
This. They'd be campaigning all the time and that might even lead to more corruption as they'd be constantly hitting up rich buddies, corporations, etc. for money.
 

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,528
621
126
I don't think that's such a big deal though. national issues are big things like national defense and entitlement reform, while local issues are about local stuff like cops, land issues, etc. I suppose there is like the EPA to contend with, but generally you will encounter them at a fraction of the rate that you have to deal with state and local government.
You don't care about the Federal Budget, Taxes, etc?
 

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
You don't care about the Federal Budget, Taxes, etc?
they matter but your input isn't really going to matter on that issue.

OTOH, your input on how county and state policy affects property you own is very relevant to the jobs of state senators and representatives.
 

Demo24

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
8,357
9
81
A corporation is a group of people working towards a common purpose. But fine. Let's say, your local non-profit. Hospital or University. The decision-making body for any organization never numbers more than fifty.

I outlined why smart governance would be easier with fewer people. With fewer people in a room you can lower your voices and talk nuance. With more people, you have to shout more to get your point across. This leads to people taking on more extreme positions I think.

They also only look over a few hundred to a few thousand people, not 311 million. Stupid comparison.


Reducing numbers also means you can't balance out the crazy as much.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,497
3
0
Do you guys think we would get better government if we tripled the number of Reps? That's about where we would be had the current limit not been instituted a hundred years ago.
 

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
They also only look over a few hundred to a few thousand people, not 311 million. Stupid comparison.


Reducing numbers also means you can't balance out the crazy as much.
generally I'd say there are more crazy people in the House than the Senate. It was the House that almost defaulted on the national debt. It is the House that has Michelle bachmann as a member. Because House members only have to satisfy small slices of the population compared to Senators, they can be more extreme.

Fewer reps = more people represented per rep.

Actually, the federal government while it is the largest employer in the country, probably employs about the same amount of people as say (I'm guessing) the top 10 corporations in the country. And the corporations serve the 311 million people in the USA also.
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,497
1
81
Basically, the US congress would work better if there were fewer people. Fewer people = less waste on parochial projects and less noise. People would have more time to get to know their fellow lawmakers. The reason that partisanship is such a problem IMO is because it is one of the only clear ways through the noise that 535 House members and 100 senate members represents.

Also, on a side note, I also think it would be better if social issues like abortion and gay marriage were left to the states and were not national issues. People might pay more attention to their local government elections then.
Congress, and actually the US government was designed to be slow. Only in emergencies does the government respond quickly.
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,936
1
0
generally I'd say there are more crazy people in the House than the Senate. It was the House that almost defaulted on the national debt. It is the House that has Michelle bachmann as a member. Because House members only have to satisfy small slices of the population compared to Senators, they can be more extreme...
That's actually by design. The House has a relatively large number of members with a relatively short term of office so that they may represent the public passions of the moment. The Senate has fewer members with a longer term of office and a staggered turnover so that they may take a longer view of the best interests of the States and the Republic. As long as we can keep the true crazies isolated to the House there is a check on their excesses.
 

sportage

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2008
8,878
1,158
126
I still think its outrageous so many in congress rant against big government, government healthcare, government waste, government workers, unions all while they get their beloved paycheck from big government, enjoy their government healthcare, nice fat government pensions, nice fatgovernment perks, and they all become very very wealthy from their experience with that government job that they claim to hate so profoundly.
Hey Johnny Boehner...?

Seriously, have you ever ONCE heard one of them talk about cutting THEIR government perks or income?
 

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
That's actually by design. The House has a relatively large number of members with a relatively short term of office so that they may represent the public passions of the moment. The Senate has fewer members with a longer term of office and a staggered turnover so that they may take a longer view of the best interests of the States and the Republic. As long as we can keep the true crazies isolated to the House there is a check on their excesses.
The purpose of government is to make efficient and democratic decisions.

THere shouldn't be any crazies in government, I"m sorry.
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,936
1
0
The purpose of government is to make efficient and democratic decisions.

THere shouldn't be any crazies in government, I"m sorry.
The United States is a democratic republic. Who are you to tell the citizens of that republic that they cannot select certain representatives because you don't approve of their choices?

To paraphrase the late Roman Hruska, there are a lot of crazy people. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they?
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,947
2,322
126
Basically, the US congress would work better if there were fewer people. Fewer people = less waste on parochial projects and less noise. People would have more time to get to know their fellow lawmakers. The reason that partisanship is such a problem IMO is because it is one of the only clear ways through the noise that 535 House members and 100 senate members represents.
I can get a meeting with my Congressman or get him on the phone a hellofa lot easier than my senator. I would wager that is because my Congressman represents a much smaller portion of my states population.


Also, on a side note, I also think it would be better if social issues like abortion and gay marriage were left to the states and were not national issues. People might pay more attention to their local government elections then.
Agreed. Plus it is insanely easier for people to get local/state laws that they disagree with changed and worst case move to another state. Changing federal law or moving to another country, not so much.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY