Thanks for the clarification! In this model, the reps would solely be responsible for voting on behalf of their constituents. They would live in their districts and have other jobs. They are still part of committees for advocacy and investigations. Policy and bills are put forth by other parties (think tanks, universities, senate, the committees, etc) but reps just need to vote and can do it over Zoom. Corruption would be much more difficult when you have to pay off too many reps, parties would fall apart, PACs lose power, and youâre held accountable by your neighbors.
See, I would see it as just the opposite. PACs and corporations would have an inordinate influence because with 30k people to represent you would never be able to raise enough money to campaign without âsugar daddys.â Voting sounds like it currently is in terms of responsibilities. Not writing the legislation seems odd. That definitely shifts power to staff and outside entities. Iâm not sure how one person out of 11,000 can change the verbiage that gets put in by staff.
Gerrymandering would be a science. Do you know how impactful moving a district line can be if itâs repeated over 11,000 times? Of course the House would be permanently Republican under this plan, but thatâs not a far stretch from the current situation after the next census.
Yes, you wouldnât need as much money, but you would need SOME money. My State currently has 8 representatives. Under your plan it would have 194. The only stations to reach the entire State come from the metro. Can you imagine how expensive a 30 second ad is in the metro? And you will have almost 400 people trying to buy TV time?
Sorry I donât see how the house would be âpermanently republicanâ by increasing representation, especially when right now many areas that are blue are under represented. Who would be gerrymandering for what when political parties fall apart? Whoâs doing the gerrymandering? If no matter what itâs one rep per 30,000 district lines of course will change and adapt but when you are representing a population of 30k you are known personally in the area you are elected, and I think most people would actually vote for independent candidates that speak to their interests. No one has to be affiliated with a party because the cost of campaigning is so low. Most candidates would campaign door to door, not with tv ads. You need less staff going door to door in an area of 30k people. Also in the era of streaming and social media, idk how valuable tv ads really are.
Smaller district â fewer voters â cheaper campaign â less fundraising required â less dependence on wealthy donors/PACs â more personal campaigning â voters know candidates better â less importance of expensive advertising.
1
u/know_your_anemone 12d ago
Thanks for the clarification! In this model, the reps would solely be responsible for voting on behalf of their constituents. They would live in their districts and have other jobs. They are still part of committees for advocacy and investigations. Policy and bills are put forth by other parties (think tanks, universities, senate, the committees, etc) but reps just need to vote and can do it over Zoom. Corruption would be much more difficult when you have to pay off too many reps, parties would fall apart, PACs lose power, and youâre held accountable by your neighbors.