What We Have Here Is A Failure of Representation

[BeFree]

Representation in congress has declined while everything else in government is growning.

The current 435 members of the house in congress has been at that level for nearly fifty years now. In the meantime, the population of the US has grown by roughly 100 million.

A rough look at the numbers shows that there are 300 million of us. Since we have just 435 reps, each representative today represents 689,655 people.

Whereas, in 1960, with a US population of 200 million, each rep repped 459,770 people.

So what we have is a difference of 229,885 in just 50 years.

We have suffered a 50% decline
in representation in 50 years.

Houston, we have a problem.

************

What we need, what democracy needs, is more representation, not less.

[truedelphi]

1. Sometimes I think the same way that you do

Other times I think to myself, "Do we really want twice as many of these sellouts?"

I mean, we would just see the number of lobbyists quadruple and then the cost on our goods would go higher, with that many more payouts being needed.

[BeFree]

2. But

The question is: do fewer people representing us, make for better government? If it does then we might as well go back to a monarchy.

But if the people are better represented, then, methinks, we will have better lobbying laws put in place.

[truedelphi]

3. At this point, I am beginning to believe

That we should just have Bush run things and then we can save the money spent on the Congress.
And we wouildn't have to watch Pelosi et al snivelling over the lack of power the Dems have.

I am probably joking.

And I probably would be willing to try your suggestion.

If you go back further, to the original two or three million Americans and the thirteen colonies, you really see how out of whack the current numbers are. There were twenty six Senators for three million people.

[BeFree]

6. That's the problem

Ever since we've had a democratic republic, government has grown while representation has declined. It is that 'No Growth' policy which has allowed special interests to gain nearly absolute power.

So what I am hoping for are some ideas as to how we make representation grow.

[tnlurker]

4. I think we should cap it at 1 rep per 100,000 people

Yes that would mean that we would have 3000 representatives. This might actually allow the growth of some third parties and coalition style governments. We might get a congress where neither bog parties would have a majority and they would have to get one of the minor parties in to form a coalition. This would lead to less radical governments like we have had lately. Radical right wing agenda's probably would be harder to push through with that set up.

[BeFree]

7. I like it!

A cap of some sort.

If I remember correctly, there is no constitutional limit on the number of reps. If there is, well, we can change that.

[demnan]

5. My Representative represents top givers on his donor list

not me or anyone I know.

[BeFree]

9. One side benefit

....of more representatives is that the giving pool would be spread thinner, meaning that it would cost more to gain influence.

[spanone]

8. what we have here is a failure of our representatives.