
Article 1 section 2 paragraph 3 of the US Constitution (2014) - fcsuper
http://fcsuper.blogspot.com/2014/06/article-1-section-2-paragraph-3-of-us.html
======
oconnor663
> There would be so many representatives, that votes would have to be made
> based on what the person feels is right for their 30,000 voters, rather than
> how much money they can collect from lobbyist for their next campaign.

I feel like the author pulls this conclusion out of thin air.

~~~
gr3yh47
pretty well supported by the idea that

>9400 Representatives would make it a lot harder for lobbyist to sway the will
of our elected officials.

because a ~20x increase in the number of representatives would probably mean a
roughly proportional increase in lobbying resources

~~~
peteretep
When the cost of something goes up 20x, one rarely sees demand unchanged at
the new price point. I don't believe influence to be so price inelastic.

------
Pxtl
Here in Canada we have 100,000 constituents per mp, and things are not better.
Their political footprint is so small that their party affiliation is all that
matters. This means they all do exactly what their party says for fear of
losing that party affiliation and becoming unelectable.

Compare vs the blue dog Democrats that held up healthcare reform. That kind of
party infighting is unheard-of in Canada.

~~~
pc86
Not familiar with Canadian elections, do you vote for a party or an
individual?

~~~
plasticxme
As a whole, we vote for a party. The person on the ballet is that of your
riding. They are a Member of Parliament (MP) for your area, and they are
affiliated with one of the many parties.

The party the receives the most elected MP's across Canada wins, and their
leader becomes the Prime Minister. The party votes for their leader, so
Canadiens have little say there.

Sadly, most people vote based on who they want as prime minister, and they put
little thought who is running their riding.

~~~
caf
_Sadly, most people vote based on who they want as prime minister, and they
put little thought who is running their riding._

This is entirely rational, though. The local MP has two primary functions -
one is to vote on legislation, and the other is to support a particular set of
MPs to form the executive government (personified by the Prime Minister,
because the PM usually gets most of the say in who makes up the remainder of
the executive).

Both of these are important, but the choice of executive normally has far more
effect on the day-to-day running of the country (and the executive mostly gets
to set the legislative agenda anyway), so it's no mystery why people tend to
focus on the choice of executive when deciding which local MP to vote for.

------
eternalban
I used to think our 3 'powers' \- legislative, judiciary, and executive --
were sufficient. But I no longer believe that the legislative is up to the
task of oversight of the executive.

If the foundational debates were happening today, I would argue for a 4th
branch of government: _operational_.

A modern system should avail itself of available technology. An 'open source'
operational branch of the constitutinal state would be afforded the power of
_runtime_ oversight of the _executive_ , and ideally be crowd sourced. The
issue of 'state secrets' is somewhat legitimate, but imo a healthy system
would strive to minimize such requirements, and worst case it can refer such
matter to the much more compact legislative body.

~~~
thomasfoster96
So an auditory branch of government [0]? It’s not that uncommon outside the
Anglosphere.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers#Typical_b...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers#Typical_branches)

~~~
eternalban
That's interesting. Civil monitors would engage in activity that includes more
immediate attention beyond the _post facto_ review and redress (which is the
sense I got from your linked content).

[p.s. For example, detach from the _deliberative_ legislative body functions
such as United States House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform.]

~~~
thomasfoster96
I’m not sure moving committees, such as that one, to anther branch of
government would achieve much. In the end, these committees are intended to
allow the legislature to make better decisions - moving their functions away
from the legislature doesn’t help.

Then again, the US system of government is not exactly a model for the 21st
century.

~~~
eternalban
Investigations and information sharing would be principle functions of this
branch. I do not see the problem. They'll publish findings, and legislature
may then _deliberate_ on these findings to alter laws or enact new laws. If
the operational branch discovers violations, it can then forward their
findings

Decoupling the leadership of the oversight of the executive from the dominant
party in the legislative would be benefitial. This is already possible in
context of executive and judiciary. As it is now, these committees are subject
to partisan games.

Further, the legislative permits _lobbying_ whereas there is no room for
lobbyist pressure on this body. None.

> the US system of government is not exactly a model for the 21st century.

I am drawing a blank imagining which existing system today would fit that
bill.

------
kmm
The US has 1.7 representatives in parliament per citizen. Compared to
countries in Europe, that's very low [1], but even in Europe there's a clear
trend for larger countries to have proportionally less seats, e.g. compare
Estonia (1.3 million people, 76 seats per million citizens) to Germany (80
million people, 8 seats per million).

Looking at larger democratic bodies, the US doesn't seem that underrepresented
compared to the European Union (1.4 per million) and India (0.6 per million!)

Having nearly ten thousand MPs seems very complicated, although I think it
could be a good application of modern technology. However, how could this
every be implemented? Even the most ardent supporters wouldn't be able to deny
that it would be quite an experiment, and can you really do experiments on a
nation state with hundreds of millions of people? We could try in a smaller
country first, but using actual countries as "guinea pigs" sounds totally
ludicrous.

1: [https://jakubmarian.com/number-of-seats-in-the-national-
parl...](https://jakubmarian.com/number-of-seats-in-the-national-parliament-
by-country-in-europe-total-per-capita-map/)

~~~
sparky_z
>The US has 1.7 representatives in parliament per citizen.

Either I'm reading this wrong (what do you mean by "parliament"?), or this
can't possibly be correct.

~~~
morinted
I believe the intent was "1.7 representative per million citizens" as that was
the unit used in all the comparisons.

~~~
dsp1234
For reference, the actual numbers are 535 congressmen (435 representatives and
100 senators) for about 324 million people for a ratio of about 1.65/Million.

This ratio is likely only going to get lower. The number of senators is equal
to (2 x number of states)[0]. The number of representatives is set by law at
435, and has not changed since 1911[1].

[0] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_Stat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_1:_Composition.3B_Election_of_Senators)

[1] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apportionment_Act_of_1911](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apportionment_Act_of_1911)

~~~
JumpCrisscross
Note that the United States had 512 658 elected state and local officials in
1992 [1], or 2,060 state and local elected officials per million people.

[1]
[http://www.census.gov/prod/2/gov/gc/gc92_1_2.pdf](http://www.census.gov/prod/2/gov/gc/gc92_1_2.pdf)
_see page 19_

------
apaprocki
It would be pretty interesting to look at a map of the large cities. A new
waterfront development near me was slated to add somewhere around 15k new
residents so you would probably hit the 30k mark after maybe 4-5 city blocks.
There's a 2 block stretch nearby with 5 ~500 unit count towers, so they'd
probably hit it. That would essentially make the government representatives
akin to the building HOA Boards.

------
em3rgent0rdr
>> "The one problem with a number of Representatives being so large is that
bill introduction may become a bit unmanageable. ... We can even use 21st
Century technology to make such bills easier to process."

An "issue tracker", if you will.

~~~
rtpg
Is there any project where there are 4000 "real" decisionmakers?

Though I suppose elections are kind of like this.

------
Pxtl
Imho, the correct solution to corruption is to fund the election process.
People work for the one who pays them. If there is no money provided for
elections, then candidates will be paid by private funders, and work for them.

------
idm
This is a valuable line of thinking. We could probably convince ourselves "it
would never work" but instead, I'd be more interested to hear what other
possibilities this would open up.

~~~
cderwin
> I'd be more interested to hear what other possibilities this would open up.

Not sure if this is what you meant by "possibilities," but I see a couple of
major issues with this:

\- The cost of buying off a politician (oh sorry I meant "lobbying")
dramatically decreases. It's a lot cheaper to campaign to 30,000 people than
it is to campaign for several million.

\- The sheer number of representatives (~10600) presents a problem: it grants
much much more significance to the senate, because deliberating on bill in the
house would be impossible (and introduces effective filibuster since a 40%
coalition could use 5 minute speaking slots to take up 2 weeks of time on the
floor)

\- Gerrymandering would become much, much worse as the size of districts
decreased and number of representatives increased, just because the number of
options you have to split up your state dramatically increase. Potentially
minority districts would have 90% minority support while majority districts
could be much more competitive (allowing for far more of them).

------
CapitalistCartr
This is a solution to the excessive power concentrated in Washington, D. C.
Dilution to more people. I think better would be not concentrating the power
there in the first place.

------
douche
Having a US representative for every 30k residents would, in many cases,
result in congressional districts that are smaller than currently existing
State legislative districts.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Having a US representative for every 30k residents would, in many cases,
> result in congressional districts that are smaller than currently existing
> State legislative districts.

That's something of an understatement...Los Angeles (just the city proper, not
the metro area) would have more members of the House of Representatives than
there the _total_ members of the California State Assembly and California
State Senate combined. (133 vs. 120).

~~~
douche
The other extreme would be New Hampshire, where we have just over 3000
residents per representative, and thus the third-largest legislature in the
English-speaking world. Possibly one of the lowest-paid legislatures, as well
- $100/year, plus gas money...

------
jdmichal
I don't understand the conceptual leap at all from more representatives to
smaller bills. Large bills are the result of political negotiation. You want
X, I want Y, let's talk... That results in a bill with both X and Y. That's
not going to go away with more people involved. In fact, it will probably get
worse as everyone wants their own piece of pork in the barrel.

------
dragonwriter
> 9400 Representatives would make it a lot harder for lobbyist to sway the
> will of our elected officials.

Rather, it would be _easier_ ; the larger a body is, the less the body
actually works in a flat egalitarian manner, and the more the work of the body
gets done through formal or informal power structures created within the body;
this is already a substantial difference between the Senate and the House when
the latter has a bit over 4 times the size of the former, at 94 times the size
it would be even a bigger distinction.

Lobbyists are _experts_ at understanding and leveraging both the formal and
informal power structures in governing bodies to focus efforts at influence.

------
neuromancer2701
There is
this([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Am...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Amendment))
still outstanding. It has passed the house and the senate so it just need 27
more states to be put into law.

It would seem getting this through 27 states would a lower barrier than a lot
of other options.

Add in term limits and repeal of the 17th amendment is a better formula then
amending the constitution to overturn Citizen United.

~~~
fcsuper
That failed Amendment didn't seem important enough to the founders, but
nowadays, it makes good sense. At the very least, it would have forced
consideration of this issue throughout our history, rather than being able to
forget about it since 1911.

As for the repeal of the 17th Amendment, I'm not favor of that, as this is the
only hedge we currently have against gerrymandering that keeps our House in
the hands of the two parties. There's a reason that there is commonly a party
mismatch between the House and Senate. Once gerrymandering is removed from our
system, then maybe the Senate itself is redundant in any form, and it can be
removed completely.

I also agree with you regrading Citizens United, but it really shouldn't need
an amendment since the idea of a corporation existing on its own is a modern
day fabrication in the first place. However, since the courts went a bit
sideways on this issue, it seems like an amendment will be necessary.

~~~
zeveb
> Once gerrymandering is removed from our system, then maybe the Senate itself
> is redundant in any form, and it can be removed completely.

The Senate is only redundant because it is popularly-elected, just like the
House.

What it _ought_ to be is the voice of the states. The state legislatures and
governors should select senators (I'd like to leave the exact mechanism up to
each state, but the key is that the senators should represent the state;
honestly, I'd like to make them responsible to the legislature & governor as
well).

Our federal system was gravely damaged by the 17th Amendment; the states have
become not much more than glorified local governments, rather than the
sovereign states they ought to be (and, legally, still are).

~~~
jdmichal
Also, the loophole found by the Federal government involving withholding funds
from states if their will isn't met. They can't tell the states to, say, set a
maximum speed limit [0] or force annual standardized testing [1]. But they can
withhold highway and education funds if the states don't. I feel like this has
pretty dramatically increased the intended power of the federal government
over the states, but no one ever talks about it.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act)

------
tmzt
Interesting proposal, but what is the justification for maintaining a
geographical orientation in a system with a larger number of representatives?
What if I'm more interested in advocating for an issue that in bringing money
into my district. What if I'm ideologically disconnected from my neighbors.
Can I put my vote towards a representative in Silicon Valley even if I live in
Ohio?

If we are looking at modernizing the system, could we stop tying ourselves to
a time when communcation was by horseback?

~~~
emodendroket
That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The intent of this system is to
protect regional interests, many of which are still with us (natural
resources, garbage disposal, and employment are three obvious examples to me).

------
SubiculumCode
In the past one might reasonably expect to meet your representative at the
local pub, tea and coffee house. You'd say, "Hey Sally, we should really do
something about patent reform" and she'd say "Bob, I agree. There are two
bills that are being ..."

Right now, it is nothing like that. My representative lives in another town,
and I have never even seen her face in person except at a rally.

This should be unconstitutional.

~~~
thomasfoster96
That sort of situation has never existed at the national level (except maybe
back when only white male property owners voted).

Even with almost 10k representatives in Congress, representatives would still
have 30k constituents each to deal with. It would be almost impossible to meet
30k people in a year, let alone give each of them time to discuss issues and
fit in actually being a legislator.

~~~
emodendroket
> That sort of situation has never existed at the national level (except maybe
> back when only white male property owners voted).

At that time (ending in 1856), travel was also arduous and slow; nobody was
going back home for the weekend.

------
SubiculumCode
The point of the Senate is to represent States, and the House, the People.
We've screwed both up, and each does neither.

------
hlandau
The more I look at parliament, the more it seems like a really crummy version
of Git, at least with regard to how it proposes and amends legislation.

Modern technology could make very large parliaments feasible, and make them
more visible and accountable to the public.

------
aaron-lebo
> Can you imagine a House of Representatives with 9400 members? How would
> business get done? Well, maybe that's the point. There would be so many
> representatives, that votes would have to be made based on what the person
> feels is right for their 30,000 voters, rather than how much money they can
> collect from lobbyist for their next campaign. 9400 Representatives would
> make it a lot harder for lobbyist to sway the will of our elected officials.
> It would make pork barrel projects almost nonexistent because districts
> would be too small to gather enough support for the most silly of funding
> requests. It's a lot harder to buy off 9400 people than it is 435.
> Particularly if each of those 9400 people have to go back to talk directly
> to just 30,000 people several times a year. Representatives' support would
> really have to come from the local grassroots level. They might even vote
> per their constituents desires! Imagine that!

This seems like common sense, but there are a number of things in the social
sciences that don't work out as common sense would.

Voting is, after all, largely irrational.

The other possibility is that corruption would be reduced in scope as to make
it difficult to detect and and root out. Do you know 10 of the 435
representatives? The average person doesn't. Have you seen a corrupt city
council? Now imagine every 9400 of those people representing 30k and imagine
the possibilities for corruption.

> The one problem with a number of Representatives being so large is that bill
> introduction may become a bit unmanageable. If we keep to the current system
> of making huge bills with tons and tons of legal code, things would be
> unmanageable. However, that doesn't necessarily need to be a roadblock.
> Maybe we shouldn't keep the current system of bill introduction! Maybe our
> Representatives should really just submit succinct laws that apply to very
> specific things. We would still need a huge bill from time to time to
> address social and other national issues, and the national budget, but we
> would pretty much end riders that plague the current system. We can even use
> 21st Century technology to make such bills easier to process. (Anyone hear
> of this Wonder called The Internet?)

Ok, so now the author is suggesting not just reforming law but reforming
voting behavior. Good luck? What the author seems to be complaining about is
an individual's access to their representative. This is fair, but reducing the
number of constituents in no way guarantee that. The same dynamics discussed
by Mayhew would still be in play. [1]

Access can be increased via modern technologies, but that's a seprate
argument.

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress:_The_Electoral_Connec...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress:_The_Electoral_Connection)

~~~
lucb1e
> The other possibility is that corruption would be reduced in scope as to
> make it difficult to detect and and root out. Do you know 10 of the 435
> representatives? The average person doesn't. Have you seen a corrupt city
> council? Now imagine every 9400 of those people representing 30k and imagine
> the possibilities for corruption.

To me it seems like you have a lot higher chance of personally knowing someone
who represents 30k people instead of the current figure. Finding a bad apple
among a lot more apples sounds harder, but each 'apple' will have a closer
relationship with the people they represent.

~~~
hyperpape
But personal relationships aren't what fight corruption. If anything, they
contribute to it when you get people thinking "I have a history with this guy,
he'll help me out".

What fights corruption is overall social trust, which is a wash because
changing the size of the legislature won't change it, official policies, and
oversight by regulators, courts, and journalists. And increasing the number of
representatives would be bad for that oversight--more people to keep track of.

