Political Monopoly Power

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Political Monopoly Power

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Oct 15, 2008 3:36 pm

This is a very interesting read. It does make you think.

http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008/10/15/political_monopoly_power
It discusses the implications of fixing the number of members of the house of representatives.

Excellent research, shows that in 1804 each representative represented about 40,000 people. Today, each representative represents close to 700,000. If we lived up to the vision of our founders, given today's population, we would have about 7,500 congressmen in the House of Representatives. It turns out that in 1929 Congress passed a bill fixing the number of representatives at 435. Prior to that, the number of congressional districts was increased every 10 years, from 1790 to 1910, except one, after a population census was taken.


How in the world is one congressman to represent the diverse interests and values of 700,000 people?


It basically is my argument for why most things should be decided at the state or local level and not the federal level. It's harder to corrupt more people and the consequence is less for each corrupt politician and bad decision. I had never thought about the less people per representative angle.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16111
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL


Re: Political Monopoly Power

Postby kingvjack » Wed Oct 15, 2008 3:44 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:This is a very interesting read. It does make you think.

http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008/10/15/political_monopoly_power
It discusses the implications of fixing the number of members of the house of representatives.

Excellent research, shows that in 1804 each representative represented about 40,000 people. Today, each representative represents close to 700,000. If we lived up to the vision of our founders, given today's population, we would have about 7,500 congressmen in the House of Representatives. It turns out that in 1929 Congress passed a bill fixing the number of representatives at 435. Prior to that, the number of congressional districts was increased every 10 years, from 1790 to 1910, except one, after a population census was taken.


How in the world is one congressman to represent the diverse interests and values of 700,000 people?


It basically is my argument for why most things should be decided at the state or local level and not the federal level. It's harder to corrupt more people and the consequence is less for each corrupt politician and bad decision. I had never thought about the less people per representative angle.


It makes me think.... "I sure wish there were fewer people around..."
kingvjack
hunter
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 8:14 pm
Location: El Dorado KS

Re: Political Monopoly Power

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Oct 15, 2008 4:00 pm

kingvjack wrote:It makes me think.... "I sure wish there were fewer people around..."
:rofl: :rofl:

I grew up in a town with one stop light and now I live in the Chicago sprawl :help: I know what your talking about.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16111
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby GroundSwatter » Wed Oct 15, 2008 4:14 pm

"Numerous bodies ... are less subject to venality and corruption. " In a word, he saw competition in the political arena as the best means for protecting our liberties. If Madison were around today to see today's venal and corrupt Congress, he'd probably say, "See, I told you so!"



I like this one. Only problem is we would have to raise taxes to support a few thousand more representatives, but if it gets the lobbyists out of the picture than so be it.
It's a fact that 70 percent of the people who purchase heavier tackle do so with the categorical I just lost a huge snook! Einstein Hairdo.The other 30 percent have either Tarpon Fever or are sporting a hand cramped into a claw from a deepwater grouper.
User avatar
GroundSwatter
hunter
 
Posts: 3641
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 3:22 pm
Location: GTMO from NE Texas

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Oct 15, 2008 4:26 pm

I think we can find the money since the Federal budget is $2.8T, which is $5.2B worth of spending for each of the 535 members of Congress. A budget of $2M for 500 new members would only increase the budget by 0.04%. I think we can squeeze it in.

Raising salaries would probably help a little as well. Anybody you would want to be a legislator, especially at the state level, would probably have to take a huge pay cut in addition to all the B.S. of running for office. It's hard to justify this if you have a family. If you lose, you lose and if you win you lose.

I'll always have more faith in those that chooses money over power. Those that choose power over money scare me.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16111
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL


Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests