1 = In the original Constitution there was supposed to be one Congressperson for every 30,000 citizens. We’re apx 300 million, which would work out to about 10,000 Congresspeople. I think we can agree this would be a tad unwieldy
2= Term limits would just mean the same fat cats have to get new stooges more often.
3=The whole point of Senators was to make sure that the smaller states got equal representation.
We don’t need to set the number at 30,000. But, hypothetically, if we did, then we can count 150 Million votes in a couple of days, so I think we can reasonably count 10,000 in a couple of hours, although we’re going to have to rework who gets time to speak before congress and for how long and also do something about the Filibuster.
If the current system shows us anything it is that the corruptness of an individual does not correlate to a short time in office. Term limits are important to prevent corrupt people from amassing power and influence over a long period of time, such as in the SCOTUS. Monied interests have been shown more likely to put weight behind reelecting people known to play ball than newcomers.
Conversely it means larger population states get less representation. Fuck the smaller states. The few should not rule over the many.
If we had 10,000 Congress people and each had five minutes to present an idea it would take about 35 days for everyone to introduce themselves.
There’s a science fiction novel that tossed this idea out as a very minor plot point, but I do like it.
Change from voting by location to letting people pick their own districts.
Any group that can show it represents a group of sufficient size gets one Congress member.
People can choose to be ‘gun owners,’ ‘mass transit users,’ ‘single mothers,’ ‘factory workers,’ ‘farmers,’ ‘polygamists,’ or any other designation they choose.
1 = In the original Constitution there was supposed to be one Congressperson for every 30,000 citizens. We’re apx 300 million, which would work out to about 10,000 Congresspeople. I think we can agree this would be a tad unwieldy
2= Term limits would just mean the same fat cats have to get new stooges more often.
3=The whole point of Senators was to make sure that the smaller states got equal representation.
We don’t need to set the number at 30,000. But, hypothetically, if we did, then we can count 150 Million votes in a couple of days, so I think we can reasonably count 10,000 in a couple of hours, although we’re going to have to rework who gets time to speak before congress and for how long and also do something about the Filibuster.
If the current system shows us anything it is that the corruptness of an individual does not correlate to a short time in office. Term limits are important to prevent corrupt people from amassing power and influence over a long period of time, such as in the SCOTUS. Monied interests have been shown more likely to put weight behind reelecting people known to play ball than newcomers.
Conversely it means larger population states get less representation. Fuck the smaller states. The few should not rule over the many.
There are 168 hours in a week.
If we had 10,000 Congress people and each had five minutes to present an idea it would take about 35 days for everyone to introduce themselves.
There’s a science fiction novel that tossed this idea out as a very minor plot point, but I do like it.
Change from voting by location to letting people pick their own districts.
Any group that can show it represents a group of sufficient size gets one Congress member.
People can choose to be ‘gun owners,’ ‘mass transit users,’ ‘single mothers,’ ‘factory workers,’ ‘farmers,’ ‘polygamists,’ or any other designation they choose.