posted
Viewing the House of Representatives, I am shocked that such an outdated federal institution could still exist, or rather, I would be shocked if I did not know that such things always last longer than their use. But really, the House is a recipe for pork spending and corruption, a lower chamber elected by a countrywide general election with proportional representation of candidates drawn from party lists would be highly preferable. While this is being done, I would curtail the power of the Senate and make the President elected by popular vote.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're missing more than a few words in your sentences, including some very crucial to their meaning.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
I don't disagree about the House, necessarily. Course, I find it highly unlikely we can get them to vote themselves out of existence.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
However, kat is slightly wrong, the Constitution is so three centuries ago and is one of the oldest in the world. To my mind, this implies stagnation rather than continuity.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, this has promise to be a good topic. But, instead of some analysis we simply get a conclusion.
There's nothing here to discuss, Pelegius, because you haven't told us why the current structure of the House leads to the problems you cite, what the harms caused by those problems are, and why the change will correct them.
As it is, you've left us with nothing other than your authority to decide whether this is a good idea or not. And no one's authority on Hatrack is sufficient to get others to accept wholesale constitutional change without justification and analysis.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: However, kat is slightly wrong, the Constitution is so three centuries ago and is one of the oldest in the world. To my mind, this implies stagnation rather than continuity.
Pelegius, you're assuming that the interpretation of the Constitution never changes, which isn't true. The interpretation of the U.S. Constitution changed dramatically over the course of the last century.
Added: Dagonee, at least Pelegius was concise. I'm willing to give him credit for that.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: However, kat is slightly wrong, the Constitution is so three centuries ago and is one of the oldest in the world. To my mind, this implies stagnation rather than continuity.
You are slightly wrong too. It's much closer to two centuries old than three.
And last I checked, the document in its current form is only 14 years old (note: This said tongue in cheek).
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't believe I'm responding to this, but I guess I am.
If you think the members of the House should each by elected by a country-wide election, then you've missed the point of the Constitution. The purpose of the House was to have a chamber with representatives as close as possible to what the people want.
To that end, I would prefer that congressional districts were drawn by a separate committee not made up of politicians instead of the state houses.
posted
The House is prone to corruption because its members are tied to tiny distracts which they almost never loose provided that they keep a steady stream of federal money flowing to create rain forests in Iowa etc.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The power to prevent bills from becoming law. They could propose bills and edit bills, but not stop them outright.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's nothing wrong with a body of elected representatives from various regions, the issue is with that body being one to deal with often very specific issues of the regions instead of focusing on more general policy.
The EU's legislative bodies, for instance, are also strongly nationalistic, but there is significantly less pork (while there are differential payouts, they're part of an explicit bargaining process and constitute in part payoffs for membership), even given the smaller budget. This is due in large part to the 'details' of policies being left to a non-legislative body, the Commission (they do make administrative law, but not policy law), which is both more accountable and structured to reduce nationalist stakeholder demands.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is corruption to represent the people who elected you? Are you sure you know what corruption means?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
A lot of pork is sponsored across state lines to people who contribute to congressional campaigns, but even ignoring that, there's a difference between representing someone and redirecting money they don't have any great need for to them when the nation is in debt and rapidly sinking deeper. The responsibilities of representatives are not solely to their respective states.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
JK, The responsibility to legislate belongs in the lower house, as it is in most countries.
"It is corruption to represent the people who elected you?" It is corruption to funnel money to your district at the expense of the national good in order to be reëlected, yes.
fugu, you make some very good points which I shall have to think about, although I can say know that I would not favor reconstructing the House on the model of the European Parliament.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
The House no longer serves the purpose it was originally designed for, in my opinion.
It was meant to be the voice of the people, with representation based on population and each representative speaking for a small portion of their state. At the time, this amounted to a far, far, far smaller number of people than a given representative speaks for currently.
The original rule was a ratio of 1 representative for every 30,000 people.
Right now, if you take the total population of the country (roughly 300 million) and divide by the number of Representatives (435) - you get just under 690,000.
No one person can accurately represent the views of that many people (a number that is greater than each of the state populations of Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming). Instead, the 435 members represent vocal lobbies and major contributors, rather than the will of the people.
I have no realistic solution for this.
In a novel I'm writing, the House was replaced by a "Web Senate" comprised of the entire population (or at least those that could connect to the web at any given time). Bills would be scheduled for vote months in advance, and anyone interestd could join forums to debate the points and hash out particulars. Amendments could be submitted and voted upon at any time, and the final bill would be voted upon at the scheduled time by any interested in voting. Thus, the will of the people (or at least those most interested in following the debate and governance of the country) would be represented.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
