There should be fewer people in the House and Senate

[Darwin333]

The purpose of government is to make efficient and democratic decisions.

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

We could try a poll tax to make sure only the rich and smart people vote. Oh wait, nevermind we can't do that either.

Thats all I got.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

The fewer districts a state gets carved into the more diluted the crazy vote becomes and the less likely each district is to elect a crazy. Assuming the whole state isn't crazy.

 

[lothar]

I disagree, we should actually have more representatives.

I would like to see the senate of 100 broken into 2 houses. So each would have 50, and we'd have a total of 50 houses. We could call it the Lesser Senate and the Greater Senate. Their elections would alternate.

We already have this.
Class I, Class II, and Class III Senators exist and their election alternates.

 

[shortylickens]

I agree we need less bullshit on capital hill. But if you look at history you'll see no one ever voluntarily gives up power. It needs to be taken from them.

The 2nd amendment isnt to protect you from your peers, its to protect you from your government.

 

[fskimospy]

I agree we need less bullshit on capital hill. But if you look at history you'll see no one ever voluntarily gives up power. It needs to be taken from them.

The 2nd amendment isnt to protect you from your peers, its to protect you from your government.

*sigh*

What exactly would you cite as the cause for violent revolution?

 

[shortylickens]

*sigh*

What exactly would you cite as the cause for violent revolution?

Nothing.

Please stop assuming. Its irritating.

Also, I love eskimos and their pies but never knew they had spies.

 

[fskimospy]

Nothing.

Please stop assuming. Its irritating.

Also, I love eskimos and their pies but never knew they had spies.

You said that power needed to be taken from our representatives in Washington. You then stated the Second Amendment was the method by which to protect ourselves from the government.

My assumption was pretty damn safe.

 

[Ninjahedge]

If you eliminated special interest groups and lobbiests, I think you will get more of what you are looking for.

 

[Griffinhart]

The one body in the US governance which has somewhat high approval ratings is the US Supreme Court. They have 9 members. The US Congress has like a 9% approval rating right now.

It is simply harder to craft good policy with so many chefs.

The supreme court only has 9 members and has better approval ratings because they do not pass laws or set policy. They have three responsibilities.

1. Settle disputes between states.
2. Hear Appeals from state and federal courts
3. Determine the constitutionality of federal laws

An interesting note. The New Hampshire State House has 400 members. That means that there is 1 rep for every 3300 person in the state. The same ratio in the US house would mean over 99000 members.

What fascinates me about the NH house is that they essentially do not get paid. Unless you consider a $200 every 2 years salary pay. People do not become rich while in office.

Got to love New Hampshire.
-Ranked 7th for median income levels in the US. (Over $60K a year)
-One of the lowest unemployment rates in the US. Currently tied for 4th lowest at 5.1%
-Zero income tax
-Zero Sales Tax
-Among the lowest crime rates in the the US
-One of the highest literacy rates in the country and the highest in all of New England.
-Ranked as the most free state in the US.

 

[sm625]

The number of senators is fine. What is wrong is that those senators need to be chosen by the state legislators, not in the popular elections. You know, the way the founders originally intended.

 

[fskimospy]

The number of senators is fine. What is wrong is that those senators need to be chosen by the state legislators, not in the popular elections. You know, the way the founders originally intended.

Nope, they sure don't need to be.

The founders screwed up a lot of things in the Constitution, and that was one of them.

 

[micrometers]

The number of senators is fine. What is wrong is that those senators need to be chosen by the state legislators, not in the popular elections. You know, the way the founders originally intended.

That is the one good tea party idea I think. It would force people to pay more attention to local government elections. As it is, I feel that people mainly pay attention to national government, while a few special interests pay attention to local government.

 

[micrometers]

Nope, they sure don't need to be.

The founders screwed up a lot of things in the Constitution, and that was one of them.

The rationale I think is that state and local is where a lot of inefficiency exists in government. Because state and local elections tend to be such low turnout, they can be manipulated by special interests like teachers unions too easily.

 

[fskimospy]

The rationale I think is that state and local is where a lot of inefficiency exists in government. Because state and local elections tend to be such low turnout, they can be manipulated by special interests like teachers unions too easily.

There are a ton of reasons why Senators shouldn't be elected by the state legislatures. First, you nailed. State governments are notoriously corrupt, giving those legislatures more federal power is the last thing they need. Secondly, the Senate was built in that way in order to give a voice to the upper classes in government. I for one think they have quite enough of a voice already.

 

[micrometers]

There are a ton of reasons why Senators shouldn't be elected by the state legislatures. First, you nailed. State governments are notoriously corrupt, giving those legislatures more federal power is the last thing they need. Secondly, the Senate was built in that way in order to give a voice to the upper classes in government. I for one think they have quite enough of a voice already.

and as I said, forcing people to pay attention to state and local government as a way of influencing national issues is a good thing. This would force people to pay more attention to state and local, and thus reduce corruption.

 

[fskimospy]

and as I said, forcing people to pay attention to state and local government as a way of influencing national issues is a good thing. This would force people to pay more attention to state and local, and thus reduce corruption.

I sincerely doubt that adding the choice of senators to the power of state legislatures would change much, if anything. It certainly wouldn't counteract the results of putting an entire federal branch of government at the mercy of these corrupt bodies.

People already don't know or don't care who their senators are. Giving state legislatures the power to appoint people they neither know nor care about would not help things. The reason people don't care about local government is that it deals with small issues, and people only barely care enough to vote for big issues. (despite the fact that local government affects their lives far more than federal gov. does)

I personally am a fan of removing powers from the states, not granting them new ones.

 

[Ninjahedge]

The supreme court only has 9 members and has better approval ratings because they do not pass laws or set policy. They have three responsibilities.

1. Settle disputes between states.
2. Hear Appeals from state and federal courts
3. Determine the constitutionality of federal laws

An interesting note. The New Hampshire State House has 400 members. That means that there is 1 rep for every 3300 person in the state. The same ratio in the US house would mean over 99000 members.

What fascinates me about the NH house is that they essentially do not get paid. Unless you consider a $200 every 2 years salary pay. People do not become rich while in office.

Got to love New Hampshire.
-Ranked 7th for median income levels in the US. (Over $60K a year)
-One of the lowest unemployment rates in the US. Currently tied for 4th lowest at 5.1%
-Zero income tax
-Zero Sales Tax
-Among the lowest crime rates in the the US
-One of the highest literacy rates in the country and the highest in all of New England.
-Ranked as the most free state in the US.

So.... what's the suicide rate in this blossom of a state?