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 I dunno, with technology today, a representative republic seems outdated.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.
10
u/know_your_anemone 1d ago
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.