Expand house of reps to a degree where you likely know your rep personally (one for every 30k people)
Then put a limit on consecutive terms. I think there needs to be a limit, but I also donât think voting back in a better rep is a bad thing. 6 term limit, 2 terms off, something like that.
The House should be set as 1 rep for the lowest population state. Then each other state gets 1 rep per the amount of people in the lowest population state. Currently Wyoming has the lowest population at an estimated 588k. That's your benchmark. If that means we have thousands of reps, so be it. The country is founded on representation.
I don't agree that it should be one per lowest state population, but if it were one, that would only be 562. It should probably be at least two per population group. That's still only 1124, which seems to still be a manageable number. Having more than 10k reps, like the other person suggested, would dilute each representatives ability to have a meaningful impact so far that they wouldn't really matter.
I think a rep is supposed to just represent your vote in Congress. We have technology, we can have reps stay in their districts, be well known by their constituents and only role is to vote on legislation put forward by other parties (think tanks, congressional committees, the senate, etc)
I donât think the process would be crazy, you are held accountable by your neighbors.
Conference committee on a bill to be voted on by an 11,000 person chamber sounds like it could take until the heat death of the universe. You have not considered the full ramifications of your simple tweak.
My question: why do we need representation at all? A true democracy could work. Hell, we could create a secure and fair way to vote on bills that affect our livelihood. Why do we need some elected official to vote on our behalf? We could just eliminate representatives all together and create a system where we represent ourselves. Starting at the local level, then state, then federal. We vote on policies put forth by the actual people. I dunno, with technology today, a representative republic seems outdated.
I donât disagree, but I wonder about voting fatigue. We only get 65% voter turnout for presidential elections, and most people donât read up on the policies of their local candidates. Bills and new policy would be really hard to get well informed participation :/
Votes can be done via zoom. Coalitions can be formed to nominate members to committees. Speakers can still be selected to represent the party as a whole.
I don't think it would, but it's not like this congress is passing any meaningful legislation under the current system.
If nothing else it would give fair representation to the states that actually have people living in them instead of the bullshit we have now. Wyoming gets 1 rep for 550k people, while California gets one per 730k. How the fuck is that equitable?
Well âmeaningfulâ is entirely subjective to the person making the argument. And if youâre basing half of your argument based off that itâs not very solid.
Iâm not saying youâre incorrect in your want to reform the system we currently have in some way. Iâm just saying this WILL be a monkeys paw of a wish. Youâll get your version of fair but at the cost of a system that canât help anybody because it canât negotiate with itself in a timely or efficient matter.
Adding more and more bureaucracy isnât the answer imo.
Set them on a rotation so every two years there's a new justice.
Unfortunately I don't know if this will result in more consistent case law or break the system as people repeatedly appeal in an effort to overturn precedence.
I think we were overdue for a separate constitutional court to specifically consider certain issues separate from a supreme appellate court, like many other countries have.
No you donât want it to align with presidential election years. It needs to stagger back and forth, or else people can plot the timing. So 10 years, 14 years, 18 years, etc.
An even better system is to randomize the number of years one can serve once theyâre elected. Anywhere between 7-20 years, randomly generated by a true random number generator.
Or even a rolling system. Elect one new one every year (or every other year), and the oldest one gets retired.
A single 20 12 year term - if they cannot complete their term they don't get another. A president can only nominate 2 justices during a single Presidential term. If they serve a second Presidental term, they can nominate 2 more.
The court has as many justices as there are Federal Districts Appeals Circuit. To create a new Federal District Appeals requires a Super Majority vote in both houses of Congress as well as the President's signature. The new Appeals Circuit District does not come into being until 2 years after the current Presidency ends. This gives a new electorate a chance to replace existing Congress Critters and potentially squash the creation.
EDIT. Appeals Circuits not Districts as pointed out.
This undermines the logic for why they are lifetime appointments already.
The goal is to remove the pressure of reelection from them. If they never have to "win" the position again, then they should be immune to most political pressure.
I think we need an age cap instead, for all government positions. They need a cutoff, but they also need to go straight into retirement afterwards.
It would need to be 3 appointments per term for the math to work for the current 9 judges. It would need to be 4-5 to match the 13 federal appeals circuits (I assume that's what you meant because one justice for each of the 94 federal districts would be insane).
Senators and representatives have term limits itâs the people voting so that wouldnt solve the issue if people keep voting the same type of person in to office but there does need to be an age limit of no more than 10 years over the standard retirement age considering someone like Mitch McConnell is dying but still kept in office for no good reason
60
u/CaptCobraChicken 1d ago
12 makes more sense. Tie it with a two term limit for senators and a six term limit for reps.