Thirty-Thousand.org

Replacement for Article the First :: Author HankW501

no_email@example.com (HankW501) — Wed, 16 Oct 2013 16:16:21 +0000

I was surprised to discover recently that I was one of the many who were under the impression that the proposed Article the First was identical to the original House version (imagine my flabbergastation when I learned the truth).

I propose that Article the First be recalled and that the following be proposed as a Constitutional Amendment in its place (it is effectively identical to the original House version of Article the First for populations up to 15,000,000, but as the same pattern is extended the total number of possible tiers is limited only by the capacity of the planet):

After each of the decennial censuses required by the Constitution, all of the following steps will be carried out:

Determine the sum of the populations of all of the states.
Divide the sum calculated in Step 1 by one million.
To the quotient calculated in Step 2, add one.
Calculate the square root of the sum calculated in Step 3.
Round up the result from Step 4 to the nearest whole number.
To the whole number acquired in Step 5, add one.
Multiply the sum calculated in Step 6 by ten thousand.
Divide the sum calculated in Step 1 by the product calculated in Step 7.
Round up the result from Step 8 to the nearest whole number.
Subtract two from the whole number acquired in Step 5.
Multiply the difference calculated in Step 10 by one hundred.
The total number of voting members in the House of Representatives shall be the greater of the numbers acquired in Steps 9 and 11, and those Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to the ratio of each state's total population to the sum calculated in Step 1.

If Art. the 1st Were Ratified in 1791: All 23 Apportionments :: Author HankW501

no_email@example.com (HankW501) — Fri, 21 Feb 2014 14:10:23 +0000

The chart below shows how many House seats each state would have gotten in each decennial apportionment if Article the First were ratified with the Bill of Rights. The method I used for distributing the seats is identical to the method used by the federal government since passage of the Reapportionment Act of 1929 (except, of course, for the 435 limit). For easier viewing, click on SELECT ALL and copy (Ctrl+C) then paste (Ctrl+V) in a Notepad window or any other editor that uses fixed-width characters.

Code: Select all

       AL  AK  AZ  AR  CA  CO  CT  DE  FL  GA  HI  ID  IL  IN  IA  KS  KY  LA  ME  MD  MA  MI  MN  MS  MO
      --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Constitution  --- --- --- ---   5   1 ---   3 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---   6   8 --- --- --- ---
1790  --- --- --- --- --- ---   7   2 ---   2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---   9  11 --- --- --- ---
1800  --- --- --- --- --- ---   6   2 ---   4 --- --- --- --- --- ---   5 --- ---   8  10 --- --- --- ---
1810  --- --- --- --- --- ---   7   2 ---   6 --- --- --- --- --- ---  10 --- ---   9  12 --- --- --- ---
1820    3 --- --- --- --- ---   6   2 ---   7 --- ---   1   3 --- ---  12   3   6   9  11 --- ---   2 ---
1830    6 --- --- --- --- ---   6   2 ---  10 --- ---   3   7 --- ---  14   4   8   9  12 --- ---   3   3
1840   12 --- ---   2 --- ---   6   2 ---  14 --- ---   9  14 --- ---  16   7  10   9  15   4 ---   8   8
1850   16 --- ---   4 --- ---   7   2   2  18 --- ---  17  20   4 ---  20  10  12  12  20   8 ---  12  14
1860   19 --- ---   9   8 ---   9   2   3  21 --- ---  34  27  13 ---  23  14  13  14  25  15   3  16  24
1870   20 --- ---  10  11 ---  11   3   4  24 --- ---  51  34  24   7  26  14  13  16  29  24   9  17  34
1880   25 --- ---  16  17   4  12   3   5  31 --- ---  61  39  32  20  33  19  13  19  36  33  16  23  43
1890   30 --- ---  23  24   8  15   3   8  37 --- ---  76  44  38  29  37  22  13  21  45  42  26  26  54
1900   37 --- ---  26  30  11  18   4  11  44 ---   3  97  50  45  29  43  28  14  24  56  48  35  31  62
1910   43 --- ---  31  48  16  22   4  15  52 ---   7 113  54  44  34  46  33  15  26  67  56  41  36  66
1920   47 ---   7  35  68  19  28   4  19  58 ---   9 130  59  48  35  48  36  15  29  77  73  48  36  68
1930   53 ---   9  37 113  21  32   5  29  58 ---   9 152  65  49  38  52  42  16  33  85  97  51  40  73
1940   57 ---  10  39 138  22  34   5  38  62 ---  11 158  69  51  36  57  47  17  36  86 105  56  44  76
1950   61 ---  15  38 212  26  40   6  55  69 ---  12 174  79  52  38  59  54  18  47  94 127  60  44  79
1960   65   5  26  36 314  35  51   9  99  79  13  13 202  93  55  44  61  65  19  62 103 156  68  44  86
1970   69   6  35  38 399  44  61  11 136  92  15  14 222 104  57  45  64  73  20  78 114 178  76  44  94
1980   78   8  54  46 474  58  62  12 195 109  19  19 229 110  58  47  73  84  23  84 115 185  82  50  98
1990   81  11  73  47 595  66  66  13 259 129  22  20 228 111  56  50  74  84  25  96 120 186  87  51 102
2000   89  13 103  53 677  86  68  16 320 164  24  26 248 122  59  54  81  89  25 106 127 199  98  57 112
2010   96  14 128  58 745 101  71  18 376 194  27  31 256 130  61  57  87  91  27 115 131 198 106  59 120

                                                                                                                   Average
       MT  NE  NV  NH  NJ  NM  NY  NC  ND  OH  OK  OR  PA  RI  SC  SD  TN  TX  UT  VT  VA  WA  WV  WI  WY  Total  District
      --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---  -----    Size
Constitution  ---   3   4 ---   6   5 --- --- --- ---   8   1   5 --- --- --- --- ---  10 --- --- --- ---     65  --------
1790  --- --- ---   4   5 ---   9  11 --- --- --- ---  12   2   7 --- --- --- --- ---  19 --- --- --- ---    100   35,820
1800  --- --- ---   5   5 ---  15  12 --- --- --- ---  15   2   9 ---   3 --- ---   4  20 --- --- --- ---    125   40,059
1810  --- --- ---   5   6 ---  24  14 ---   6 --- ---  20   2  10 ---   7 --- ---   5  22 --- --- --- ---    167   40,184
1820  --- --- ---   5   6 ---  29  14 ---  12 --- ---  22   2  11 ---   9 --- ---   5  20 --- --- --- ---    200   46,941
1830  --- --- ---   5   6 ---  38  15 ---  19 --- ---  27   2  12 ---  13 --- ---   6  21 --- --- --- ---    251   50,027
1840  --- --- ---   6   7 ---  48  15 ---  30 --- ---  34   2  12 ---  17 --- ---   6  20 --- --- --- ---    333   50,080
1850  --- --- ---   6  10 ---  62  17 ---  40 --- ---  46   3  13 ---  20   4 ---   6  22 --- ---   6 ---    453   50,007
1860  --- --- ---   7  13 ---  77  20 ---  47 ---   1  58   4  14 ---  22  12 ---   6  24 --- ---  16 ---    613   50,023
1870  ---   3   1   6  18 ---  87  21 ---  53 ---   2  70   4  14 ---  25  16 ---   7  24 ---   9  21 ---    762   50,021
1880  ---   9   1   7  23 --- 101  28 ---  64 ---   4  86   6  20 ---  31  32 ---   7  30 ---  12  26 ---    987   50,022
1890    3  21   1   8  29 --- 120  32   4  73 ---   6 105   7  23   7  35  45 ---   7  33   7  15  34 ---   1236   50,039
1900    5  21   1   8  38 --- 145  38   6  83 ---   8 126   9  27   8  40  61   6   7  37  10  19  41   2   1492   50,005
1910    8  24   2   9  51 --- 182  44  12  95  33  13 153  11  30  12  44  78   7   7  41  23  24  47   3   1822   50,005
1920   11  26   2   9  63   7 207  51  13 115  41  16 174  12  34  13  47  93   9   7  46  27  29  53   4   2105   50,011
1930   11  28   2   9  81   8 252  63  14 133  48  19 192  14  35  14  52 116  10   7  48  31  35  59   5   2445   50,016
1940   11  26   2  10  83  11 270  71  13 138  47  22 198  14  38  13  58 128  11   7  54  35  38  63   5   2620   50,002
1950   12  26   3  11  97  14 296  81  12 159  45  30 210  16  42  13  66 154  14   8  66  48  40  69   6   2997   50,015
1960   13  28   6  12 121  19 336  91  13 194  47  35 226  17  48  14  71 192  18   8  79  57  37  79   7   3571   50,003
1970   14  30  10  15 143  20 365 102  12 213  51  42 236  19  52  13  78 224  21   9  93  68  35  88   7   4049   50,001
1980   16  31  16  18 147  26 351 118  13 216  61  53 237  19  62  14  92 285  29  10 107  83  39  94   9   4518   50,002
1990   16  32  24  22 155  30 360 133  13 217  63  57 238  20  70  14  97 340  34  11 124  97  36  98   9   4962   50,001
2000   18  34  40  25 168  36 379 161  13 227  69  68 246  21  80  15 114 417  45  12 142 118  36 107  10   5617   50,000
2010   20  37  54  26 176  41 387 191  13 231  75  77 254  21  92  16 127 503  55  13 160 134  37 114  11   6162   50,007

Re: If Art. the 1st Were Ratified in 1791: All 23 Apportionm :: Reply by StriderV

no_email@example.com (StriderV) — Mon, 17 Mar 2014 19:29:06 +0000

I created a web page that lets you set the number of seats for each census and it will show you what the distribution would be for that apportionment.

http://www.emeraldesia.com/Apportionmen ... nment.aspx

It also lets you choose the apportionment method.

The change from "less" to "more" in the amendment :: Author Epicurus

no_email@example.com (Epicurus) — Wed, 16 Jul 2014 17:01:52 +0000

What is your best guess, that the word "more" was substituted for the word "less" in the amendment by a scrivener's error?

Could it have been anything other than a mistake by a scrivener? In other words, could there have been any other intent for the change that was not adequately expressed?

Continuing the Pattern in Article the First :: Author HankW501

no_email@example.com (HankW501) — Tue, 15 Oct 2013 19:24:44 +0000

If you make a table of all possible population totals of at least three million and the resulting rule according to the instructions in Article the First, it would look something like this:

Code: Select all

      U.S. Population                   Rule
      ---------------                   ----
   3,000,000 to  4,000,000   # of Representatives =  100
   4,000,000 to  8,000,000   Max. District Size = 40,000
   8,000,000 to 10,000,000   # of Representatives =  200
  10,000,000 to   infinity   Max. District Size = 50,000

I recently decided to see what the House size would be based on each U.S. census if the same proposed pattern in Article the First were continued without limit and if the proposed maximum district sizes were instead average district sizes. Here are the numbers I came up with for every U.S. census to date:

Code: Select all

Census:  Reps x Avg. Dist.
------   ----   ----------
  1790:   100 x    36,674
  1800:   126 x    40,000
  1810:   168 x    40,000
  1820:   200 x    46,941
  1830:   252 x    50,000
  1840:   300 x    55,588
  1850:   380 x    60,000
  1860:   439 x    70,000
  1870:   500 x    76,231
  1880:   600 x    82,285
  1890:   689 x    90,000
  1900:   747 x   100,000
  1910:   829 x   110,000
  1920:   900 x   116,970
  1930:  1000 x   122,288
  1940:  1008 x   130,000
  1950:  1100 x   136,268
  1960:  1200 x   148,799
  1970:  1300 x   155,734
  1980:  1400 x   161,362
  1990:  1460 x   170,000
  2000:  1561 x   180,000
  2010:  1622 x   190,000

Although a population of 190,000 per district is almost four times the highest maximum district size given in the original proposal, it is only 26.8% of the average you get by dividing the 2010 census total by the absurdly low current House size of 435. That means it is not only a step in the right direction; it's a giant step in the right direction! And with the public being used to the current House size for over a century now, I'm sure an increase to 1622 would be a lot easier for the public to swallow than a jump to well over 6000.

To show the number of Representatives for any population total according to my proposal, in an Excel sheet designate cell B2 as the total population of all of the states and cell B4 as the number of Representatives, and enter the following formula in cell B4:

Code: Select all

=MAX(ROUNDUP(B2/((ROUNDUP(SQRT((B2/1000000)+1),0)+1)*10000),0),(ROUNDUP(SQRT((B2/1000000)+1),0)-2)*100)

Here are the 50 states in order by 2010 population and the number of Representatives that would be apportioned to each based on a House size of 1622 and the state populations counted in the 2010 census:

Code: Select all

CA = 196
TX = 132
NY = 102
FL =  99
IL =  68
PA =  67
OH =  61
MI =  52
GA =  51
NC =  50
NJ =  46
VA =  42
WA =  35
MA =  34
IN =  34
AZ =  34
TN =  33
MO =  32
MD =  30
WI =  30
MN =  28
CO =  26
AL =  25
SC =  24
LA =  24
KY =  23
OR =  20
OK =  20
CT =  19
IA =  16
MS =  16
AR =  15
KS =  15
UT =  15
NV =  14
NM =  11
WV =  10
NE =  10
ID =   8
HI =   7
ME =   7
NH =   7
RI =   6
MT =   5
DE =   5
SD =   4
AK =   4
ND =   4
VT =   3
WY =   3

Lastly, here are the recipients of the most electoral votes from 1816 to 2012 and their percentage of electoral votes followed by what would have been if my proposal were in place and every state always used the winner-takes-all system (year: actual max.; max. that would have been (in parentheses is the party favored by the change)):

1816: Monroe=82.8%; Monroe=87.02% (D-R)
1820: Monroe=98.3%; Monroe=100.0%
1824: Jackson=37.9%; Adams=36.9% (A)
1828: Jackson=68.2%; Jackson=71.9% (J)
1832: Jackson=76.0%; Jackson=73.7% (A-J)
1836: Van Buren=57.8%; Van Buren=56.5% (W)
1840: Harrison=79.6%; Harrison=78.8% (D)
1844: Polk=61.8%; Polk=61.9% (D)
1848: Taylor=56.2%; Taylor=57.4% (W)
1852: Pierce=85.8%; Pierce=85.7% (W)
1856: Buchanan=58.8%; Buchanan=59.5% (D)
1860: Lincoln=59.4%; Lincoln=56.0% (D)
1864: Lincoln=90.6%; Lincoln=90.7% (R)
1868: Grant=72.8%; Grant=73.8% (R)
1872: Grant=81.3%; Grant=81.7% (R)
1876: Hayes=50.1%; Tilden=50.8% (D)
1880: Garfield=58.0%; Garfield=58.2% (R)
1884: Cleveland=54.6%; Cleveland=55.0% (D)
1888: Harrison=58.1%; Harrison=58.3% (R)
1892: Cleveland=62.4%; Cleveland=62.0% (R)
1896: McKinley=60.6%; McKinley=62.2% (R)
1900: McKinley=65.3%; McKinley=65.7% (R)
1904: Roosevelt=70.6%; Roosevelt=71.9% (R)
1908: Taft=66.5%; Taft=68.9% (R)
1912: Wilson=81.9%; Wilson=81.2% (Pro.)
1916: Wilson=52.2%; Wilson=51.0% (R)
1920: Harding=76.1%; Harding=75.4% (D)
1924: Coolidge=71.9%; Coolidge=72.0% (R)
1928: Hoover=83.6%; Hoover=84.1% (R)
1932: Roosevelt=88.9%; Roosevelt=89.1% (D)
1936: Roosevelt=98.5%; Roosevelt=98.7% (D)
1940: Roosevelt=84.6%; Roosevelt=85.2% (D)
1944: Roosevelt=81.4%; Roosevelt=81.7% (D)
1948: Truman=57.1%; Truman=57.0% (R)
1952: Eisenhower=83.2%; Eisenhower=83.4% (R)
1956: Eisenhower=86.1%; Eisenhower=86.1% (R)
1960: Kennedy=56.4%; Kennedy=59.0% (D)
1964: Johnson=90.3%; Johnson=90.6% (D)
1968: Nixon=55.9%; Nixon=55.1% (D)
1972: Nixon=96.7%; Nixon=96.9% (R)
1976: Carter=55.2%; Carter=56.6% (D)
1980: Reagan=90.9%; Reagan=91.7% (R)
1984: Reagan=97.6%; Reagan=97.9% (R)
1988: Bush=79.2%; Bush=79.5% (R)
1992: Clinton=68.8%; Clinton=69.8% (D)
1996: Clinton=70.4%; Clinton=71.9% (D)
2000: Bush=50.4%; Gore=51.0% (D)
2004: Bush=53.2%; Bush=51.9% (D)
2008: Obama=67.8%; Obama=69.0% (D)
2012: Obama=61.7%; Obama=63.0% (D)

Re: Continuing the Pattern in Article the First :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Mon, 07 Oct 2013 17:52:47 +0000

HankW501 wrote:... I recently decided to see what the House size would be based on each U.S. census if the same proposed pattern in Article the First were continued...

Given your analysis and interest in math, you will want to download & read "The Minimum and Maximum Size of the U. S. House of Representatives" as it covers pretty much the same ground.

Please encourage everyone to like TTO on Facebook! Thirty-Thousand.org is dedicated exclusively to representational enlargement, and widespread popular support is needed in order to help advance this important and non-partisan solution.

Re: Continuing the Pattern in Article the First :: Reply by HankW501

no_email@example.com (HankW501) — Wed, 16 Oct 2013 15:04:36 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:Given your analysis and interest in math, you will want to download & read "The Minimum and Maximum Size of the U. S. House of Representatives" as it covers pretty much the same ground.

I finished reading the .pdf you referenced. It contains quite a bit of information of which I had not been aware. MANY THANKS!

Re: Continuing the Pattern in Article the First :: Reply by Epicurus

no_email@example.com (Epicurus) — Fri, 18 Jul 2014 14:35:44 +0000

Although a population of 190,000 per district is almost four times the highest maximum district size given in the original proposal, it is only 26.8% of the average you get by dividing the 2010 census total by the absurdly low current House size of 435.

K Street would probably see 1700 members as a still manageable number. 6000 would frighten them.

The Mystery of the Bill of Rights' First Amendment :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sun, 03 May 2009 12:07:40 +0000

This is the contents of a TTO press release dated 11-October-2007. Links to supporting resources are provided in the text below.

Why the very first amendment proposed in the Bill of Rights was never ratified and how that failure put the U.S. House of Representatives on the path to oligarchy.

THE TWELVE BILLS OF RIGHTS

Very few people know that the Bill of Rights document drafted in 1789 contains twelve articles of amendment (not ten). Of those twelve, only the last ten were ratified to the U.S. Constitution prior to 1791. As a result, our Constitution's First Amendment had originally been proposed as “Article the third,” and the Second Amendment was originally “Article the fourth," and so forth. And, to further confuse matters, the Bill of Rights' “Article the second” was not ratified until 200 years later -- as the 27th Amendment -- which finally limited Congress' ability to increase its own compensation.

However, Article the first -- the very first amendment proposed in the Bill of Rights -- was never ratified. A new report from Thirty-Thousand.org solves the mystery of this forgotten amendment: it was intended to ensure a much larger -- and truly representative -- House of Representatives.

ARTICLE THE FIRST...

The intended purpose of Article the first was to require a minimum number of Representatives proportionate to the nation's total population. Our Constitution does not prescribe such a minimum (other than one Representative per state); referring to this omission, James Madison stated that he had “always thought this part of the constitution defective." He also believed that an amendment establishing a minimum number of Representatives -- in proportion to the total population -- was necessary "to secure the great objects of representation.”

In the absence of such an amendment there is nothing to prevent Congress from permanently freezing the number of Representatives or even making the House much smaller than it is now. “It is clear from the historical record that a majority of the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights wished to prevent the establishment of an oligarchy in our House of Representatives,” said Jeff Quidam, Thirty-Thousand.org's founder, “so perhaps that is why this amendment was the first of twelve in the Bill of Rights.”

Though the National Archives' web site provides an image of the original Bill of Rights document showing all twelve articles, its “transcript” inexplicably omits (as of this writing) any reference to its first two amendments. However, they can be seen by downloading the high-resolution .jpg from their site and magnifying that image.*

MOVING TOWARDS OLIGARCHY

From 1790 to 1910, the size of the House was usually increased every ten years as a result of population growth -- as was intended by the framers. The last permanent increase occurred when the number of Representatives was increased to 435 after the 1910 census.

After the next census, in 1920, Congress failed to reapportion the House (in violation of the Constitution); so the size remained at 435. Having become comfortable with that number, Congress passed an act in 1929 which made 435 the permanent size of the House. During the debates preceding the passage of that act, Missouri Representative Ralph Lozier stated that “The bill seeks to prescribe a national policy under which the membership of the House shall never exceed 435 ... I am unalterably opposed to limiting the membership of the House to the arbitrary number of 435. Why 435? Why not 400? Why not 300? Why not 250, 450, 535, or 600? Why is this number 435 sacred? What merit is there in having a membership of 435 that we would not have if the membership were 335 or 535? There is no sanctity in the number 435 ... There is absolutely no reason, philosophy, or common sense in arbitrarily fixing the membership of the House at 435 or at any other number.”

WHY 435?

Is 435 the right size? If so, why? If not, should the House of Representatives be larger or smaller? If 435 was thought to be the appropriate size when the population was 91 million (per the 1910 census), should it be increased to reflect the fact that the total population has since more than tripled?

Thirty-Thousand.org believes that Americans would be better served by substantially increasing our number of federal Representatives; chief among the reasons for doing so is the need to achieve one-person-one-vote parity nationwide as well as the need to better reflect the diversity of the citizenry in the legislative branch.

Historical support for this position is provided by Article the first which, though generally overlooked by scholars, is both historically significant and quite interesting. This would-be first amendment was intended to establish a minimum number of Representatives proportionate to the total population; however, it was effectively sabotaged by an ostensibly minor modification made at the last minute by a joint House-Senate committee. In fact, this modification not only subverted the amendment's purpose, but it also introduced a mathematical defect which would have later rendered it inexecutable.

Largely because this subtle modification was generally unnoticed initially, Article the first was affirmed by every state except Delaware. Had the proposed amendment not been crippled then it might have eventually been ratified (as originally worded) and, as a result, we would now have approximately 6,000 Representatives!

Should there be 6,000 Representatives? Consider this: the population size of congressional districts in the U.S. varies widely with some districts nearly twice as large as others. As a result, the House is in egregious violation of the Constitutional principle of one-person-one-vote. In order to reduce the population difference below 5% -- between the smallest and largest districts nationwide -- the number of Representatives would have to be increased to over 6,300.

Surprisingly, no scholarly books or articles about Article the first have been published. Perhaps an unratified amendment is not worthy of scholarly attention even though it was affirmed by every state except one. Or perhaps it has been completely overlooked for other reasons.

THIRTY-THOUSAND.ORG

* The Bills of Rights' image and text.

Re: The Mystery of the Bill of Rights' First Amendment :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 11:03:30 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:This would-be first amendment was intended to establish a minimum number of Representatives proportionate to the total population; however, it was effectively sabotaged by an ostensibly minor modification made at the last minute by a joint House-Senate committee. In fact, this modification not only subverted the amendment's purpose, but it also introduced a mathematical defect which would have later rendered it inexecutable.

I'm pretty good at math, but I honestly don't see the mathematical defect in the language of "Article the First" which reads:

Bill of Rights wrote:Article the first... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons. (emphasis added)

It seems to me that after the House reached 200 Representatives, there would always be one Representative for every fifty thousand persons. Am I reading it wrongly?

Questions:

1. What was the original language?
2. What was the ostensibly minor modification?
3. How did the modification subvert the amendment's purpose?
4. What is the mathematical defect that would have later rendered it inexecutable?

Re: The Mystery of the Bill of Rights' First Amendment :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 01:56:48 +0000

Pseudolus wrote:Questions:
1. What was the original language?
2. What was the ostensibly minor modification?
3. How did the modification subvert the amendment's purpose?
4. What is the mathematical defect that would have later rendered it inexecutable?

For the sake of expediency, allow me to direct you to other materials that will answer all of your questions. Now that you've asked about this, I hope you will take the time to read this information carefully as this is a truly fascinating subject (and long overlooked).

Please read section 3 of "Taking Back Our Republic", a pamphlet (pdf) which can be downloaded from this page. That section, which is only two pages long, provides a good overview.

For a very thorough analysis of "Article the first", reference the footnotes on page 7 of the pamphlet, in particular the reference to "The Minimum and Maximum Size of the U. S. House of Representatives". That report provides a detailed explanation of how the defect rendered the proposed amendment meaningless in the "second tier" and, moreover, sabotaged its intent in the "third tier" (none of which will make sense until you read the report).

Re: The Mystery of the Bill of Rights' First Amendment :: Reply by HankW501

no_email@example.com (HankW501) — Sat, 05 Oct 2013 23:51:03 +0000

Pseudolus wrote:I'm pretty good at math, but I honestly don't see the mathematical defect in the language of "Article the First" which reads:

Bill of Rights wrote:Article the first... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons. (emphasis added)

The mathematical impossibility is that a maximum of 30,000 per district is incompatible with the existing constitutional minimum of 30,000 per district (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3). However, because the 1790 census formula resulted in a number greater than 3,000,000, the error was a moot point from the start.

Pseudolus wrote:It seems to me that after the House reached 200 Representatives, there would always be one Representative for every fifty thousand persons. Am I reading it wrongly?

You are almost right. There would have been a minimum of 100 Representatives after the 1790 census, a maximum of 40,000 per district after the 1800 & 1810 censuses, a minimum of 200 Representatives after the 1820 census, and a maximum of 50,000 per district after the 1830 through 2010 censuses. While the 1820 census total was high enough that the House would have reached 200 Representatives, it was still lower than (200 x 50,000).

Re: The Mystery of the Bill of Rights' First Amendment :: Reply by HankW501

no_email@example.com (HankW501) — Tue, 15 Oct 2013 18:09:53 +0000

HankW501 wrote:The mathematical impossibility is that a maximum of 30,000 per district is incompatible with the existing constitutional minimum of 30,000 per district (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3). However, because the 1790 census formula resulted in a number greater than 3,000,000, the error was a moot point from the start.

While what I stated would have been an issue if Article the 1st were ratified as is and if there were ever a time when fewer than three million were counted in a U.S. Census, it is not THE mathematical impossibility to which many refer. Unlike what I presented earlier, both of the statements that contradict each other are within Article the 1st:

After the number of Representatives reaches 200, which would be when more than eight million people are counted for the first time in a U.S. Census, Congress is supposed to make sure that the number of Representatives never drops below 200 nor more than one per 50,000 residents. So if those two conditions were applied to the 1820 U.S. Census, which totaled 9,388,281, stated another way, the Article would be telling us to make sure that the number of Representatives is never less than 200 AND never more than 187!

Re: The Mystery of the Bill of Rights' First Amendment :: Reply by Epicurus

no_email@example.com (Epicurus) — Sun, 20 Jul 2014 00:05:33 +0000

Kudos to Jeff Quidam for his outstanding scholarship on this subject. A political science professor friend, co-author of a widely used American history textbook, knew nothing about it.

There is a lot of American history that I refer to as unknown history because it isn't taught. This is a prime example.

Read about "Article the first" :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Wed, 16 Mar 2022 19:22:23 +0000

Read about the The Founders’ proposal for a much larger House of Representatives.

Insider Trading on Russia's war against Ukraine :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 15 Mar 2022 01:30:59 +0000

It appears that both Democratic and Republican Congress members have profited from insider trading ahead of the Russia-Ukraine war, according to this report from Jesse Watters, who observes that "It doesn't matter what party you belong to, the role of the People's House is to protect us, not members of Congress." Watch the video on this page. (March 11, 2022)

Lobbyists raise over $1 billion in the first quarter of 2022 :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Fri, 06 May 2022 12:38:42 +0000

OpenSecrets.org: "Unprecedented $1 billion first quarter lobbying haul puts 2022 on track for record year"

A very wealthy Speaker of the House :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sun, 17 Jul 2022 14:47:54 +0000

Washington Times: Pelosi’s husband buys $5 million in chip stocks before Senate vote on chip subsidy bill.

"Mr. Pelosi purchased roughly $5 million, or 20,000 shares of Nvidia, last month ... The purchase comes on the heels of a vote next week ... that would shore up the U.S. computer chip manufacturing industry."

At least they can afford the legal expenses that will result from Paul Pelosi’s injury-causing DUI accident on May 28.

Just more of the same.

Representative’s net worth quintuples+ in two years :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Wed, 17 Aug 2022 23:46:10 +0000

It's very lucrative to be a member of America’s political ruling class:
“Rep. Liz Cheney’s (R-WY) net worth ballooned from an estimated $7 million when she first took office in 2017 to possibly more than $44 million in 2020, according to analysis from the Center for Responsive Politics and her most recent financial disclosure forms.” From Breitbart.com.

NY Times: Thousands of stock trades posed potential conflicts :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Thu, 15 Sep 2022 00:33:43 +0000

Stock Trades Reported by Nearly a Fifth of Congress Show Possible Conflicts

According to the New York Times’ analysis of stock trades from 2019 to 2021, “more than 3,700 trades reported by lawmakers from both parties posed potential conflicts between their public responsibilities and private finances”.

72 members of Congress have failed to report their financial trades :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Thu, 15 Sep 2022 00:37:52 +0000

Business Insider: 72 members of Congress have violated a law designed to prevent insider trading and stop conflicts-of-interest.

“Insider and several other news organizations have identified 72 members of Congress who've recently failed to properly report their financial trades as mandated by the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012, also known as the STOCK Act.”

OpenSecrets: 2022 federal midterm election spending approximately $9 billion :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 04 Oct 2022 16:03:36 +0000

According to a recent update from OpoenSecrets.org, 2022 federal midterm election spending on track to top $9.3 billion!

Low approval ratings and high reelection rates :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 15 Mar 2022 01:46:46 +0000

Poltifact article: Do congressional incumbents rarely face challengers and almost always win despite low approval ratings? (January 2016)

Article: The Impact of Partisan Gerrymandering :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 15 Mar 2022 01:53:29 +0000

AmericanProgress.org: The Impact of Partisan Gerrymandering (Oct 2019)

"The impacts of gerrymandering are comparable to switching the majority of votes in 22 states."

Article: How Partisan Gerrymandering Limits Voting Rights :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 15 Mar 2022 02:00:59 +0000

AmericanProgress.org: How Partisan Gerrymandering Limits Voting Rights (July 2020)

"Districts should be drawn so that people who have been underrepresented throughout American history — such as African American, Latinx, and other communities of color — are fully represented in Congress and state legislatures."

Article: Republicans Discover the Horror of Gerrymandering :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 15 Mar 2022 02:04:08 +0000

The Atlantic: Republicans Discover the Horror of Gerrymandering (February 2022)

"The GOP learns what it’s like to be on the losing side of a redistricting power grab."

Brookings: The gerrymander myth :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 21 Mar 2023 17:57:04 +0000

Relative to gerrymandering, it turns out that, as of now “neither party enjoys a significant aggregate advantage in either districting or geographical efficiency of voter distribution”. This refers to the net effect in the House of Representatives. That is, one party's advantages in some states are largely offset by the other's advantages in other states.

Brookings.edu: The gerrymander myth. (March 17, 2023)

Article: How Diverse is U.S. Congress? :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 15 Mar 2022 02:10:01 +0000

Statista.com: How Diverse is U.S. Congress? (January 2021)

Article: Racial and gender diversity in the 117th Congress :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 15 Mar 2022 02:17:44 +0000

OpenSecrets.org: Racial and gender diversity in the 117th Congress (June 2020)

The reason for insufficient diversity: "the sky-high reelection rate of members of Congress".

What about packing the House of Representatives? :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Mon, 13 Jun 2022 13:57:31 +0000

In his article about our massively oversized congressional districts, Professor Swofford sums it up quite well: “members of Congress tend to be more like other members of Congress rather than more like their constituents”.

That’s the problem: The Representatives rarely resemble their constituents!

American Thinker: What about packing the House of Representatives?

Using the ACLU for somethnig worthwhile :: Author TheTrucker

no_email@example.com (TheTrucker) — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 23:51:41 +0000

I am of the opinion that a challenger to the Constitutional legitimacy of the current House of Representatives is the proper method to resolve the problem we face. A strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution in view of the rulings produced in the 1960's would insist that the current Congress expand the membership of the House to more than 1000 members. That is so because the Supremes have ruled that districts MUST be equally populous in order to provide a proper "republican form of government" in which any one man's vote counts just as much as much as another's. That is not possible while observing state boundaries unless there would be a DIRECT democracy. The Constitution sets forth the limitation of state boundaries and no more than one representative for every 30 thousand people. But that those are the _ONLY_ constraint that stands in the way of achieving "one man one vote". The Congress is constitutionally bound by the Supreme court rulings of the 60's to abide by "one man one vote" to the extent that it is Constitutionally possible to do so. That seems very clear to me and why hasn't a resident of Montana not sued? Why hasn't the ACLU found a wino in Missoula, Montana to use for this purpose?

Re: Using the ACLU for somethnig worthwhile :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 23:18:56 +0000

TheTrucker wrote:But that those are the _ONLY_ constraint that stands in the way of achieving "one man one vote".

Currently the disparity in congressional district sizes nationwide ranges from 20% to 85%. Of course, they are supposed to be equally-sized (as required by one man one vote). That requirement is disregarded in order to maintain massive congressional fiefdoms.

If we increased the number of districts to 6,000, the maximum disparity would be reduced to less than 5%. However, based on everything I know about the ACLU, they would never take up this cause. If anyone wants to try to persuade them, then maybe I can be proven wrong.

Re: Using the ACLU for somethnig worthwhile :: Reply by TheTrucker

no_email@example.com (TheTrucker) — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 05:11:38 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:Currently the disparity in congressional district sizes nationwide ranges from 20% to 85%. Of course, they are supposed to be equally-sized (as required by one man one vote). That requirement is disregarded in order to maintain massive congressional fiefdoms.

I need to know how you get this 85%. I thought that the max was Wyoming and Montana. Montana has almost twice the population of Wyoming and thus the person in Wyoming has 45% more legislative power than the person in Montana. Where's the 85%????

Re: Using the ACLU for somethnig worthwhile :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:07:35 +0000

TheTrucker wrote: I need to know how you get this 85%. I thought that the max was Wyoming and Montana.

All this is relative to the "apportionment population" as determined by the 2000 Census and the current apportionment. The population of Montana's single congressional district is 905,316. Wyoming's single district is 495,304. So Montana's congressional district is 83% larger than Wyoming. Another way of looking at it: a Montanan has representation equal to 1/905,316, while a Wyomingite has 1/495,304. If you do the math on those two fractions, the Wyomingite has 83% more representation (in the national legislature) than does the Wyomingite.

And it's not just those two states of course. No two states have districts that are the same size (interstate). I'll be publishing detailed reports (along with lots of pretty charts) about this at this link:
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/QHA-05.htm

Paper: One Person, One Vote, 435 Seats :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Wed, 16 Mar 2022 18:58:24 +0000

I just stumbled across this paper from 2011:
One Person, One Vote, 435 Seats: Interstate Malapportionment and Constitutional Requirements Is Our Constitutional Order Broken - Structural and Doctrinal Questions in Constitutional Law: Gerrymandering, Congressional Representation, and Trust in the Political System Connecticut Law Review.
Professor Jeffrey Ladewig,
University of Connecticut,
Department of Political Science

It appears to reinforce the point of Section Six, but admittedly I have not read it yet.

What deviation of Citizen Political Weight is acceptable? :: Author StriderV

no_email@example.com (StriderV) — Thu, 02 Jun 2022 20:51:13 +0000

Throughout this section, you state the various percentages of states that have either high or low "Citizen Weight" and that that is unacceptable.
I agree with all of these examples.

But my question is, how much is acceptable?

I ask, because even if we increase the number of representatives to 11,000 (and meet the 30,000 representation rate) we will STILL have some states with higher or lower citizen weight. Just, rather than being +28.7% to -30.2%, it would be +1.9% to -1.0%.

So, what should we be shooting for if we're using this as a criteria? Is there any legal precedent?

Re: What deviation of Citizen Political Weight is acceptable? :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Thu, 02 Jun 2022 22:28:27 +0000

My view is that in the absence of Article the first, Congress would be constitutionally compelled to select the House size that results in congressional district sizes with the least amount of variation in their sizes. This is explained here:
Achieving One-Person-One-Vote equality in the federal House

However, if the intended version of Article the first were ratified, then any House size between 1:50,000 and 1:30,000 should be considered constitutional, IMO.

Newsweek: The Outrageous, Republic-Distorting Census Error :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 04 Oct 2022 14:51:10 +0000

In a recent Newsweek editorial, Ben Weingarten (Claremont Institute Fellow) discusses The Outrageous, Republic-Distorting Census Error You've Heard Nothing About.

For a deeper analysis of this same subject, and how it relates to having a grossly undersized House of Representatives, see our Analysis of Apportionment Sensitivity to Population Miscounts. This problem is a direct consequence of the fact that our House of Representatives is in egregious violation of the Constitution’s one-person-one-vote equality requirement.

Article: U.S. National Debt Surpasses $30 Trillion: What This Means For You :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 15 Mar 2022 02:29:50 +0000

Forbes.com: U.S. National Debt Surpasses $30 Trillion: What This Means For You (Feb 2022)

"But as unfathomable as this number is, the national debt can impact ordinary Americans’ lives."

Article: Proxy voting turns one :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 15 Mar 2022 02:42:52 +0000

Brookings.edu: Proxy voting turns one: The past, present and future of remote voting in the House (May 2021)

"Alongside these uses of proxy voting as a workplace accommodation are several examples where members of
both parties cast votes by proxy but were reported to be engaging in other activities."

One-third of the House votes by proxy on major legislation :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sun, 14 Aug 2022 14:56:24 +0000

Over a third of the 435 Representatives voted by proxy on August 12, 2022, for House Resolution 8. Absurdly named the “Inflation Reduction Act”, this bill authorizes spending several hundred billion dollars on various government programs. That spending includes billions of additional dollars for the IRS in hopes that it will increase federal tax revenue in order to help defray the expenditures on various other programs authorized by this resolution. Of those who either voted for or against the bill, 158 Representatives were not present, voting via proxy (listed here).

The fact that so many Representatives can vote via proxies, and for any reason, verifies what we already know: In a much larger House of Representatives, most of its members can work from their home districts where they can meet with, and better serve, their constituents.

WashPo editorial: The House was supposed to grow with population. :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Thu, 09 Mar 2023 16:07:00 +0000

In an excellent Washington Post editorial by Danielle Allen, she addresses the question of whether a bigger House would make it “harder to get things done”. With regards to that, she notes that “the most important point is that the principle of inclusion requires us to learn how to operate on a larger scale than we have in the past”.

Her example may relate more to having larger committees, than a larger House per se. However, as explained in Section NIne of TTO, the committees and subcommittees are where all the work gets done. The House chamber itself is largely relegated to the formal voting process itself as well as ceremonial activities.

That notwithstanding, Professor Allen’s illustration is as follows:

Over the past five years, I’ve chaired three large task forces, including one on civic education, as well as the American Academy of Arts and Sciences’ commission on the future of democracy that motivates these columns. Each had a minimum of three co-chairs. We used this triumvirate structure to get a diversity of perspective into the leadership. We also built bigger task forces than in a past era, again to optimize for inclusion of the full range of relevant viewpoints. We operated a committee of 40 where the number would have been set at 20 in another era.

As we shifted to these scaled-up forms of operation, we introduced new tools. They included digital discovery tools such as instant polls and word clouds to bring a range of viewpoints to the surface, breakout groups and structured deliberations to make progress on specific questions, and rapid prioritization exercises with sticky notes on wall boards.

These are small examples, but the point is that a host of new practices and tools are being developed as people learn how to carry out the work of deliberation in larger and more diverse committees. In 1929, people might have thought it wasn’t possible to do good work with an assembly of more than 435 people. But now, nearly 100 years later, much more is possible.

Certainly her point about employing “new practices and tools” to facilitate deliberation in a scaled-up House of Representatives applies to the whole body as well as to their various committees and subcommittees.

Read the editorial here: The House was supposed to grow with population. It didn’t. Let’s fix that.

Re: Let's build a forum! :: Author Paul

no_email@example.com (Paul) — Sun, 03 May 2009 19:05:01 +0000

Jeff, the two strategies are nearly exactly the ones that I was going to suggest. The 'how and where we get support' and the 'how to actually do the legal stuff'.

One of the things I really want to contribute to and help with is to make increasing representation relevant. To demonstrate and open up discussion on how so many of the challenges we face today are largely brought on by the lack of representation which results in a plutocracy that answers and responds to special interests. There needs to be open discussion on this important aspect of TTO because if people do not understand the relevance of the discussion, then they're probably not going to care about actively supporting it.

I really don't think forums are places for bibliographies. It's intended to be more casual, open discussion on specific topics where anyone from anywhere can post and engage. Formal arguments and positions are for blogs and wikis.

And how about a "Why is THIS solution a better solution than..." category. I want to call special attention to this because there so many 'solutions' floating around right now that are really just fixes to problems created by the lack of representation. Aspirin for the brain tumor, so to speak.

Re: Let's build a forum! :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Mon, 04 May 2009 03:58:02 +0000

Paul wrote:One of the things I really want to contribute to and help with is to make increasing representation relevant. To demonstrate and open up discussion on how so many of the challenges we face today are largely brought on by the lack of representation which results in a plutocracy that answers and responds to special interests. There needs to be open discussion on this important aspect of TTO because if people do not understand the relevance of the discussion, then they're probably not going to care about actively supporting it.

Paul, I really like that, but how do you make that point (i.e., "make increasing representation relevant")?

If you're going to use "real world" examples, then it would behoove you to emphasize that you are not trying to make a partisan or political argument (e.g., anti-war), but instead you're illustrating the disconnect. Otherwise, people are distracted by the illustration you are using.

Other than using such examples (popular preferences vs. Congressional decisions) how else do you make that point?

One way to make this point it to get people thinking about accessibility to their Representative in a smaller district (50,000 people) vs. a 700,000-person district.

And how do we get this message out to people?

TTO needs someone who can produce credible, if not professional-looking, YouTube videos.

Re: Let's build a forum! :: Reply by Paul

no_email@example.com (Paul) — Mon, 04 May 2009 04:07:05 +0000

What do you think about the "Why is THIS solution a better solution than..." category idea?

Re: Let's build a forum! :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Mon, 04 May 2009 04:22:40 +0000

Paul wrote:What do you think about the "Why is THIS solution a better solution than..." category idea?

Actually, I'm too tired to think about it now. Need to crash. What would the name of that forum be?

Re: Let's build a forum! :: Reply by seax

no_email@example.com (seax) — Mon, 04 May 2009 04:36:51 +0000

Hello Mr. Quidam...and everyone else...

Mr. Quidam and I have met on line before thru science a gogo. I agree completely with the redistricting of congress and other changes that need to be made in our government. It is my feeling we have one big mess in this country now...an understatement actually more like an invasion by a foreign power.

I have ridden for 6 hours today and am extremely tired. I recieved the e-mail...registered...and thought I would type this quick note to wish you the best on the forum and look forward to posting here. I can't hardly hold my eyes open but I will be back tomorrow to see what everyone is talking about and see what I can learn. By the way did you know the Supreme Court is leaning toward doing away with the 'Voters Rights Act'?

best regards,
seax

Re: Let's build a forum! :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Mon, 04 May 2009 11:29:18 +0000

seax wrote: By the way did you know the Supreme Court is leaning toward doing away with the 'Voters Rights Act'?

Thank you Seax, for joining in.

Do you have an links which would elaborate on SCOTUS and the VRA?

Re: Let's build a forum! :: Reply by seax

no_email@example.com (seax) — Mon, 04 May 2009 17:31:51 +0000

Here is the link to the story.

best regards,
seax

http://www.abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/SCOTUS ... 946&page=1

Re: Let's build a forum! :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 05 May 2009 00:47:33 +0000

seax wrote: By the way did you know the Supreme Court is leaning toward doing away with the 'Voters Rights Act'?

I don't know enough about this to have an informed opinion, but it doesn't seem like doing away with the VRA, in modern times, would have any practical consequence.

Re: Let's build a forum! :: Reply by seax

no_email@example.com (seax) — Tue, 05 May 2009 03:16:36 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:
seax wrote: By the way did you know the Supreme Court is leaning toward doing away with the 'Voters Rights Act'?
I don't know enough about this to have an informed opinion, but it doesn't seem like doing away with the VRA, in modern times, would have any practical consequence.

Hello Mr. Quidam,

In some areas it wouldn't. I believe only about six states are affected by the VRA...North Carolina is one of them of which I live. We have counties in this state that have 'special' districts cut out for minorities...depending on the degree or severity of the ruling by the Federal Court Judge you cannot change the way in which you elect your commissioners..the dominate party in our case the Democrat Party runs each district...you can't vote a bad minority candidate out because it is unfortunate but the minorities in these districts don't care. They are the only ones that can vote the commissioner out sinse your vote counts only in your district. We have 7 districts...2 minority districts...you can vote 'only' in the district you reside in. Can you imagine the Federal Government telling you that you must have special districts for a certain group of people to win? Is that democracy? It is nothing more than 'mob rule' and strong arming by a Federal Government that has gone out of hand.

In the areas affected it has turned the election process into affirmative action and made bad government....worse. With the problems we are going to have with ACORN we need to do away with 'specialized' districts for special groups to win in.

best regards,
seax

Re: Let's build a forum! :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 05 May 2009 11:21:50 +0000

So it primarily affects non-federal elections. The NRA seems like a cure that has long outlived the disease, and which now produces harmful side effects (by creating a special privileged classes).

With respect to federal elections, if the congressional districts were small enough (e.g., 50,000) we would have true diversity of representatives. It is nearly impossible to gerrymander districts of that size. Imagine how diverse the Congress would be, which is probably why Alcee Hastings has proposed enlarging the federal House (links on this page)

Re: Let's build a forum! :: Reply by TheTrucker

no_email@example.com (TheTrucker) — Sat, 23 May 2009 17:38:47 +0000

The real point is that districts of 50k would provide more minority representatives and a higher percentage of minority representatives. There is really no reason whatsoever to not draw the district boundaries with an open source computer program that draws them the same way in every state in the union based solely on population. The issues addressed at the national level are not local issues and are supposed to be color blind. The people living on one side of a river have the same national concerns as the people on the other side of the river or the other side of the county line. The issues are social security, federal taxation, war, and the like. The federal congress (especially the House) should not be concerned about the Washington State Ferry system or the new Stadium in Seattle or the new bridge or, or, or. Gerrymandering may be a a useful tool in state politics, but it serves no purpose other than party power and incumbency in regard to the national legislature.

But the intrusion of the feds into state politics is based on the constitutional mandate to provide a "republican form of government" within the states. Perhaps it will be necessary to reduce the LEGISLATIVE district sizes in order to provide that.

Re: Let's build a forum! :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Mon, 25 May 2009 11:42:13 +0000

TheTrucker wrote:The real point is that districts of 50k would provide more minority representatives and a higher percentage of minority representatives.

Exactly right. This is the path to true diversity in representation.

TheTrucker wrote:The issues addressed at the national level are not local issues and are supposed to be color blind.

Let's say: The issues addressed at the national level are not supposed to be local issues... but, as you know, the federal government intrudes locally in so many ways.

Re: Let's build a forum! :: Reply by TheTrucker

no_email@example.com (TheTrucker) — Thu, 28 May 2009 04:20:19 +0000

I think this intrusion into local matters by the US government may indeed present a local partisanship. People who want to destroy old growth forests and are prevented from doing so because the land and the trees are actually owned by the entire united states population will undoubtedly seek to rectify this situation by electing a representative that will fight for their right to steal other people's property. Meanwhile, we have the environazis on the left who want to steal the current landowner's property in order to protect a spotted salamander. But the reality is that neither of these groups can wield enough power through a single representative or even a group of representatives to accomplish anything at the national level that is not supported by the general population of the nation.

Most of the really bad "environmental" policies are perpetrated in the Senate where the special interests can buy power much more effectively. The interests in California who wish to log the big trees in the national forest (I pick CA only because it is the most populous state and because it has big trees) will attempt to buy a Senator in Wyoming. It does not matter what state the Senator supposedly represents and, as a matter of fact there is less downside to a Wyoming senator in chopping down California trees than there would be for a Senator from California. More importantly, if the majority of the American people do not want the trees to be logged from the NATIONAL FOREST that happens to be in California, it might be possible to win such battles in the Senate by buying the Senators of less populated and distant states. That is so because the people (small contributers) have a lot less campaign clout in underpopulated states like Wyoming. It is also much easier for multinational corporations to buy senatorial clout in US government by doing it in underpopulated states because the aggregate campaign contributions from the people are smaller. Small state senators are a really good buy.

An enlarged House of representatives makes the House a very poor investment for the special interests and the individual House members have little clout regarding geographic issues. The amount of influence of any given representative on national policies concerning trees and forests is probably minimal when compared to the US Senate. Therefore, I would conclude that there is no need whatsoever in gerrymandering congressional districts to create blocks of special interests concerning local issues REGARDLESS of whether the US government is messing around in local stuff. You may as well hurl insults at the ocean. It is entirely possible to control the amount of national forests and such as an economic issue or to control the power of the federal government as a whole concerning such policies. It is not possible to control local boundaries and policies through representatives in the House.

Re: Let's build a forum! :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Thu, 28 May 2009 11:00:04 +0000

TheTrucker wrote:An enlarged House of representatives makes the House a very poor investment for the special interests and the individual House members have little clout regarding geographic issues. The amount of influence of any given representative on national policies concerning trees and forests is probably minimal when compared to the US Senate. Therefore, I would conclude that there is no need whatsoever in gerrymandering congressional districts to create blocks of special interests concerning local issues REGARDLESS of whether the US government is messing around in local stuff.

Furthermore, I argue that 50,000-person districts essentially makes gerrymandering meaningless. After all, when the districts are that small, how much can be gerrymandered? You may be able to push the odd house down on the corner (the one painted green with the plastic flamingos in the yard) into the next district, but they will nonetheless enjoy the same quality of representation!

With respect to the Senate, I believe that the 17th amendment should be repealed (but that is outside the scope of TTO). Repealing the 17th would take the money out of the Senatorial races and put the Senate back under the control of the state legislatures rather than the special interests.

Re: Let's build a forum! :: Reply by TheTrucker

no_email@example.com (TheTrucker) — Thu, 28 May 2009 17:28:15 +0000

JEQuidam wrote: With respect to the Senate, I believe that the 17th amendment should be repealed (but that is outside the scope of TTO). Repealing the 17th would take the money out of the Senatorial races and put the Senate back under the control of the state legislatures rather than the special interests.

Madison got it right in the "Virginia Plan" where the Senate was proportional but smaller and the members were "nominated" by the state legislatures and voted into office by the House membership. (The paragraph describing the plan as found at the above URL is contradicted by the plan itself as regards the "election" of the Senators). The similarity of the internal workings of the current House of Representatives with that Virginia Plan is worthy of note. indirect election has its good and bad points. We do not vote directly for the actual legislators in the House as it is right now. That ended in the 1800's. The committees of the House are the true legislators and they are appointed by the parties and confirmed by the membership (indirectly elected). That internal organization will not change and cannot be changed unless the membership of the house is reduced below 200 and made even less representative (large districts are controlled by media advertising and money). At present and in any future increase of the membership, the house is/will be composed of a legislative assembly and a representative assembly where the representative assembly can influence the legislative assembly and reject any legislation like "Telco Immunity" that "we the people" find unacceptable. The problem we have is that the representative assembly is not representative enough and numerous enough to PREVENT bad legislation created in the legislative assembly of the HOUSE, OR IN THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF THE SENATE. The current top down party and senatorial control is what is destroying this nation. When the current incumbents wail "We wouldn't be able to get anything done", in response to suggestions of expanding the membership of the House, I would suggest that the people examine this "WE" very closely. The legislation "we the people" have been getting out of this stunted and non representative government is not the legislation "we the people want". The "WE" that will be getting less done is the current incumbency that is financed by the special interests. And an expansion of the true representative body will dramatically reduce special interest legislation and improve the quality of somewhat less legislation and of the quality of the laws.

All are welcomed to copy and instate the words and attribution (all content) found at GreaterVoice - Original Meanings.

How about 30,000? :: Author Paul

no_email@example.com (Paul) — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 05:46:26 +0000

I had a conversation with the chairman of the Silicon Valley GOP about various offices to run for. The discussion really was not about my running for office, but just about what it takes in general to get people elected to office.

He told me that to run for the house of representatives there are only three ways to get into office:

1.Be a candidate with the Republican or Democratic parties.
2.Be independently wealthy and have $5-10,000,000 of your own cash to blow on an election
3.Already be famous, as in movie star famous

He then told me what it would take to run for city council or mayor of Morgan Hill, the town that I live in which has a population of about 30,000. He said it would require 10-20 dedicated volunteers who are willing to put in 30+ hours per week for a period of 4+ months and a budget of $10-20,000. He said that with this I would have a “nearly invincible armada” with which to conquer my city council.

When I look at my community and understand just a little bit about what it takes to get elected, I begin to understand that more money and more people would yield decreasing marginal returns. How much media is there to saturate for our small town? There isn't a TV station or radio station for our town. Would two ads in the Morgan Hill Times yield greater benefit than one ad? Would more lawn signs convince the majority to swing one's way? Or more doors knocked on? Possibly more doors knocked on, but knowing how the get out the vote strategy works, the doors knocked on by the volunteers would be highly focused, so it's unlikely this would yield all that many more votes for time and money invested.

So I then considered a town that I grew up in that had about 50,000 people in it when I lived there. I think that at this size, the game begins to change a little. More money and more people are going to be required to run ads, knock on doors, and generally manage the campaign. After all, 50,000 people is 67% more people than 30,000.

The beauty of $20,000 and 20 people is that even people from the very poorest neighborhoods everywhere can get enough contributions and volunteers to make a very solid run for office. By placing the office within reach of all citizens it is less likely that special interests will ever be able to control even a slim minority as the congressmen would quickly be replaced by angry constituents.

Re: How about 30,000? :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 02:39:11 +0000

Paul wrote:He then told me what it would take to run for city council or mayor of Morgan Hill, the town that I live in which has a population of about 30,000. He said it would require 10-20 dedicated volunteers who are willing to put in 30+ hours per week for a period of 4+ months and a budget of $10-20,000. He said that with this I would have a “nearly invincible armada” with which to conquer my city council.

That is a great description! Your illustration really drives home the point of moving from a special-interest-financed system (in our imperial-sized districts) to a system in which almost any citizen could run for office.

I have always wanted to make this the subject of a YouTube type video (one of many that need to be created).

Related to that point, I've been searching for ways to illustrate a population of 50,000. For example, the capacity of the baseball stadium closest to us (Turner Field in Atlanta) is almost exactly 50,000. That stadium at capacity (a very rare event, BTW) would illustrate a district of 50,000 (men, women, children, a cross-section of a community). Over on your side of the continent, an example of a 50,000 capacity stadium is Stanford Stadium (list of stadiums by capacity). Such a visual would help people grasp the scale of representation. A population represented by a single stadium full of people would have one federal representative devoted to them, whereas today the average congressional district contains a population equal to 14 such stadiums!

Re: How about 30,000? :: Reply by Paul

no_email@example.com (Paul) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 04:45:06 +0000

So how about 30,000 instead of 50,000? I am very concerned that a plutocracy minor would form - laws would be made around contractors, executives, and professionals, because the cost of winning an election would be beyond the means of the poor, so representatives would have very little to fear from their phone calls.

As for the video, what I had envisioned was simply displaying the group of 700,000 people as being large, multi-colored blob. The colors represent the spectrum of beliefs held by the voters, and when broken down into smaller pieces, say, 23 pieces, each piece is homogeneous in color. This could be tied in with a discussion on how the elected official cannot hear the voices of 700,000, and the voter cannot take any action when angry, even when supported by tens of thousands of like-minded angry voters. Additionally, the district can easily be set up to cut demographics up (gerrymandering) in order to support the special interests. However, when the districts are made smaller, not only are the one color, the elected officials can hear the voices of the voters.

I'm not really explaining it very well, but the style would be similar to this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkSHg3JV_V8

Re: How about 30,000? :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 02:13:26 +0000

Paul wrote:So how about 30,000 instead of 50,000?

Well, I like 50,000 primarily because that was the solution suggested in Article the first. Also, it gets us reasonably close to achieving the one person, one vote standard.

I certainly don't object to anyone advocating a smaller district size. In fact, anyone who believes that there should be more than 435 federal Representatives is on the same side of this issue, IMO.

I do understand the imagery you suggest. It is similar to comparing the presidential election results at the state level (winner takes all) to the county-by-county results. Consider how the election map would appear if the granularity were reduced to 50,000-person district sizes: imagine the colors that would be represented by all the different parties and independents in 6,000 congressional districts!

I watched the video at the link you provided but didn't see the graphic, but it was part one (P1) and so didn't know which part it was in. (I could not place that guy's accent.)

Re: How about 30,000? :: Reply by Paul

no_email@example.com (Paul) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 01:39:13 +0000

Well, then I guess I disagree with Article the First. I feel that 50,000 will ensure that mostly executives, business owners, local contractors, and other middle class types will be able to run, but not the average citizen, and certainly not the poor.

I have a feeling we can get a lot of support from the disenfranchised; the 40% of eligible voters who did not vote in the last election (I think that's about 80,00,000 people). Many people I've met who make the decision not to vote do so because they are completely frustrated with the system and feel it's a waste of time because nobody on any side seems concerned with their interests. I think a very powerful pitch to them would be to explain that if they are unhappy with the way things are, then under our proposal they can run for office and write and vote on legislation themselves. This is a very powerful sales pitch, especially for people who are completely not represented in their districts. I wonder if the inner cities and other poor parts of the nation might prefer to have someone 'from the hood' representing them instead of some party hack?

It's also possible that some may want to support a 'compromise' number in order to keep the status quo. Would 400,000 citizens per representative really be all that much better than 700,000? They could even promote this 'compromise' as being a test of what it would be like to have 30,000, but of course 400,000 might be even worse than 700,000 because the politicians would still be owned by special interests and there would be more representatives to feed pork to.

Here in California we have 465,000 citizens per assemblyman. I've found that my assemblyman cares about my opinion about as much as my U.S. representative does.

I really meant the style of the video, not the video itself. I like the use of illustrations. When I first heard the guy I thought he sounded Australian, and the profile for STOPandLOOK says Australia, so I'm sticking with my initial instincts.

Re: How about 30,000? :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 02:01:27 +0000

Paul wrote:Well, then I guess I disagree with Article the First. I feel that 50,000 will ensure that mostly executives, business owners, local contractors, and other middle class types will be able to run, but not the average citizen, and certainly not the poor.

Well then luckily for you you that I named this "thirty-thousand.org" !

I can only hope enough people agree with you that a national movement is born that leads to amendment conventions in every state. I'm just hoping that most people will support 50,000-person districts; if you and others can convince them to go further to 30,000-person district, then fine!

Re: How about 30,000? :: Reply by SlyRyder

no_email@example.com (SlyRyder) — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 20:02:58 +0000

As long as a state sends at least one rep to Congress then they have fulfilled the federal
requirements. As longs as a State goes along with the unconstitutional 435 number, then there is really no constitutional challenge unless We The People somehow force the issue. Has any state ever tried to send more reps than the unconstitutional number dictated by the 1929 unconstitutional law? If not, which states would like to be first?

I have no faith whatsoever that the national Republicans and Democrats (bipartisan power elite, somesavvysooner's phrase, i like it) would ever amend the US Constitution to do anything meaningful to dilute their power. A lot of Americans are really * at what the Republicans and Democrats have done to our Country, our Lives, and our Liberties.

This is a reasonable issue, more representation just like it is stated in the Constitution.

Why encourage a Congress of Usurpers to amend the Constitution? Just once We The People need to make our reps follow the Constitution. It might make more sense to have 13 states ready to stand up and give the national parties the middle finger salute. It only takes 13 states to stop any Constitutional amendment the major parties might attempt if they see the PEOPLE are fed up. Let's just follow the Constitution! Then the fight is with states and of course eventually the US Supremes. I have no faith in the Supremes either.

But what if seven or eight states (13 states would be ideal) actually attempted to just send reps according to the 1 to 30,000 ratio ..... There has to be a few states, in these times, that are ready to stand up to their big brothers. With so many members of State Houses perpetually positioning themselves to run for the Big House or the Senate, I'm surprised no state legislature has ever forced the 1 to 30,000 ratio! * they could all go to Washington. I know, I'm sorry I brought that up.

If Congress actually refused several states from seating the total number of representatives as agreed in the Constitution then what could We The People do? If at first you don't secede, then try, try again. I had to bring that up.

Well, if enough citizens actually understood this issue, then maybe something could be forced to happen. We are headed for tough times economically, and a lot of Americans were against the bailouts. If there were 10,000 reps in the House would there still have been bailouts? How would the last two years have gone with 10,000 reps in the People's House?

Anyway, those are my initial thoughts. My gut tells me it is better to work with state legislatures on this issue than working with national parties. At this point, I oppose letting the feds amend anything. WE THE People are going to have to force this issue, BIG TIME.

The big, bold, brave words below sure do look mighty constitutional, don't they?

The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative;

Peace,
SlyRyder

Re: How about 30,000? :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:16:22 +0000

SlyRyder wrote:...there is really no constitutional challenge unless We The People somehow force the issue.

Exactly right!! But the prerequisite to any popular movement is widespread awareness and support (which is the purpose of TTO). This is a grassroots effort and we need to increase awareness using all appropriate means.

SlyRyder wrote:I have no faith whatsoever that the national Republicans and Democrats (bipartisan power elite, somesavvysooner's phrase, i like it) would ever amend the US Constitution to do anything meaningful to dilute their power.

Right. I believe this change will require an amendment convention as provided for by Article V of the Constitution (to put forth the undefective version of "Article the first" as originally proposed by the House for the Bill of Rights).

SlyRyder wrote:But what if seven or eight states (13 states would be ideal) actually attempted to just send reps according to the 1 to 30,000 ratio .....

That might make for an interesting protest, but would otherwise be futile because it would give those states proportionally too many Reps (since all states would not be participating) and so would not be allowed to proceed. However, if we can get enough states so motivated, then we should be able to force an amendment convention.

I also believe that it should be a single-issue amendment convention (to enlarge the number of federal representatives), because all other possible amendment proposals will be properly considered later by an enlarged House (e.g., repeal of the 16th, 17th, etc.). An amendment convention that attempts to satisfy everyone's wish lists will fail (and the oligarchs are counting on that).

Strategy for forwarding the cause :: Author paxmath

no_email@example.com (paxmath) — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 22:14:55 +0000

Dear Group:

I am new. I am from Seattle. I actually have been championing this cause for some time.

I would like to start a group in Seattle area with the only goal of getting citizens to endorse this issue. I have many strategies that can be employed.

I will be brief for now and state that a crucial strategy to get this started is to not label this as conservative. (Why would a good liberal oppose having a greater voice?)

I look forward to being educated further on this issue and working with fellow Americans pursue this to its conclusion.

Regards,

George Daher

Re: Strategy for forwarding the cause :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 13:54:28 +0000

paxmath wrote:I would like to start a group in Seattle area with the only goal of getting citizens to endorse this issue. I have many strategies that can be employed.

George, welcome!! I don't believe that anyone has yet started a local group for this, and it's just a matter of time before someone does. I would make a lousy "community organizer" so I don't have any advice. I know that some groups use MeetUp.com (start a group) to support that type of effort, but they may charge a fee (I don't know). If you investigate different tools and find one that's best, let us know.

paxmath wrote:I will be brief for now and state that a crucial strategy to get this started is to not label this as conservative. (Why would a good liberal oppose having a greater voice?)

100% correct. I tell my friends that this is for Right Wing Kooks, Left Wing Loons, everyone in between, and those who don't know where they are. This is one issue on which all patriotic Americans can unite.

Representational enlargement means taking control of government away from the Special Interests and returning it to the citizenry. The only "ideology" in that is the ideology of individual liberty and opposition to tyranny. Opposition to representational enlargement will come from the various Special Interests, the lobbyist confederacy, the political duopoly, and incumbent federal Representatives who don't want their political fiefdoms subdivided.

I don't even like using the "liberal" and "conservative" labels anymore because, for me, they have lost any clear meaning in common usage. That is, those labels can often do more to obfuscate than inform. Also, they over generalize when, in fact, most of us have a complex set of views that don't fit neatly into the media-perpetuated red/blue stereotypes.

paxmath wrote:I look forward to being educated further on this issue and working with fellow Americans pursue this to its conclusion.

If you have not already, please read the 15 Questions & Answers on TTO's home page, the introduction to "Article the first", and Walter Williams' article "Political Monopoly Power". And be prepared for well-intended objections from people who can't yet see outside the artificial political construct we've been living in (defined by the political duopoly and 435). I like to compare it to "The Matrix" in that people will have to decide if they want to keep living in the delusion (blue pill) or move outside of the artificial construct (the red pill).

Focus on Expansion for All Points of View :: Author 803sccdantes

no_email@example.com (803sccdantes) — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 04:53:00 +0000

I've had this page bookmarked for months and I'm glad to see that there's finally a community to discuss this in. I've loved the idea from the minute I ran across the website. My only advice to the movement would be to focus on an expansion for all points of view. I know you address this on the website, but it does come across as a little fearful of educated, elitest-type people- an odd conception when the Founding Fathers were all in the upper-echelon of society. I showed the site to a more liberal, yet open minded, friend of mine, who thought it was a good idea but said it came across as a little scared of educated people- which I do agree could be tweaked some.

That said, I think it would be a good idea to try and get this idea passed around in colleges and other educational institutions. Most younger voters would likely be open to the idea. As a law student, I've mentioned the idea to several of my friends who have also been open to the idea. I think if we're able to focus on the idea that this will allow a greater voice across the board for every point of view- something that's stifled today in Congress.

Re: Focus on Expansion for All Points of View :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:16:11 +0000

803sccdantes wrote:I've had this page bookmarked for months and I'm glad to see that there's finally a community to discuss this in. I've loved the idea from the minute I ran across the website.

Thanks for writing!

803sccdantes wrote:... but it does come across as a little fearful of educated, elitest-type people-

Being somewhat educated myself, at elitist institutions, I certainly don't intend to alienate that group. As it turns out, nothing about "Article the first" of the Bill of Rights is taught in the Universities, and that is where the story of oligarchy in America begins. There has never been a scholarly book or paper written about the very first amendment proposed in our Bill of Rights! (Except for the report that I wrote - link.)

I would appreciate it if you would quote any specific wording in the TTO site that you would change. I am not disagreeing with your point! I'm probably just not sensitive to this, and the feedback would help me understand.

803sccdantes wrote:That said, I think it would be a good idea to try and get this idea passed around in colleges and other educational institutions. Most younger voters would likely be open to the idea. As a law student, I've mentioned the idea to several of my friends who have also been open to the idea. I think if we're able to focus on the idea that this will allow a greater voice across the board for every point of view- something that's stifled today in Congress.

Well said! How can we do that? TTO has no budget, and we depend on grass roots efforts, such as by people like you. This is truly a non-partisan we the people movement.

Re: Focus on Expansion for All Points of View :: Reply by 803sccdantes

no_email@example.com (803sccdantes) — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 21:31:11 +0000

I think you're on the right path- be sure to make it very clear that this idea is not just for right wingers or libertarians- it's for every point of view. Honestly, I really think this could catch on- especially given the current complete mistrust of Congress. Perhaps e-mailing this site to some radio programs to discuss would help- or even try to get one of the major news networks on it. Heck, even try Oprah. One news story or celebrity supporting it could really launch this idea. It'd be a good idea to send it to your Congressman as well. I'm not sure how many Congressman feel about this idea, so it'd be interesting to see how they respond to it. Who knows, you could become the face of a Constitutional Amendment that completely changes the current political environment.

Re: Focus on Expansion for All Points of View :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 22:09:00 +0000

803sccdantes wrote:I think you're on the right path- be sure to make it very clear that this idea is not just for right wingers or libertarians...

You are correct, and you have generally described our strategy. Representational enlargement is truly a non-partisan cause.

It's very slow going finding a "celebrity" or noteworthy person who will take the time to understand representational enlargement. It's very difficult to gain popular support for a cause that cannot be described on a bumper sticker.

Regarding the Congressmen, to make a long story short, they are opposed to subdividing their political fiefdoms. (The only exception that I know of is Alcee Hastings [link].)

Regarding a Constitutional amendment, the good news is that has already been drafted (by the first Congress on August 24, 1789).

Complaint For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:00:39 +0000

Exciting news from Apportionment.us ...

On the grounds that the United States government's current practice of apportioning representatives according to 2 U.S.C. § 2a is unconstitutional, a lawsuit was filed in district court on September 17, 2009.

The plaintiffs are:
John Tyler Clemons
Jessica Wagner
Krystal Brunner
Lisa Schea
Frank Mylar

Mr. Clemons is a registered voter in the state of Mississippi; Ms. Wagner is a registered voter in the state of Montana; Ms. Brunner is a registered voter in the state of South Dakota; Ms. Schea is a registered voter in the state of Delaware; Mr. Mylar is a registered voter in the state of Utah.

TARP contacts :: Author Paul

no_email@example.com (Paul) — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 23:43:17 +0000

During the hearings on the TARP Bill Congress was being contacted by a very high number of people who did not want to pass the bill.

Does anyone here know if there is a public record of contacts to Congress and what they said to their Representatives? It would be very interesting to provide the ratios as supporting evidence of the claim that the House generally ignores its constituents.

Re: TARP contacts :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:30:13 +0000

Paul, I like where you're going with that. Maybe some analyst has written an article on this subject.

I can only think of two sources of information. The first would be from those congressmen who voted against tarp as they probably kept track of the calls & letters in order to justify their position. (Those who voted for TARP spending would have records too, but won't release them.)

Second, and probably your most reliable source, would be from reputable opinion polls. Even if you can't find good public opinion data relative to the initial TARP spending (rushed through Congress during the Bush administration), there should be plenty of poll data prior to subsequent authorizations. Some examples:
Gallup January 15, 2009 Americans Want Details Before Release of More TARP Funds
Rasmussen February 11, 2009 56% Oppose Any More Government Help For Banks

Room for all sides of the political spectrum? :: Author Joneiric

no_email@example.com (Joneiric) — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 20:16:35 +0000

I joined this group because I believe that our representation in Congress is insufficient, and that reducing the size of each district by adding more representatives would be a valuable step for our government. However, I don't have a partisan ax to grind against either side. When we had Republican majorities in Congress I don't think we were any closer to increasing the number of representatives, so it strikes me as false to see conversations on here faulting the Democrats. I haven't studied every dialogue but the first couple of comments on the first couple of threads I saw were disappointing--the same old name-calling and impotent rage against one side or the other.

I was hoping to find a relatively non-partisan group that supports the concept that we'll all be better off if there are many more Democrats in Congress, as well as many more Republicans and some number of third-party and independent voices, each tied much closer to a real and manageable District. Is that not here?

Re: Room for all sides of the political spectrum? :: Reply by Paul

no_email@example.com (Paul) — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 20:23:11 +0000

Which specific tpoics are you referring to? I don't think I've made any statements in support of or against any ideology except for anarchy.

Re: Room for all sides of the political spectrum? :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 20:43:38 +0000

Joneiric wrote: I don't have a partisan ax to grind against either side. When we had Republican majorities in Congress I don't think we were any closer to increasing the number of representatives, so it strikes me as false to see conversations on here faulting the Democrats.

I agree with all that. Who faulted the Democrats? I don't recall such a discussion.

You are correct that this is NOT a forum for partisan debates. Many other forums are available for that purpose.

I have not seen any comments that are "the same old name-calling against one side or the other", but you just joined a few hours ago. Maybe you should read the full thread as your initial impression was probably mistaken. Otherwise, please cite the thread to which you are referring.

Welcome to the forum!

No Constitutional convention, no amendment :: Author oldfriend

no_email@example.com (oldfriend) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 00:04:14 +0000

I am an annoying, fat, unrelenting promoter of enlarging the number of members in our House of Rep's. I offer this solution to regain our democracy to anyone willing to listen and a few that don't. I believe that the most important point that I stress is that this can (not too easily) be done just by repealing one law and replacing it with another. No convention, no amendment. And it can. We got into the 435 number with merely a law, we can change it.

I've tried to promote this, but no one will print my message. I called Thom Hartman, he led my astray and asked while we're at it, why not enlarge the Senate and then went off on a tangent, ending my call. I believe this was just a way to shut me down. I've written to every entity that I thought could help, Michael Moore, Moveon, WhatReallyHappened, etc. Even made the mistake of phoning my Congressman. What a ruckus I made! You should have heard his staff! Where did you hear about that! It would take an amendment to do that! (Which later he declared in person, that, of course, it wouldn't.)

If anyone promotes a convention, they risk all he__ to break loose. Once a convention is convened there is no way to limit the discussion to representation. We would get all sorts of crazy notions put up for consideration (all and/or any crazy insane ideas Glen Beck and the corporations that feed him can think up). That is much too dangerous of an approach.

An amendment takes forever. Take the ERA. Equal Rights Amendment. You would think that would be a no brainer, but it hasn't passed yet.

Yet, there has been people who I've spoken to that have embraced the idea, all intelligent, but that doesn't mean that all intelligent people can grasp or even want to grasp the seriousness of the problem and promote its solution, namely a repeal of the law that put it in place and a law that would replace it. My daughter brought home a date, a computer programmer who either had a Phd in his field or was a candidate, and he didn't even know how a bill was passed, although he could sing a little of "I'm just a Bill" cartoon. But with George Bush, I guess all you need are executive orders and signing statements.

I was really thrilled to read about the effort to push this using the courts. I can't see one man, one vote with a Montana resident representing only 1/1,000,000 of his Representative's constituency and a Wyoming resident representing 1/500,000. But we all know that one person cannot represent a constituency as large as either one.

My representative is arrogant beyond belief. He voted for the FISA bill, when the telecorporation that dominates his district refused to abide with the government's demands to easedrop and was financially punished for it. He promotes every "fair trade" bill that comes along. You know that nice design center that Secy of State Clinton visited in Russia, well, that's where my husband's job was outsourced, but my representative said that no white collar jobs were affected by outsourcing because the GAO report about outsourcing concerned only blue collar jobs. I asked him how many signatures it would take on a petition to back Kucinich in impeaching Bush, he laughed and said if I thought 100 was a lot (which is the exact number that a veterans group had just delivered to him, so in fact, he was laughing at veterans who wanted a change and had risked signing their names to whatever may befall them for doing so), and laughed that he represented over 700,000 people and of course, any efforts I would make would be paltry. In the end, he said his mind was made up and nothing could change it. Now that is representation!

Prior to this meeting, I had gone to a Democratic get together, meet up, a chance for representatives to meet their constituency in an casual setting. I was misled by the afterdowningstreet site that Pelosi would put impeachment back on the table if she received enough correspondence to warrant it, when I bought 25 prepaid postage postcards that had her address on it, a message saying thanking her for putting impeachment back on the table and had people write personal messages on them and sign them with their addresses, I then offered to mail them in for them. Although I didn't get all of them to mail myself, I used all my postcards that one night. I don't know if it would have taken me much time to get a tremendous amount of postcards or say, signatures on a petition to support the impeachment of this criminal.

I must say, I didn't form my ideas by coming to this page. I came to them after the horrendous election of 2004. I found all the population counts of all the states and then the number of representatives in each. I surmised (but I may be mistaken), that the electoral college count would remain the same whether this scheme comes to pass or not, but I figured that if in the minority districts that were in the recent past protected from gerrymandering, more progressive representation could be achieved, but that time frame has come and gone. I also found out that Alcee Hastings had promoted enlarging the House, along with George Will.

In my efforts to sway opinion, I've found the internet (save the site here) has not been of much use. Of all my blog entries, very few have ever been seen. Maybe some entertaining youtube videos could work (do any exists?). But perhaps, as with the postcards above, personal connections is the answer.

I have tried to keep my blog entries shorter since finding this site (I may have been the one promoting the additional Congressional meeting sites), by just referring people here, but I don't agree with a Constitutional convention or amendment. It's just a law. Let's just see if we can change it! Ask candidates as they run and bring the message back here! Try to get on local radio call ins! Maybe this site could create a legal petition that could be circulated. People need hope. This is the only one we have!

As for state governments, I would think that perhaps some see the state legislatures as the training grounds for federal positions in Congress and the largess that that provides. I don't think they would be interested in diluting the payoffs. We need to pressure those in Congress now.

Re: No Constitutional convention, no amendment :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 01:18:13 +0000

Welcome to our forum! We understand all of your frustration regarding the resistance encountered in promoting representational enlargement and we certainly need more "unrelenting promoters" (even those with a poor self image!).

oldfriend wrote:Once a convention is convened there is no way to limit the discussion to representation.

I respect your view, but I disagree. I've summarized my views here: http://forum.thirty-thousand.org/viewto ... ?f=16&t=20 (feel free to respond there).

oldfriend wrote:My representative is arrogant beyond belief.

90%+ of them are.

oldfriend wrote:I surmised (but I may be mistaken), that the electoral college count would remain the same whether this scheme comes to pass or not,

The number of Electors equals the number of federal Representatives plus the number of Senators plus 3 (for DC). Therefore, if we had enough Reps, the Electoral College vote would always equal the popular vote. Please read these links:
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/section_IX.htm
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/Ne ... eitlin.htm

oldfriend wrote:Maybe some entertaining youtube videos could work (do any exists?).

That's exactly what I want to do. I have thought through the story those videos should tell, but I don't have the skills, time or budget to implement. TTO needs someone to donate their time & services in this area.

oldfriend wrote:...but I don't agree with a Constitutional convention or amendment. It's just a law. Let's just see if we can change it! Ask candidates as they run and bring the message back here! Try to get on local radio call ins! Maybe this site could create a legal petition that could be circulated.

Of course, changing the law would be wonderful and we can all agree on that. However, I do not believe that these Congressmen will ever agree to subdivide their massive fiefdoms. Should we try to persuade them? Yes! But consider all the resistance you've encountered with the Representatives on this issue. At best, they would increase their numbers by two or three, and tell you to be a good federal subject and go home.

Why do we need an amendment? We don't need an amendment to increase the number of Representatives; Congress could do that at any time. We need an amendment to force them to increase their numbers, and to ensure they continue to increase their numbers in the future as the population increases. They could pass a law today, and repeal it in the next Congress.

Petitions? The Congressmen laugh at petitions. Unless the petitions are signed by their true constituents (the Special Interests), they are merely junk mail to our "Representatives".

oldfriend wrote: People need hope. This is the only one we have!

That is exactly how I feel.

oldfriend wrote:As for state governments, I would think that perhaps some see the state legislatures as the training grounds for federal positions in Congress and the largess that that provides. I don't think they would be interested in diluting the payoffs. We need to pressure those in Congress now.

Agree!

Please read “Freedom and Legislative District Sizes”:
http://thirty-thousand-org.blogspot.com ... sizes.html
That article provides a compelling argument to use when attempting to explain representational enlargement.

BTW, we try to keep the discussions nonpartisan here. This is truly a big tent cause that attracts Right Wing Kooks, Left Wing Loons, and everyone in between!! One of the objectives of this forum is to encourage everyone to work together to advance the cause of representational enlargement and not be distracted (in this forum) by partisan issues.

Re: No Constitutional convention, no amendment :: Reply by oldfriend

no_email@example.com (oldfriend) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 06:44:14 +0000

Me again.

Well, I still stand by what I said before. I'm quite aware as to how the electoral college works, but didn't know about DC.

I sort of used my own math about the electoral college thing. I looked into what I would consider some pretty good democracies in Europe. They average about 200,000 constituents per representative. So I just divided the states populations by that number and I came out with about the same outcome as if I hadn't. But even if this is the case, the increase of ideas, voices of concern, elimination of campaign war chests, the increase scrutiny that a larger representative body of government would create deserves our deepest commitment to pursue.

The should and would of the behavior of the participants to a Constitutional convention is not convincing enough for me to give up my fear of run-away amendments that would be even more detrimental, although that is somewhat hard to conceive, to the general population.

Even an incremental increase as passed into law, say one representative to every 400,000, then to every 300,000, etc. could possibly alleviate the fears of a government too large to function, and then promote the Constitutional amendment that would lack those negatives that surely would come upon its proposal if the increments had not been tried first.

And again as I said, I doubt that even the state legislatures could be persuaded, for they see themselves as incubators for federal congressional positions.

Arundhati Roy, author of Field Notes on Democracy: Listening to Grasshoppers, writes about her native India and its democracy, that behaves like ours where our checks and balances have no longer an adversarial or watchful function, but acts in unison to promote a common agenda, that of the moneyed corporations to the detriment of the people and the environment. Also watch The Warning, from PBS Frontlines (a national treasure of programming).

India's ratio of constituents to representative is of course, much worse than ours.

We should act more strategically. The use of the courts is a superior idea. Hoorah!

I wish us all good luck in our endeavors.

By the way, in the preceding Voter's Pamphlet, that my state provides that allows the candidates or their supporters to write their positions on current and past issues and prints out any inititatives, etc., there was a bold fellow, a physicist, running for office, who knew he couldn't win, but by paying his fee, ran for a local office and used his position space to the address the cause. His view was 50,000 to one representative. Good job, don't ya think? Now that's strategy!

Some Court Cases About The 435 Number :: Author 803sccdantes

no_email@example.com (803sccdantes) — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 21:25:30 +0000

I was a little bored today so I looked up some cases where a citizen sued the government about the 435 limitation. Here's a quick list and a synopsis of what happened:

Wendelken v. Bureau of the Census, N.Y.,
N.Y. 582 F.Supp. 342 D.C.N.Y.,1983. Sep 21, 1983

In this case, the plaintiff argued that "even if Congress has discretion by virtue of Article I to limit the number of representatives as it has, that discretion is constrained by the fifth amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws, Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636, 638 n. 2, 95 S.Ct. 1225, 1228 n. 2, 43 L.Ed.2d 514 (1976), and the principle of one person one vote that equal protection doctrine embodies, Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 526, 11 L.Ed.2d 481 (1964). Wendelken contends that in setting the size of the House of Representatives, Congress is constitutionally required to ensure that congressional districts are "as equal as they can possibly be."

The court didn't buy his argument. Here's their conclusion:

"Although somewhat novel, this argument has no merit. The inequality of which Wendelken complains inheres in our constitutional structure. So long as the Constitution requires apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives among the states, inequalities of voting power of the kind mentioned above are inevitable in view of population differences; the question is a matter of degree. Wendelken argues that this Court should order the Congress to ameliorate inequality of voting power within our constitutional framework by creating more seats in the national legislature. He cites no decision, and this Court is aware of no decision, that has ordered such a remedy. The decision to limit the size of the House of Representatives to 435 members is expressly committed to the discretion of Congress.
The government's motion to dismiss is granted."

Whelan v. Cuomo
415 F.Supp. 251 D.C.N.Y. 1976 June 15, 1976
Here's some quotes that will give you a quick synopsis of the arguments, and the court's holding:

"Simply put, the plaintiff's complaint avers that, given the present population of the nation, section 2 of Title 2, in fixing the number of members of the House of Representatives at 435, violates Article I, section 2, clause 3 of the Constitution. Article I, section 2, clause 3 deals first with the apportionment of representatives and direct taxes among the states, then provides for a census (‘enumeration’) every ten years, and then specifies, in relevant part:
'The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative'; . . ."

"On its face, the language of the Constitution has not been contravened here. The population of the United States as of 1970, the year of the last official federal census, was 203,184,772. The number of representatives therefore does not exceed one for every 30,000, there being approximately one for every 467,000. Plaintiff does not dispute these simple mathematics. Rather, plaintiff contends that the present ratio of one representative for every 467,000 contravenes the spirit, if not the letter, of Article I, section 2, clause 3 of the Constitution. However, an examination of the history of the Constitutional Convention and the surrounding debate shows that plaintiff's position is without merit."

The court then lists an exhaustive series of quotations from the Constitutional Convention about how the delegates came to the wording they did. It continues:

"The historical record of the Constitutional Convention supports several conclusions. First, the bicameral legislature reflects a basic compromise between the small states and the larger ones. Second, there was considerable dissatisfaction with the small number of representatives in the House, but all efforts to increase the original number were defeated. Third, Congress was vested with authority to expand the number of members in the House and charged with the duty to apportion the membership among the several states. Finally, Congress was given considerable flexibility in determining the actual number of representatives so long as the total did not exceed one representative for every 30,000 inhabitants. This was done as a safeguard against the dangers of too numerous a body. Several members of the convention indicated subsequently a belief that the House would add one member for each additional 30,000 population as the nation grew. 3 Farrand 337, 358. James Wilson *257 of Pennsylvania spoke in favor of the one for every 30,000 ratio of representation at his state's ratification convention by speculating that ‘the House of Representatives will, within a single century, consist of more than six hundred members.’ 3 Farrand 159-60. James Madison also speculated on the future size of the House. He predicted that in 25 years the House would have 200 members; in 50 years, 400 members. The Federalist No. LV. Messrs. Wilson's and Madison's statements rested on two assumptions, only one of which proved correct: the nation's population did grow at a phenomenal pace; however, Congress has never seen fit to exercise its full prerogative and establish a representative for every 30,000 inhabitants. The flexibility to establish fewer representatives than the one for every 30,000 inhabitants which the constitution allows is implicit in Mr. Gorham's comment when he sponsored the motion to amend the provision to read: ‘The number of representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, . . .’ He stated: ‘This would not . . . establish . . . an absolute rule, but only give Congress a greater latitude which could not be thought unreasonable.’ The remark gains added weight because it is one of the few remarks addressed to this provision after the unexplained addition of the ‘not exceeding’ language.

One final source is noteworthy as it bears not only on the intent of the Constitutional Convention but it eloquently defends the decision ultimately made by Congress in 2 U.S.C. s 2 to set the membership of the House of Representatives below the maximum that Article I, section 2, clause 3 permits. James Madison separately addressed each of four criticisms of the ‘number of which the House of Representatives is to consist’ in four letters in the Federalist Papers (Nos. LV-LVIII)

The charges exhibited against it are, first, that so small a number of representatives will be an unsafe depositary of the public interests; secondly, that they will not possess a proper knowledge of the local circumstances of their numerous constituents; thirdly, that they will be taken from that class of citizens which will sympathise least with the feelings of the mass of the people, and be most likely to aim at a permanent elevation of the few on the depression of the many; fourthly, that defective as the number will be in the first instance, it will be more and more disproportionate, by the increase of the people, and the obstacles which will prevent a correspondent increase of the representatives.

The Federalist No. LA. As to the charge that the membership of the House was too small to be a safe depository of the public interest, Madison, the man who had sought to double the number, wrote:

Nothing can be more fallacious than to found our political calculations on arithmetical principles. Sixty or seventy men may be more properly trusted with a given degree of power than six or seven. But it does not follow that six or seven hundred would be proportionably a better depositary. And if we carry on the supposition to six or seven thousand, the whole reasoning ought to be reversed. The truth is, that in all cases a certain number at least seems to be necessary to secure the benefits of free consultation and discussion, and to guard against too easy a combination for improper purposes; as, on the other hand, the number ought at most to be kept within a certain limit, in order to avoid the confusion and intemperance of a multitude. . . .

The Federalist No. LV.

Mr. Madison concluded with some remarks on the dangers of an excessive number of representatives in the House.

One observation, however, I must be permitted to add on this subject as claiming, in my judgment, a very serious attention. It is, that in all legislative assemblies the greater the number composing them may be, the fewer will be the men who will in fact direct their proceedings. In the first place, the more numerous an assembly may be, of whatever characters composed, the greater is known to be the ascendancy of passion over reason. In the next place, the larger the number, the *258 greater will be the proportion of members of limited information and of weak capacities. . . . On the same principle, the more multitudinous a representative assembly may be rendered, the more it will partake of the infirmities incident to collective meetings of the people. . . . The people can never err more than in supposing that by multiplying their representatives beyond a certain limit, they strengthen the barrier against the government of a few. Experience will for ever admonish them that, on the contrary, after securing a sufficient number for the purposes of safety, of local information, and of diffusive sympathy with the whole society, they will counteract their own views by every addition to their representatives. The countenance of the government may become more democratic, but the soul that animates it will be more oligarchic. The machine will be enlarged, but the fewer, and often the more secret, will be the springs by which its motions are directed. (Emphasis in original).

The Federalist No. LVIII.

[6] Thus both the historical background and the plain meaning of the Constitution support the power of Congress to fix the number of representatives at a figure less than the maximum of one for every 30,000 inhabitants. Plaintiff quotes language from Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 526, 11 L.Ed.2d 481 (1964) concerning the importance of a citizen's vote for law-makers, but the case dealt only with the need for equality in population of Congressional districts, and lends no support to plaintiff's cause.

[7] The lack of merit in plaintiff's argument is so obvious that a single judge can reject it without convening a three-judge court. Goosby v. Osser, 409 U.S. 512, 518, 93 S.Ct. 854, 858-59, 35 L.Ed.2d 36 (1973); Ex parte Poresky, 290 U.S. 30, 32, 54 S.Ct. 3, 4-5, 78 L.Ed. 152 (1933).

It is ORDERED that the plaintiff's motions to convene a three-judge court and for summary judgment are denied; and it is further

ORDERED that the defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted, and the complaint is dismissed."

Hope this helps us formulate some arguments against some of the points the court made.

Re: Some Court Cases About The 435 Number :: Reply by sly_devyl

no_email@example.com (sly_devyl) — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 18:42:43 +0000

Do you have these cases available? I would like to read their text in their entirety. Also, did they make it to the US Supreme Court?

Re: Some Court Cases About The 435 Number :: Reply by Elias

no_email@example.com (Elias) — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 18:58:35 +0000

The New York Times has a front page article today on expanding the size of the House and the law suit:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/us/po ... er.html?hp
They also provide an opportunity for readers to comment, and 128 have so far.

Re: Some Court Cases About The 435 Number :: Reply by Paul

no_email@example.com (Paul) — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:24:11 +0000

Excellent research. Thank you! If we could get pdf's or links or something added that would really be awesome. Even transcripts, to evaluate the various arguments made.

Re: Some Court Cases About The 435 Number :: Reply by HouseSizeWonk

no_email@example.com (HouseSizeWonk) — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:39:33 +0000

Robert P. WHELAN, Plaintiff, v. Mario CUOMO, Secretary of State of the State of New York, Defendant

No. 75-C-549

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

415 F. Supp. 251

June 15, 1976

JUDD, District Judge.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

In this civil rights action plaintiff seeks to enjoin the election of Congressmen from New York, on the theory that 2 U.S.C. § 2, fixing the number of representatives at 435, is unconstitutional.

Plaintiff seeks the convening of a three-judge court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281, 2284, and summary judgment pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. Rule 56. The defendant has filed his own motion for summary judgment.

Facts

Plaintiff is a citizen of the United States of America and a resident of New York State. Plaintiff has been an eligible voter since 1944 and avers that he has never failed to vote in an election for a member of the House of Representatives. The defendant is the Secretary of State of the State of New York and, as such, is charged with the responsibility to

. . . prepare a general certificate under the seal of the state and attested by him as secretary thereof, addressed to the house of representatives of the United States, in that congress for which any person shall have been chosen, of the due election of all persons chosen at that election as representatives of this state in congress, and shall transmit the same to the house of representatives at its first meeting. . .

N.Y. Election Law § 278(4).

The plaintiff seeks to obtain a declaratory judgment that 2 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 2a are unconstitutional and to enjoin the defendant from performing his responsibility under § 278(4) of the New York Election Law. Section 2 of Title 2 of the United States Code fixes the number of members of the House of Representatives at 435. Section 2a provides the method of reapportioning this number of representatives among the several states in accordance with their population as determined by the decennial census.

Simply put, the plaintiff's complaint avers that, given the present population of the nation, section 2 of Title 2, in fixing the number of members of the House of Representatives at 435, violates Article I, section 2, clause 3 of the Constitution. Article I, section 2, clause 3 deals first with the apportionment of representatives and direct taxes among the states, then provides for a census ("enumeration") every ten years, and then specifies, in relevant part:
The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; . . .
The balance of clause 3 sets forth the initial apportionment of 65 representatives.

The population of the United States was over 203 million at the time of the 1970 census. If there were one representative for each 30,000 of population, the House of Representatives would consist of over 6,700 members.

Discussion

Plaintiff's motions may be defeated on at least two procedural grounds even before the court reaches the merits. First, in an action which attacks the constitutionality of an act of Congress, notice must be given to the United States Attorney General and the United States Attorney. 28 U.S.C. § 2284(2). This was not done. Second, the New York Secretary of State exercises only a ministerial function in certifying the results of the votes cast for Congressmen. Matter of Hart, 161 N.Y. 507, 55 N.E. 1058 (1900). His functions concerning Congressional elections are not comparable to those of the Secretary of State of Tennessee concerning state legislators. Therefore, there is no significance in the fact that the Secretary of State of Tennessee was the defendant in Baker v. Carr, 179 F. Supp. 824 (M.D.Tenn.1959), reversed, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S. Ct. 691, 7 L. Ed. 2d 663 (1962). The result of an injunction against the New York Secretary of State would be simply to leave New York with no representatives in Congress, since he would have no power to fix a different number to be elected. The answer to the complaint presents a defense of failure to join an indispensable party, although this was not pressed in defendant's brief. F.R.Civ.P. 19.

Mindful of the need for a district court to canvass all issues that may be presented on appeal, the court will address itself to the constitutional issue in spite of the preliminary barriers to plaintiff's success in the action.

On its face, the language of the Constitution has not been contravened here. The population of the United States as of 1970, the year of the last official federal census, was 203,184,772. The number of representatives therefore does not exceed one for every 30,000, there being approximately one for every 467,000.

Plaintiff does not dispute these simple mathematics. Rather, plaintiff contends that the present ratio of one representative for every 467,000 contravenes the spirit, if not the letter, of Article I, section 2, clause 3 of the Constitution. However, an examination of the history of the Constitutional Convention and the surrounding debate shows that plaintiff's position is without merit.

The provision which ultimately became the relevant portion of Article I, section 2, clause 3 is an example of several major compromises reached at the Constitutional Convention. An understanding of these broader issues is helpful to put the provision here into context. The first of these themes is the struggle between the large, more populous states and the smaller states. The division between the Senate and the House of Representatives reflects this basic tension. The Senate guaranteed some protection for the smaller states by giving each state equal weight regardless of its population, while the House was to reflect the interests of the people by distributing representatives according to each state's population.

The number of representatives allotted to each state was intricately tied to the basis for representation; specifically, whether wealth or population, or some combination of the two, was an appropriate basis, and how slaves should be counted for this purpose. A certain community of interests was achieved by tying the apportionment of representatives and direct taxes to the same standard.

Max Farrand's The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 is the most comprehensive source for the actual debates at the Constitutional Convention (hereinafter -- Farrand).

On July 5, 1787, Elbridge Gerry reported to the Convention a series of resolutions of the Grand Committee. The first resolution read in relevant part:
That in the first branch of the Legislature each of the States now in the Union be allowed one Member for every forty thousand inhabitants of the description reported in the seventh resolution of the Committee of the whole House.
1 Farrand 524, 526. The Gerry report on behalf of the Grand Committee was the first officially proposed ratio of representation.

The resolutions of the Committee of the Whole appeared in the Journal of the Convention on June 13 and represented a revision of the Virginia Plan submitted by Mr. Randolph to the Convention on May 29. Neither the Virginia Plan nor the resolutions of the Committee of the Whole had detailed any actual ratio of representation. 1 Farrand 20, 229-30.

The Gerry report triggered the first of a series of debates on what the ratio of representation in the House of Representatives should be, and the basis for any such ratio. The initial focus of that debate was whether property or population was an appropriate basis for any ratio to be fixed. 1 Farrand 536-37, 541-42. Gouverneur Morris voiced some concern that any ratio based on population would ultimately result in a shift of power to the "Western Country" to the detriment of the Atlantic States.

The statement of Rufus King of Massachusetts in support of a motion to refer the ratio of representation portion of the Gerry report to a special committee is noteworthy. James Madison's notes reflect the following:
He [Mr. King] thought also that the Ratio of Representation proposed could not be safely fixed, since in a century & a half our computed increase of population would carry the number of representatives to an enormous excess;
1 Farrand 541. The motion to commit was passed, 7 to 3, and a committee of five (G. Morris, Gorham, Randolph, Rutledge and King) unanimously appointed on July 6, 1787. 1 Farrand 538, 542.

The Morris Committee of five reported back to the Convention on Monday, July 9th. The Morris Committee report urged that the first branch consist of 56 members (with the distribution amongst the several states specifically set forth) with the power "to augment the number of representatives: . . . upon the principles of . . . wealth and number of inhabitants." 1 Farrand 557-58. Mr. Gorham, a member of the committee of five, stated two objections to the ratio of one member for every 40,000 inhabitants:
The 1st. was that the Representation would soon be too numerous: the 2d. that the Westn. States who may have a different interest, might if admitted on that principal by degrees, out-vote the Atlantic. Both these objections are removed. The number will be small in the first instance and may be continued so, and the Atlantic States having ye. Govt. in their own hands, may take care of their own interest, by dealing out the right of Representation in safe proportions to the Western States. These were the views of the Committee.
1 Farrand 560. A vote authorizing the legislature to alter the number from time to time according to the Committee's principle of wealth and inhabitants passed 9 to 2. 1 Farrand 560. The original number of 56 representatives and their distribution among the several states were committed to a grand committee of thirteen, one delegate from each state. 1 Farrand 560-62.

Mr. King reported on behalf of this grand committee on July 10th. The King report proposed a first branch of 65 representatives (with the specific distribution set forth). 1 Farrand 563, 566. Various motions to amend the King report were made and defeated. Of particular interest is Mr. Madison's motion to double the number of representatives allowed to each state. His arguments in favor of the motion are quite similar to the position articulated by plaintiff in this case:
They would not possess enough of the confidence of the people, and wd. be too sparsely taken from the people, to bring with them all the local information which would be frequently wanted. Double the number will not be too great even with the future additions from New States.
1 Farrand 568-69. The opposition pointed out the added expense and the dangers of excessive number reducing the body's efficiency. Messrs. Gerry and Read argued that the highest number of representatives might be fixed, thereby removing any danger of excess. Neither suggested an appropriate figure. Mr. Madison's motion was defeated 9 to 2. 1 Farrand 569-70.

The first step toward resolution was reached when the Convention unanimously agreed on July 12th that "direct Taxation ought to be proportioned according to representation." 1 Farrand 589. Having linked the burden of direct taxation and the advantage of representation to the same formula, the Convention on July 13th adopted the principle of population to govern both, 9 to 0. 1 Farrand 598-606.

On July 16th the Convention approved by a vote of 5 to 4 the report from the grand committee as amended. The resolution fixed the number of representatives in the first branch at 65, with the same distribution as urged in the King report of July 10th. The resolution did not fix a specific ratio of representation but simply adopted the "principle . . . of inhabitants" for both the number of representatives in the House and for the imposition of direct taxes. 2 Farrand 13-14.

On July 23, 1787 the resolution dealing with representation in the first branch of Congress was referred, along with a full set of resolutions, to a Committee of Detail. 2 Farrand 129.

Various other drafts and papers were submitted to the Committee of Detail for their consideration. An outline of the Pinckney Plan which was submitted to the Committee urged a ratio of representation without suggesting one. 2 Farrand 135. A document in the handwriting of Mr. Randolph was submitted suggesting that "The house of delegates shall never be greater in number than . . . according to the ratio, recommended by congress." 2 Farrand 138-39.

On August 6th, Mr. Rutledge delivered the report of the Committee of Detail. The relevant provisions on representation in the House of Representatives fixed the original number at 65 members and a ratio of one for every 40,000 inhabitants thereafter. 2 Farrand 178.

On September 8th Hugh Williamson of North Carolina proposed a motion to reconsider the number of members in the House and to increase their number by half. The motion was a less ambitious effort to achieve the same purpose as the Madison motion of July 10th. In fact, Mr. Madison seconded the Williamson motion. Madison's notes for September 8 reflect Alexander Hamilton's arguments in favor of the motion, noteworthy here for their consistency with the plaintiff's position in this case.
Col: Hamilton expressed himself with great earnestness and anxiety in favor of the motion. He avowed himself a friend to a vigorous Government, but would declare at the same time, that he held it essential that the popular branch of it should be on a broad foundation. He was seriously of opinion that the House of Representatives was on so narrow a scale as to be really dangerous, and to warrant a jealousy in the people for their liberties. He remarked that the connection between the President & Senate would tend to perpetuate him, by corrupt influence. It was the more necessary on this account that a numerous representation in the other branch of the Legislature should be established.
2 Farrand 553-54. The motion was defeated 5 to 6. 2 Farrand 554, 612.

On the same day, September 8th, a Committee of Style and Arrangement was appointed. 2 Farrand 553. On September 10 a 23 article document was referred to the Committee. Article IV, sections 3 and 4 in the document tracked the language of the Committee of Detail's report with one significant and unexplained difference. Instead of setting the rate of representation at "one for every forty thousand" inhabitants, the section as reported to the Committee of Style stated that the number of representatives should be set by a rule "not exceeding the rate of one for every forty thousand. Provided that every State shall have at least one representative." 2 Farrand 566. (Emphasis added).

The Report of the Committee of Style was issued on September 12, 1787. Article I, section 2, clause (b) stated in relevant part:
The number of representatives shall not exceed one for every forty thousand, but each state shall have at least one representative . . .
2 Farrand 591.

On September 17, 1787, the last day of the Constitutional Convention, Mr. Gorham (who had been a member of the Committee of Detail) rose to move what proved to be the last change in the text of the constitution before its adoption. His motion was to strike "40,000" and insert in its place "30,000" in the ratio of representation. "This would not he remarked establish that as an absolute rule, but only give Congress a greater latitude which could not be thought unreasonable." George Washington, president of the Convention, spoke in favor of this change. It was the only occasion during the entire Convention that he expressed his personal views. 2 Farrand 644. The motion carried unanimously, 2 Farrand 644, in part at least in deference to the judgment of Mr. Washington. 3 Farrand 337, 358.

The change was apparently in response to the continued criticism of the smallness of the membership of the House of Representatives. 2 Farrand 563, 638.

The historical record of the Constitutional Convention supports several conclusions. First, the bicameral legislature reflects a basic compromise between the small states and the larger ones. Second, there was considerable dissatisfaction with the small number of representatives in the House, but all efforts to increase the original number were defeated. Third, Congress was vested with authority to expand the number of members in the House and charged with the duty to apportion the membership among the several states. Finally, Congress was given considerable flexibility in determining the actual number of representatives so long as the total did not exceed one representative for every 30,000 inhabitants. This was done as a safeguard against the dangers of too numerous a body. Several members of the convention indicated subsequently a belief that the House would add one member for each additional 30,000 population as the nation grew. 3 Farrand 337, 358. James Wilson of Pennsylvania spoke in favor of the one for every 30,000 ratio of representation at his state's ratification convention by speculating that "the House of Representatives will, within a single century, consist of more than six hundred members." 3 Farrand 159-60. James Madison also speculated on the future size of the House. He predicted that in 25 years the House would have 200 members; in 50 years, 400 members. The Federalist No. LV. Messrs. Wilson's and Madison's statements rested on two assumptions, only one of which proved correct: the nation's population did grow at a phenomenal pace; however, Congress has never seen fit to exercise its full prerogative and establish a representative for every 30,000 inhabitants. The flexibility to establish fewer representatives than the one for every 30,000 inhabitants which the constitution allows is implicit in Mr. Gorham's comment when he sponsored the motion to amend the provision to read: "The number of representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, . . ." He stated: "This would not . . . establish . . . an absolute rule, but only give Congress a greater latitude which could not be thought unreasonable." The remark gains added weight because it is one of the few remarks addressed to this provision after the unexplained addition of the "not exceeding" language.

One final source is noteworthy as it bears not only on the intent of the Constitutional Convention but it eloquently defends the decision ultimately made by Congress in 2 U.S.C. § 2 to set the membership of the House of Representatives below the maximum that Article I, section 2, clause 3 permits. James Madison separately addressed each of four criticisms of the "number of which the House of Representatives is to consist" in four letters in the Federalist Papers (Nos. LV-LVIII)
The charges exhibited against it are, first, that so small a number of representatives will be an unsafe depositary of the public interests; secondly, that they will not possess a proper knowledge of the local circumstances of their numerous constituents; thirdly, that they will be taken from that class of citizens which will sympathize least with the feelings of the mass of the people, and be most likely to aim at a permanent elevation of the few on the depression of the many; fourthly, that defective as the number will be in the first instance, it will be more and more disproportionate, by the increase of the people, and the obstacles which will prevent a correspondent increase of the representatives.
The Federalist No. LV. As to the charge that the membership of the House was too small to be a safe depository of the public interest, Madison, the man who had sought to double the number, wrote:
Nothing can be more fallacious than to found our political calculations on arithmetical principles. Sixty or seventy men may be more properly trusted with a given degree of power than six or seven. But it does not follow that six or seven hundred would be proportionably a better depositary. And if we carry on the supposition to six or seven thousand, the whole reasoning ought to be reversed. The truth is, that in all cases a certain number at least seems to be necessary to secure the benefits of free consultation and discussion, and to guard against too easy a combination for improper purposes; as, on the other hand, the number ought at most to be kept within a certain limit, in order to avoid the confusion and intemperance of a multitude. . . .
The Federalist No. LV.

Mr. Madison concluded with some remarks on the dangers of an excessive number of representatives in the House.
One observation, however, I must be permitted to add on this subject as claiming, in my judgment, a very serious attention. It is, that in all legislative assemblies the greater the number composing them may be, the fewer will be the men who will in fact direct their proceedings. In the first place, the more numerous an assembly may be, of whatever characters composed, the greater is known to be the ascendancy of passion over reason. In the next place, the larger the number, the greater will be the proportion of members of limited information and of weak capacities. . . . On the same principle, the more multitudinous a representative assembly may be rendered, the more it will partake of the infirmities incident to collective meetings of the people. . . . The people can never err more than in supposing that by multiplying their representatives beyond a certain limit, they strengthen the barrier against the government of a few. Experience will for ever admonish them that, on the contrary, after securing a sufficient number for the purposes of safety, of local information, and of diffusive sympathy with the whole society, they will counteract their own views by every addition to their representatives. The countenance of the government may become more democratic, but the soul that animates it will be more oligarchic. The machine will be enlarged, but the fewer, and often the more secret, will be the springs by which its motions are directed. (Emphasis in original).
The Federalist No. LVIII.

Thus both the historical background and the plain meaning of the Constitution support the power of Congress to fix the number of representatives at a figure less than the maximum of one for every 30,000 inhabitants. Plaintiff quotes language from Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 84 S. Ct. 526, 11 L. Ed. 2d 481 (1964) concerning the importance of a citizen's vote for lawmakers, but the case dealt only with the need for equality in population of Congressional districts, and lends no support to plaintiff's cause.

The lack of merit in plaintiff's argument is so obvious that a single judge can reject it without convening a three-judge court. Goosby v. Osser, 409 U.S. 512, 518, 93 S. Ct. 854, 858-59, 35 L. Ed. 2d 36 (1973); Ex parte Poresky, 290 U.S. 30, 32, 54 S. Ct. 3, 4-5, 78 L. Ed. 152 (1933).

It is ORDERED that the plaintiff's motions to convene a three-judge court and for summary judgment are denied; and it is further

ORDERED that the defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

Re: Some Court Cases About The 435 Number :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:13:53 +0000

HouseSizeWonk wrote:Robert P. WHELAN, Plaintiff, v. Mario CUOMO, Secretary of State of the State of New York, Defendant

No. 75-C-549

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

A few days ago I added a link to Apportionment.us from TTO's home page.

I was thinking of setting up a separate thread or forum just for that lawsuit.

Re: Some Court Cases About The 435 Number :: Reply by HouseSizeWonk

no_email@example.com (HouseSizeWonk) — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:36:19 +0000

Whelan is from 1976, it isn't the Apportionment.us case; someone in this thread had asked for its text, though, so I provided it. Apportionment.us is doomed to failure, for good reason; whatever your feeling about the size of the House (and I am certainly pro-enlargement), it is not the place of the federal judiciary to govern it. As was said in Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 539, 619 (1842) "[Congress] has, on various occasions, exercised powers which were necessary and proper as means to carry into effect rights expressly given, and duties expressly enjoined thereby. The end being required, it has been deemed a just and necessary implication, that the means to accomplish it are given also; or, in other words, that the power flows as a necessary means to accomplish the end. Thus, for example, although the constitution has declared, that representatives shall be apportioned among the states according to their respective federal numbers; and for this purpose, it has expressly authorized congress, by law, to provide for an enumeration of the population every ten years; yet the power to apportion representatives, after this enumeration is made, is nowhere found among the express powers given to congress, but it has always been acted upon, as irresistibly flowing from the duty positively enjoined by the constitution." This seems to pretty squarely fall within the confines of a "political question" which the courts should not address, as defined in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962): "Prominent on the surface of any case held to involve a political question is found a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department."

Re: Some Court Cases About The 435 Number :: Reply by HouseSizeWonk

no_email@example.com (HouseSizeWonk) — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:44:10 +0000

Martin E. WENDELKEN, Plaintiff, v. BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, N.Y., N.Y., Director of the Bureau of the Census Bruce Chapman, Secretary of the Department of Commerce Malcolm Baldrige, Attorney General of the United States William French Smith, Department of Justice, Clerk of the House of Representatives Benjamin J. Guthrie, Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., Speaker of the House of Representatives, Defendants

No. 83 Civ. 3111

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

582 F. Supp. 342

September 21, 1983

EDWARD WEINFELD, District Judge.

Martin E. Wendelken, a citizen of New Jersey and the plaintiff in this action, seeks an order overturning the Act of August 8, 1911, ch. 5 §§ 1, 2, 37 Stat. 13, 14, which provides that the House of Representatives shall be constituted by 435 members. These seats are apportioned among the states by population, consistent with the rule that no state shall receive fewer than one representative. 2 U.S.C. § 2a (1976). The government moves to dismiss on the ground that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).

Wendelken takes no issue with the method of apportionment. Rather, he claims that the House of Representatives is too small. He argues that Article I, section 2, clause 3 of the Constitution mandates allocation of a representative in Congress to every 30,000 residents of a state, so long as no state is unrepresented.

As noted in Judge Judd's well-researched opinion in Whelan v. Cuomo, 415 F. Supp. 251 (E.D.N.Y.1976), such an argument misconstrues the plain meaning of the Constitution, which states that "the number of representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one representative," and ignores the history leading to adoption of the Constitution. 415 F. Supp. 258. To the extent Wendelken relies on such an argument, the Court dismisses his complaint for the reasons stated by Judge Judd.

Wendelken claims, alternatively, that even if Congress has discretion by virtue of Article I to limit the number of representatives as it has, that discretion is constrained by the fifth amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws, Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636, 638 n.2, 95 S. Ct. 1225, 1228 n. 2, 43 L. Ed. 2d 514 (1975), and the principle of one person one vote that equal protection doctrine embodies, Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 84 S. Ct. 526, 11 L. Ed. 2d 481 (1964).

Wendelken contends that in setting the size of the House of Representatives, Congress is constitutionally required to ensure that congressional districts are "as equal as they can possibly be." Claiming that Congress has failed in its duty, Wendelken points to disparities among the sizes of congressional districts in different states. For example, as Wendelken asserts, the at-large representative from South Dakota has 690,178 constituents, while each of the two representatives from Montana have 393,345. Wendelken claims his state, New Jersey, is prejudiced much like South Dakota, although to a lesser degree. The remedy to this situation, Wendelken argues, is a House of Representatives composed of roughly 7,000 members.

Although somewhat novel, this argument has no merit. The inequality of which Wendelken complains inheres in our constitutional structure. So long as the Constitution requires apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives among the states, inequalities of voting power of the kind mentioned above are inevitable in view of population differences; the question is a matter of degree. Wendelken argues that this Court should order the Congress to ameliorate inequality of voting power within our constitutional framework by creating more seats in the national legislature. He cites no decision, and this Court is aware of no decision, that has ordered such a remedy. The decision to limit the size of the House of Representatives to 435 members is expressly committed to the discretion of Congress.

The government's motion to dismiss is granted.

So ordered.

Re: Some Court Cases About The 435 Number :: Reply by HouseSizeWonk

no_email@example.com (HouseSizeWonk) — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 22:43:03 +0000

It's worth noting that Whelan and Wendelken demonstrate that the assertion of the Apportionment.us people, that the courts have never been asked to provide the remedy of an increase in the size of the House, is false; both cases sought precisely that sort of relief.

Re: Some Court Cases About The 435 Number :: Reply by TheTrucker

no_email@example.com (TheTrucker) — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 05:59:33 +0000

HouseSizeWonk wrote:It's worth noting that Whelan and Wendelken demonstrate that the assertion of the Apportionment.us people, that the courts have never been asked to provide the remedy of an increase in the size of the House, is false; both cases sought precisely that sort of relief.

Well... I'm looking at the previous post concerning Wendelken and I see the following totally erroneous garbage:

"Although somewhat novel, this argument has no merit. The inequality of which Wendelken complains inheres in our constitutional structure. So long as the Constitution requires apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives among the states, inequalities of voting power of the kind mentioned above are inevitable in view of population differences; the question is a matter of degree. Wendelken argues that this Court should order the Congress to ameliorate inequality of voting power within our constitutional framework by creating more seats in the national legislature. He cites no decision, and this Court is aware of no decision, that has ordered such a remedy. The decision to limit the size of the House of Representatives to 435 members is expressly committed to the discretion of Congress."

This "pronouncement" simply is _WRONG_ . Nowhere in the Constitution as amended and interpreted by previous court decrees is a "decision to limit the Hose of Representatives to 435 members ... expressly committed to the discretion of the Congress". The Congress was _NOT_ originally bound by the words of the 14th amendment concerning equal protection under the law. And they are _NOW_. Those words in the 14th amendment actually enforce what was intended in the first place and is now rightfully cited in cases during the 60's.

In particular Wendelken cited Wesberry v. Sanders in which we see the following:

Supremes wrote:In reaching its landmark decision, the Supreme Court noted that Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution declares that representatives shall be chosen "by the People of the several States" and shall be "apportioned among the several States...according to their respective Numbers...." These words, the Court held, mean that "as nearly as practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's."

And in none of the previous cases has the court been asked to provide a specific remedy as it has this time. To dance away from this based on it being a "political question" is also erroneous in that we have an assault on "republican government" perpetrated by two powerful political parties. To say that the courts cannot intervene is like saying the law can't break up a protection racket. It could be that the courts are corrupt or that the people arguing the case are not citing article 4-4 and all the other ammo they have. I don't like the invisibility of Westberry v. Sanders and Aricle IV section 4. Looks like an intentional muff to me.

Re: Some Court Cases About The 435 Number :: Reply by HouseSizeWonk

no_email@example.com (HouseSizeWonk) — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 01:22:35 +0000

TheTrucker wrote:
This "pronouncement" simply is _WRONG_ . Nowhere in the Constitution as amended and interpreted by previous court decrees is a "decision to limit the Hose of Representatives to 435 members ... expressly committed to the discretion of the Congress". The Congress was _NOT_ originally bound by the words of the 14th amendment concerning equal protection under the law. And they are _NOW_. Those words in the 14th amendment actually enforce what was intended in the first place and is now rightfully cited in cases during the 60's.

I would have to disagree. The Constitution expressly says that "Representatives . . . shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers." U.S. CONST. art. I, § 2, cl. 3. Congress has the power "[t]o make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution . . . all . . . powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." Id. § 8, cl. 18. This language has consistently been interpreted as vesting in Congress the authority to determine the size of the House of Representatives from the very earliest days of the nation. See Act of Jan. 14, 1802, ch. 1, 2 Stat. 128. The behavior of early Congresses is taken as strong evidence of what the original understanding of the Constitution's meaning was between people who were closer to the bargaining process that led to its creation. See McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 27 (1892) ("[W]here there is ambiguity or doubt [in the meaning of constitutional language], or where two views may well be entertained, contemporaneous and subsequent practical construction are entitled to the greatest weight."); cf. Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 59 U.S. (18 How.) 272, 279–80 (1856) ("[A] legislative construction of the constitution, commencing so early in the government, when the first occasion for [a] manner of proceeding arose, continued throughout its existence, and repeatedly acted on by the judiciary and the executive, is entitled to no inconsiderable weight upon the question whether the proceeding adopted by it was 'due process of law.'").

Although not specifically tested in the courts, this power of Congress was recognized in Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 539, 619 (1842): "[Congress] has, on various occasions, exercised powers which were necessary and proper as means to carry into effect rights expressly given, and duties expressly enjoined thereby. The end being required, it has been deemed a just and necessary implication, that the means to accomplish it are given also; or, in other words, that the power flows as a necessary means to accomplish the end. Thus, for example, although the constitution has declared, that representatives shall be apportioned among the states according to their respective federal numbers; and for this purpose, it has expressly authorized congress, by law, to provide for an enumeration of the population every ten years; yet the power to apportion representatives, after this enumeration is made, is nowhere found among the express powers given to congress, but it has always been acted upon, as irresistibly flowing from the duty positively enjoined by the constitution."

Moreover, in Whelan (which is quoted in this thread), the District Court did an extensive review of the Philadelphia Convention to conclude that "Congress was given considerable flexibility in determining the actual number of representatives so long as the total did not exceed one representative for every 30,000 inhabitants."

As for the equal protection argument: personally, I find it unconvincing because it is inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause, which requires only that "No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1 (emphasis added). Semantically, this is not a restriction on the federal government at all. The courts have resisted this reading, by (for example) holding that segregated schools in the District of Columbia were unconstitutional in Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954) for the same equal protection reasons that they were found unconstitutional in Kansas in Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483 (1954). That has pretty consistently been followed since then, although the current Court is significantly more conservative than earlier Courts.

TheTrucker wrote:In particular Wendelken cited Wesberry v. Sanders in which we see the following:

Supremes wrote:In reaching its landmark decision, the Supreme Court noted that Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution declares that representatives shall be chosen "by the People of the several States" and shall be "apportioned among the several States...according to their respective Numbers...." These words, the Court held, mean that "as nearly as practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's."
And in none of the previous cases has the court been asked to provide a specific remedy as it has this time. To dance away from this based on it being a "political question" is also erroneous in that we have an assault on "republican government" perpetrated by two powerful political parties. To say that the courts cannot intervene is like saying the law can't break up a protection racket. It could be that the courts are corrupt or that the people arguing the case are not citing article 4-4 and all the other ammo they have. I don't like the invisibility of Westberry v. Sanders and Aricle IV section 4. Looks like an intentional muff to me.

The whole concept of the "political question" doctrine is that certain types of assaults on republican government are only properly dealt with by branches other than the courts. You can argue that it's a poor design of government, but it would seem to flow irresistibly from the notion of separation of powers.

I think it is wrong to say that this specific remedy has never been sought; in Whelan, the petitioner sought an order compelling Congress to increase to something like 10,000 members (based on a compelled 30,000:1 ratio). And it was (properly, in my view) shot down; this is just not something that the courts should involve themselves in.

The Guaranty Clause is plainly inapplicable in this situation. First, it is not a guarantee that the federal government will be "republican," only that the federal government "shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." U.S. CONST. art. IV, § 4 (emphasis added). Moreover, the Supreme Court has made it clear that it does not consider this clause actionable in court. In another important separation of powers case, it said that, "as the United States guarantee to each State a republican government, Congress must necessarily decide what government is established in the State before it can determine whether it is republican or not. And when the senators and representatives of a State are admitted into the councils of the Union, the authority of the government under which they are appointed, as well as its republican character, is recognized by the proper constitutional authority. And its decision is binding on every other department of the government, and could not be questioned in a judicial tribunal." Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 1, 42 (1849). The Supreme Court similarly refused to entertain a challenge to a State referendum on Guaranty Clause grounds. Pac. States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118 (1912).

Re: Some Court Cases About The 435 Number :: Reply by TheTrucker

no_email@example.com (TheTrucker) — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 23:50:25 +0000

HouseSizeWonk wrote:
TheTrucker wrote:
This "pronouncement" simply is _WRONG_ . Nowhere in the Constitution as amended and interpreted by previous court decrees is a "decision to limit the Hose of Representatives to 435 members ... expressly committed to the discretion of the Congress". The Congress was _NOT_ originally bound by the words of the 14th amendment concerning equal protection under the law. And they are _NOW_. Those words in the 14th amendment actually enforce what was intended in the first place and is now rightfully cited in cases during the 60's.
I would have to disagree. The Constitution expressly says that "Representatives . . . shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers." U.S. CONST. art. I, § 2, cl. 3. Congress has the power "[t]o make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution . . . all . . . powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." Id. § 8, cl. 18. This language has consistently been interpreted as vesting in Congress the authority to determine the size of the House of Representatives from the very earliest days of the nation. See Act of Jan. 14, 1802, ch. 1, 2 Stat. 128. The behavior of early Congresses is taken as strong evidence of what the original understanding of the Constitution's meaning was between people who were closer to the bargaining process that led to its creation. See McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 27 (1892) ("[W]here there is ambiguity or doubt [in the meaning of constitutional language], or where two views may well be entertained, contemporaneous and subsequent practical construction are entitled to the greatest weight."); cf. Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 59 U.S. (18 How.) 272, 279–80 (1856) ("[A] legislative construction of the constitution, commencing so early in the government, when the first occasion for [a] manner of proceeding arose, continued throughout its existence, and repeatedly acted on by the judiciary and the executive, is entitled to no inconsiderable weight upon the question whether the proceeding adopted by it was 'due process of law.'").

You're position here is far too narrow. In Wood .v Broom the court ruled that the "equally populous, contiguous, compact" characteristics of electoral districts legislated in 1911 expired when those provisions were not set forth in the The Reapportionment Act of 1929. thus declaring that electoral districts could be anything the states wanted. Then in the 1960's the court reversed itself and ordered equally populous single member districts. And that is the current settled law. Things change and not all circumstances were foreseen by the founders. As to the number of representatives and, hence, the size of electoral districts there is no way to "divine" this from the 1790's but to note that the district size was actually reduced from 40 to 30 thousand and that there was still much concern over the size of districts as is evinced by Federalist 55 through 58 and by the creation of Article The First as requested by several of the ratification conventions.

HouseSizeWonk wrote: Although not specifically tested in the courts, this power of Congress was recognized in Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 539, 619 (1842): "[Congress] has, on various occasions, exercised powers which were necessary and proper as means to carry into effect rights expressly given, and duties expressly enjoined thereby. The end being required, it has been deemed a just and necessary implication, that the means to accomplish it are given also; or, in other words, that the power flows as a necessary means to accomplish the end. Thus, for example, although the constitution has declared, that representatives shall be apportioned among the states according to their respective federal numbers; and for this purpose, it has expressly authorized congress, by law, to provide for an enumeration of the population every ten years; yet the power to apportion representatives, after this enumeration is made, is nowhere found among the express powers given to congress, but it has always been acted upon, as irresistibly flowing from the duty positively enjoined by the constitution.""

Until 1922-29 what was "irresistibly flowing" was the the enlargement of the House in respect of increasing population and respect for maintaining a rational size of electoral districts. The one breach of this "flowing" prior to 1922 occurred in 1842 after the Whig party wrested the reigns of power from the Democrats.

HouseSizeWonk wrote: Moreover, in Whelan (which is quoted in this thread), the District Court did an extensive review of the Philadelphia Convention to conclude that "Congress was given considerable flexibility in determining the actual number of representatives so long as the total did not exceed one representative for every 30,000 inhabitants."

1842, 1922, and 1929 illustrate that the two party system is incompatible with the intent of the founders and that the courts must intervene to arrest this failure. Examining Federalist 10 should illustrate the understanding of the founders and nowhere is there any evidence that the founders anticipated the destructive nature of the two current political parties. The great latitude afforded the Congress in determining the complement of the House was predicated upon the smallness of the nation under the current compass of government and the great unknowns of expansion and the deep divide over the issue of slavery. With such a foreseeable future the congress was granted every option to deal with the tumultuous events that were predicted to transpire. That time has passed and the union is currently sound with all the uninhabited lands currently settled. The founders did not anticipate that the Congress would abuse this power to insulate and isolate itself from the people.

HouseSizeWonk wrote: As for the equal protection argument: personally, I find it unconvincing because it is inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause, which requires only that "No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1 (emphasis added). Semantically, this is not a restriction on the federal government at all. The courts have resisted this reading, by (for example) holding that segregated schools in the District of Columbia were unconstitutional in Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954) for the same equal protection reasons that they were found unconstitutional in Kansas in Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483 (1954). That has pretty consistently been followed since then, although the current Court is significantly more conservative than earlier Courts.

TheTrucker wrote:In particular Wendelken cited Wesberry v. Sanders in which we see the following:

Supremes wrote:In reaching its landmark decision, the Supreme Court noted that Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution declares that representatives shall be chosen "by the People of the several States" and shall be "apportioned among the several States...according to their respective Numbers...." These words, the Court held, mean that "as nearly as practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's."
And in none of the previous cases has the court been asked to provide a specific remedy as it has this time. To dance away from this based on it being a "political question" is also erroneous in that we have an assault on "republican government" perpetrated by two powerful political parties. To say that the courts cannot intervene is like saying the law can't break up a protection racket. It could be that the courts are corrupt or that the people arguing the case are not citing article 4-4 and all the other ammo they have. I don't like the invisibility of Westberry v. Sanders and Aricle IV section 4. Looks like an intentional muff to me.
The whole concept of the "political question" doctrine is that certain types of assaults on republican government are only properly dealt with by branches other than the courts. You can argue that it's a poor design of government, but it would seem to flow irresistibly from the notion of separation of powers.

I will not argue "poor design". I will argue that the courts are the only remedy and that separation of powers exists for this very purpose. The Congress has had ample opportunity to address the issue and has failed.

HouseSizeWonk wrote: I think it is wrong to say that this specific remedy has never been sought; in Whelan, the petitioner sought an order compelling Congress to increase to something like 10,000 members (based on a compelled 30,000:1 ratio). And it was (properly, in my view) shot down; this is just not something that the courts should involve themselves in.

And you are entitled to your opinion. I obviously do not share it for the reasons I have given.

HouseSizeWonk wrote: The Guaranty Clause is plainly inapplicable in this situation. First, it is not a guarantee that the federal government will be "republican," only that the federal government "shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." U.S. CONST. art. IV, § 4 (emphasis added).

As I have said. A misinterpretation of the words of the Constitution does not set precedent and eternal law. Montana is clearly being denied a "republican form of government" as that phrase has been defined in the court cases since 1960. Disproportionate representation was fond to be unconstitutional because it is central to the nature of a "republican form of government". And the words of A4S4 are very hard to misconstrue. The words do not say that the federal government will force the state governments to be "republican". It says that the Feds will "guarantee to every state in the union a republican form of government." And the Feds ain't doin' it.

HouseSizeWonk wrote: Moreover, the Supreme Court has made it clear that it does not consider this clause actionable in court. In another important separation of powers case, it said that, "as the United States guarantee to each State a republican government, Congress must necessarily decide what government is established in the State before it can determine whether it is republican or not. And when the senators and representatives of a State are admitted into the councils of the Union, the authority of the government under which they are appointed, as well as its republican character, is recognized by the proper constitutional authority. And its decision is binding on every other department of the government, and could not be questioned in a judicial tribunal." Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 1, 42 (1849). The Supreme Court similarly refused to entertain a challenge to a State referendum on Guaranty Clause grounds. Pac. States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118 (1912).

And this has to do with what the Feds can do WITHIN the states and runs counter to what they DID do within the states to boot.

Re: Some Court Cases About The 435 Number :: Reply by HouseSizeWonk

no_email@example.com (HouseSizeWonk) — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 01:26:11 +0000

TheTrucker wrote:
You're position here is far too narrow. In Wood .v Broom the court ruled that the "equally populous, contiguous, compact" characteristics of electoral districts legislated in 1911 expired when those provisions were not set forth in the The Reapportionment Act of 1929. thus declaring that electoral districts could be anything the states wanted. Then in the 1960's the court reversed itself and ordered equally populous single member districts. And that is the current settled law. Things change and not all circumstances were foreseen by the founders. As to the number of representatives and, hence, the size of electoral districts there is no way to "divine" this from the 1790's but to note that the district size was actually reduced from 40 to 30 thousand and that there was still much concern over the size of districts as is evinced by Federalist 55 through 58 and by the creation of Article The First as requested by several of the ratification conventions.

You're making statements about the "current settled law" as regards intrastate districting. The current settled law as regards interstate districting is stated in Montana and Whelan, which is that there is no judicial remedy. The fact that there was concern in the founding generation does not change what branch of government is the proper source for a remedy to the problem. As the Whelan opinion notes, the argument to go from 40 to 30 thousand at the Philadelphia Convention was to "give Congress a greater latitude." We, as a society, choose to tolerate a small House chamber, apparently for policy reasons (desire not to have an overly multitudinous chamber, reduce the costs involved in paying salaries, etc.). It is not for the unelected judiciary to second-guess a valid (if disagreeable) policy decision of the elected branches if it is not in contravention of the Constitution.

TheTrucker wrote:1842, 1922, and 1929 illustrate that the two party system is incompatible with the intent of the founders and that the courts must intervene to arrest this failure. Examining Federalist 10 should illustrate the understanding of the founders and nowhere is there any evidence that the founders anticipated the destructive nature of the two current political parties. The great latitude afforded the Congress in determining the complement of the House was predicated upon the smallness of the nation under the current compass of government and the great unknowns of expansion and the deep divide over the issue of slavery. With such a foreseeable future the congress was granted every option to deal with the tumultuous events that were predicted to transpire. That time has passed and the union is currently sound with all the uninhabited lands currently settled. The founders did not anticipate that the Congress would abuse this power to insulate and isolate itself from the people.

Flaws in the Constitution resulting from issues not anticipated by the Founders are not properly "fixed" by the courts. They are fixed by the Amendment process.

TheTrucker wrote:I will not argue "poor design". I will argue that the courts are the only remedy and that separation of powers exists for this very purpose. The Congress has had ample opportunity to address the issue and has failed.

That's assuming it's an issue that must be addressed. You feel it is. I feel it is. But just because that's our opinion doesn't make it an issue that must be addressed. If what you discuss is what you mean by "separation of powers," you have a very different concept of it than that suggested by the Constitution and articulated by the courts. The notion of "separation of powers" is that certain acts are legislative, executive, and judicial in character. Separated powers necessarily mean that certain decisions are vested only in one or another of the branches.

Consider a different context: the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief. Even if the President were demonstrably mis-managing the military, it would be inappropriate for the courts to intervene. For example, in Ainsworth v. Barn Ballroom Co., 157 F.2d 97, 100 (4th Cir. 1946), a serviceman challenged a standing order that he was not to patronize a certain dance hall. The courts held that they could not get involved: "the courts may not invade the executive departments to correct alleged mistakes arising out of abuse of discretion[;] . . . to do so would interfere with the performance of governmental functions and vitally affect the interests of the United States." It didn't matter whether it was a good or bad decision; it was not a mistake that the courts can correct. The 435-member cap is no different; it is a matter that is certainly at the discretion of Congress.

TheTrucker wrote:As I have said. A misinterpretation of the words of the Constitution does not set precedent and eternal law. Montana is clearly being denied a "republican form of government" as that phrase has been defined in the court cases since 1960. Disproportionate representation was fond to be unconstitutional because it is central to the nature of a "republican form of government". And the words of A4S4 are very hard to misconstrue. The words do not say that the federal government will force the state governments to be "republican". It says that the Feds will "guarantee to every state in the union a republican form of government." And the Feds ain't doin' it.

The phrase "republican form of government" has not been defined in any court cases since 1960. Since Luther, the Supreme Court has said that a "republican form of government" is whatever Congress says it is. The Court fastidiously avoided invoking the Guaranty Clause in the 1960s apportionment cases, precisely because it was uninterested in challenging that precedent. The Court in Baker, in fact, said that "the claim pleaded here neither rests upon nor implicates the Guaranty Clause, and that its justiciability is therefore not foreclosed by our decisions of cases involving that clause." Reynolds didn't so much as cite it.

Beyond that, though, it is simply a mis-reading of that clause to say that it can be held against the federal government. Simply as a semantic matter, it does not apply. In full, it reads "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence." In that context, it is abundantly clear that the guarantee is a supervisory one; the federal government will ensure that each State's government is "republican" in form. It isn't a coincidence that, when the Guaranty Clause is invoked in litigation (fruitlessly, due to the precedent of Luther) it is not asserted against the federal government, but against the form of State government. Think about it: the Founders were convinced that the U.S. Constitution already was a "republican form of government"! Indeed, they made it quite clear that the very design of the Constitution would inexorably produce a republican form of government through its very design. The only "question mark" was what might happen in the States.

TheTrucker wrote:And this has to do with what the Feds can do WITHIN the states and runs counter to what they DID do within the states to boot.

To be honest, I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Re: Some Court Cases About The 435 Number :: Reply by HouseSizeWonk

no_email@example.com (HouseSizeWonk) — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 01:46:22 +0000

Consider this as well. In Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004), the Supreme Court refused to correct a fairly obvious gerrymander of Pennsylvania's congressional districts. Although the Court could not agree upon a majority decision, the 4 dissenting votes (which sought to intervene) could not agree between themselves as to why and were split 3 ways. Justice Kennedy's deciding 5th vote was only to hold that although nobody had yet thought of a judicial test that could be workably applied, he would not overrule Davis v. Bandemer,478 U.S. 109 (1986), and hold that they were nonjusticiable (hardly a ringing endorsement). Easily the most persuasive opinion was the lead opinion by Justice Scalia. He noted that "t is significant that the Framers provided a remedy for such practices in the Constitution. Article 1, §4, while leaving in state legislatures the initial power to draw districts for federal elections, permitted Congress to 'make or alter' those districts if it wished."

Consider: if gerrymandering, which is a fairly obvious districting sin, cannot be remedied by the courts, how could this far more subtle problem which has far stronger arguments in its defense (avoiding a cacophonous chamber, reducing total legislative salary payouts)?

Re: Some Court Cases About The 435 Number :: Reply by 803sccdantes

no_email@example.com (803sccdantes) — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 07:40:36 +0000

HouseSizeWonk wrote:Consider this as well. In Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004), the Supreme Court refused to correct a fairly obvious gerrymander of Pennsylvania's congressional districts. Although the Court could not agree upon a majority decision, the 4 dissenting votes (which sought to intervene) could not agree between themselves as to why and were split 3 ways. Justice Kennedy's deciding 5th vote was only to hold that although nobody had yet thought of a judicial test that could be workably applied, he would not overrule Davis v. Bandemer,478 U.S. 109 (1986), and hold that they were nonjusticiable (hardly a ringing endorsement). Easily the most persuasive opinion was the lead opinion by Justice Scalia. He noted that "t is significant that the Framers provided a remedy for such practices in the Constitution. Article 1, §4, while leaving in state legislatures the initial power to draw districts for federal elections, permitted Congress to 'make or alter' those districts if it wished."

Consider: if gerrymandering, which is a fairly obvious districting sin, cannot be remedied by the courts, how could this far more subtle problem which has far stronger arguments in its defense (avoiding a cacophonous chamber, reducing total legislative salary payouts)?

I think we can address this several ways-

1. This case was only about gerrymandering, not apportionment. If you look at the history of the Court, it has taken distinctions even slighter than the difference between gerrymandering and apportionment and come out in opposite ways-ways you never would have thought would have been possible since the facts and the rules seemed so similar. However, the Court has used every so slight distinctions to rule the way it wants to. Furthermore, in Montana, the Court said it was free to review Congressional apportionment methods and that that was not a political question- and that the public was well served in being able to challenge the apportionment on different grounds.

2. Why would the court want to find a distinction between the Vieth Case? Well you said it yourself- the case was 5-4- in a very divided court. We've since had 3 new justices appointed to the court. Just because they were appointed to replace a conservative or a liberal doesn't mean they will vote with the conservatives or liberals. Plus, Kennedy was a reluctant swing vote. He may like the idea of making a distinction and ruling another way- you can never tell.

3. I would argue the arguments about cacophonous chamber, reducing salary payouts, etc. aren't even legitimate arguments. Nearly every other republican country in the industrialized world has more representatives in their lower house than the USA. Furthermore, each Congressman has a staff of around 20 right now because they are constantly in meetings, campaigning, meeting with constituents, etc. By expanding the House, it would lessen the workload on every Congressman and thus he would need less staff. In any event, the Congress did not perform any study or examine any authoritative work when it passed the 1929 statute. When it comes down to it, the 1929 law was passed because of a political deadlock that had to be broken. It'd be hard to argue they were worried about these problems when Congress didn't even take the time to have a study done on this- especially when this dispute was pending for nearly 10 years.

In any event, even if it got to the Supreme Court, I doubt it would actually overturn the 1929 apportionment law. I think practical issues would take precedence over legal issues. Forcing Congress to somehow develop a new formula for thousands of elections would be a nightmare-and the Court would be blamed for the chaos. While I think the Court should overturn the law, the chances of that actually happening are slim to none. Of course people probably said the same thing about Brown v. Board of Education before it came out- so who knows.

Re: Some Court Cases About The 435 Number :: Reply by HouseSizeWonk

no_email@example.com (HouseSizeWonk) — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:24:54 +0000

803sccdantes wrote:
I think we can address this several ways-

1. This case was only about gerrymandering, not apportionment. If you look at the history of the Court, it has taken distinctions even slighter than the difference between gerrymandering and apportionment and come out in opposite ways-ways you never would have thought would have been possible since the facts and the rules seemed so similar. However, the Court has used every so slight distinctions to rule the way it wants to. Furthermore, in Montana, the Court said it was free to review Congressional apportionment methods and that that was not a political question- and that the public was well served in being able to challenge the apportionment on different grounds.

Montana said that the formula Congress uses to divvy up the seats between the States is not a political question (the Huntington-Hill Method, as opposed to say, the Hamilton Method). It did not hold that the issue of the size of the House is not a political question. And, I am quite certain that it is.

803sccdantes wrote:3. I would argue the arguments about cacophonous chamber, reducing salary payouts, etc. aren't even legitimate arguments. Nearly every other republican country in the industrialized world has more representatives in their lower house than the USA. Furthermore, each Congressman has a staff of around 20 right now because they are constantly in meetings, campaigning, meeting with constituents, etc. By expanding the House, it would lessen the workload on every Congressman and thus he would need less staff. In any event, the Congress did not perform any study or examine any authoritative work when it passed the 1929 statute. When it comes down to it, the 1929 law was passed because of a political deadlock that had to be broken. It'd be hard to argue they were worried about these problems when Congress didn't even take the time to have a study done on this- especially when this dispute was pending for nearly 10 years.

In any event, even if it got to the Supreme Court, I doubt it would actually overturn the 1929 apportionment law. I think practical issues would take precedence over legal issues. Forcing Congress to somehow develop a new formula for thousands of elections would be a nightmare-and the Court would be blamed for the chaos. While I think the Court should overturn the law, the chances of that actually happening are slim to none. Of course people probably said the same thing about Brown v. Board of Education before it came out- so who knows.

All of that depends on subjective assessments of what the marginal value is of one extra representative as opposed to the marginal value of his (or her) salary and contribution to the "noise." The Court will never, ever, ever second guess a congressional determination on those grounds. See, for example, Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U.S. 483 (1955), in which the Court hypothesized what the State of Oklahoma's thinking might have been in passing the statute.

Re: Some Court Cases About The 435 Number :: Reply by 803sccdantes

no_email@example.com (803sccdantes) — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:11:57 +0000

HouseSizeWonk wrote:
803sccdantes wrote:
I think we can address this several ways-

1. This case was only about gerrymandering, not apportionment. If you look at the history of the Court, it has taken distinctions even slighter than the difference between gerrymandering and apportionment and come out in opposite ways-ways you never would have thought would have been possible since the facts and the rules seemed so similar. However, the Court has used every so slight distinctions to rule the way it wants to. Furthermore, in Montana, the Court said it was free to review Congressional apportionment methods and that that was not a political question- and that the public was well served in being able to challenge the apportionment on different grounds.
Montana said that the formula Congress uses to divvy up the seats between the States is not a political question (the Huntington-Hill Method, as opposed to say, the Hamilton Method). It did not hold that the issue of the size of the House is not a political question. And, I am quite certain that it is.

You are correct that the Montana Court did not address the size of the House. Forgive me if I came across as indicating that. I merely was using that case to counter your argument in which you used a case also not about the size of the House to indicate that the Court would rule in a similar fashion on a case about the size of the House. If we go with "the Montana case was not about the size of the House" argument then we should also apply that same logic to the gerrymandering case- and we're back at square 1- no real assurances either way.

803sccdantes wrote:3. I would argue the arguments about cacophonous chamber, reducing salary payouts, etc. aren't even legitimate arguments. Nearly every other republican country in the industrialized world has more representatives in their lower house than the USA. Furthermore, each Congressman has a staff of around 20 right now because they are constantly in meetings, campaigning, meeting with constituents, etc. By expanding the House, it would lessen the workload on every Congressman and thus he would need less staff. In any event, the Congress did not perform any study or examine any authoritative work when it passed the 1929 statute. When it comes down to it, the 1929 law was passed because of a political deadlock that had to be broken. It'd be hard to argue they were worried about these problems when Congress didn't even take the time to have a study done on this- especially when this dispute was pending for nearly 10 years.

In any event, even if it got to the Supreme Court, I doubt it would actually overturn the 1929 apportionment law. I think practical issues would take precedence over legal issues. Forcing Congress to somehow develop a new formula for thousands of elections would be a nightmare-and the Court would be blamed for the chaos. While I think the Court should overturn the law, the chances of that actually happening are slim to none. Of course people probably said the same thing about Brown v. Board of Education before it came out- so who knows.
All of that depends on subjective assessments of what the marginal value is of one extra representative as opposed to the marginal value of his (or her) salary and contribution to the "noise." The Court will never, ever, ever second guess a congressional determination on those grounds. See, for example, Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U.S. 483 (1955), in which the Court hypothesized what the State of Oklahoma's thinking might have been in passing the statute.

Obviously the Court won't vacate a Congressional statute solely based on a disagreement as to why the law was passed. However, if you get your foot into the door on other reasons, the Court will then examine the Legislative history to try to figure out what Congress was trying to do and why it was trying to do it. One way you could try to get into Court to make these arguments would be to make a Due Process Claim. In a Due Process Claim you address the following questions:

1. Is it a fundamental right?
The Court has consistently held voting is a fundamental right.

2. Has it been infringed?
This would be the real dispute. The Court would examine whether your vote having different impacts in one state to another is an infringement of your right to vote is an infringement. Assuming the Court concludes the differential in voting power is an infringement we'd get to the reasons behind the law.

3 Is there Sufficient Justification for the law?
In this you would apply the Strict Scrutiny Test. In Strict Scrutiny, the Court would examine whether the law was necessarily related to a compelling government interest. At this point, the Court would examine whether it is a compelling governmental interest to not have a cacophonous legislature and to limit salaries paid out. It would then examine whether there were no other ways of accomplishing this goal other than capping the House at 435. I'd say there are strong arguments on both sides but there are definitely other ways to keep order in the House and keep salaries down- if that's the arguments that are presented.

In any event, the Court has and will continue to examine the reasons behind why Congress or a state passes a law and has and will continue to overturn laws for those very reasons- in the limited areas of Due Process challenges under the 5th Amendment and Equal Protection challenges under the 14th amendment.

The Trucker's view - and replies thereto :: Author TheTrucker

no_email@example.com (TheTrucker) — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:18:23 +0000

I would make some suggestions based on my experience with attempting to spur interest in the topic of discussion. Most people seem to have the attention span of a lab rat. And they will seldom join in any discussion or offer any response or opinion because they do not want to appear ignorant and they will not take the time to cure the ignorance. Michelle Obama's wardrobe is much more important to the left wing than any silly discussion about representation. Now that the messiah is ensconced in the White House executive overreach is just fine and the left now lusts for another unitary executive in the mold of Roosevelt. The emperor messiah is in charge and the congress is expendable. What do we do to actually get such people to THINK? How do we have a conversation with a lab rat? And do we really want to raise the awareness of lab rats who will then seize more power through an expansion of the House? I received a comment that simply said that I had not convinced anyone that smaller electoral districts were better than large ones. That is the real challenge. How do we convince people that water is wet? I am of the opinion that this is the primary use of this board. I don't think that the people currently signed up are divergent in their opinion that smaller constituencies are better than large but perhaps I am wrong. How do you prove that water is wet?

Re: Let's build a forum! :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Fri, 01 May 2009 03:41:52 +0000

TheTrucker wrote:I would make some suggestions based on my experience with attempting to spur interest in the topic of discussion. Most people seem to have the attention span of a lab rat.

Hey Trucker! It's been a awhile since we've chatted (via e-mail).

I understand your point as I'm often one of those attention-span challenged people! The reality (IMO) is *not* that there are so many dimwits as one would think; instead, most people are too busy dealing with day-to-day survival to realize that we, as a nation, are being gradually transformed towards tyranny. It's like the proverbial lab experiment where the water temperature is increased so gradually that we don't realize we're being boiled. And this is not coincidental: the more time we spend working for the government (taxes and paperwork) the less time we, the people, have to fix the government. This is truly an insidious problem.

OK ... back to your underlying point as it relates to this forum. It is my expectation that this forum will be primarily for those who already comprehend (or want to comprehend) the solution of enlarged representation. This isn't a venue for preaching to passerby.

In his follow-up posting, Paul had a good suggestion, we should move this discussion to a future forum that focuses on the strategy of communicating this abstract concept to our fellow citizens. We'll do that sometime in May (remind me if I forget). I'm still taking this slow.

Re: Let's build a forum! :: Reply by TheTrucker

no_email@example.com (TheTrucker) — Sat, 02 May 2009 21:16:58 +0000

I see little of nothing to discuss other than how to force the Democratic party to enlarge the House. I think I have seen more than enough to know that the size of electoral districts is the basis of our bipolar government. There is little mystery concerning who or what subsists upon that base. Reality is unpleasant, but maintaining/enhancing the power of incumbency is the primary interest of incumbents. Further understanding of the issue on our part is unproductive.

I spend lots of time shouting toward the left wing moonbats trying to make them understand that most of the issues they claim to care about will be left unresolved or resolved in ways that they (the moonbats) do not want. Because no matter how much the moonbats whine and cry and wring their hands, the incumbent Democrats know that the left will never vote them out of office because to do so would result in Satan incarnate in the form of a fascist monolithic Republican taking one more seat in the House. The right wing (the rightards) have the same exact disease in that they know if they did not protect every seat and vote as a monolith then they would be unable to have effect on matters. In spite of rhetoric to the contrary, both the parties work to exacerbate this divide. The use of large gerrymandered districts is fundamental to this game of power sharing through fear.

While lack of understanding may be the problem in inciting the populous to demand change on this fundamental issue, no discussions on this board will be helpful. It seems to me that this group should concentrate of strategy. How do we incite the LEFT to DEMAND democracy. To try to incite the RIGHT ( the believers in patriarchical government) to enhance democracy would seem to be futilile. The Democrats can, right now, fix this pig with a decent reapportionment law. The Republican party can't stop them. Any codling or appeal to the political "right" is wasted effort. But it may be possible to enlist to the left; to convince the left that they must FORCE the Democrats to raise the level of democracy before they lose the power to do so. When will the 10 year cycle again coincide with Democratic power? And if "Democrats" are actually democratic that what do they have to lose by enhancing democracy?

I'm _NOT_ bipartisan or non-partisan because I see no benefit to it. The Republicans will loath doing what needs done. More, they lack power to do that which needs done even if they wanted to. Reapportionment happens every 10 year cycle. Now is the time for action if this is going to be done politically.

Re: Let's build a forum! :: Reply by commonwealth

no_email@example.com (commonwealth) — Sun, 03 May 2009 06:29:17 +0000

I disagree with "TheTrucker" not only do we need to discuss the act or rather actions needed to increase representation, but we also need to explain to people why we need better representation. This is an issue I am working on avidly in my State which includes a lawsuit I filed still pending before the Trial Court:

http://www.californiacommonwealth.com/

I consider this to be the most important issue since our legislatures deal with all problems in a State. The Supreme Court has even found this as well.

"The people of a State are similarly affected by the action of the State Legislature. Its functions are comprehensive and pervasive. They are not specially concentrated upon the needs of particular parts of the State or any separate group of citizens. As the Court in Reynolds said, each citizen stands in "the same relation" to the State Legislature. Accordingly, variations from substantial population equality in elections for the State Legislature take away from the individual voter the equality which the Constitution mandates. They amount to a debasement of the citizen's vote and of his citizenship." Avery v. Midland County, Page 390 U. S. 474 at 499

The same is no less true for the Federal legislatures however, it is probably not so easily attacked. In fact, it is likely that it might only be attacked by one of the States and through the Federal Courts.

I do agree with the Trucker that something needs to be done. Educating people on top of taking this issue on is essential. Part of the Educating needs to be developing strategies on how to take on the leviathan.

Michael

Re: Let's build a forum! :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sun, 03 May 2009 10:50:43 +0000

TheTrucker wrote:Reality is unpleasant, but maintaining/enhancing the power of incumbency is the primary interest of incumbents.

On that we can all agree.

TheTrucker wrote:... I spend lots of time shouting toward the left wing moonbats trying to make them understand that most of the issues they claim to care about...

...The right wing (the rightards) have the same exact disease in that they know if they did not protect every seat and vote as a monolith then they would be unable to have effect on matters.

Well, the next best thing to being non-partisan, relative to this forum, is to be anti-partisan.

TheTrucker wrote:It seems to me that this group should concentrate on strategy.

Exactly so.

TheTrucker wrote:It seems to me that this group should concentrate of strategy. How do we incite the LEFT to DEMAND democracy. To try to incite the RIGHT ( the believers in patriarchical government) to enhance democracy would seem to be futile.

I would like to caution everyone that the use of the term "democracy" can confuse the debate. As you know, as a republic we are a representative democracy, not a democracy in the strict sense. There is only a "democracy", so to speak, within each congressional district, as we democratically elect our Representative. Although, how democratic is that process when the candidates are pre-selected by one or two parties (and the special interests)? Speaking of "democracy" vs. republic, etc., here's a video that I like (I don't know its origin).

TheTrucker wrote:The Democrats can, right now, fix this pig with a decent reapportionment law. The Republican party can't stop them.

Because of their devotion to statism, neither political party will support a meaningful increase in representation. Forget the political parties. IMO, no more than 20% of the public is truly committed to a political party. The parties only serve the parties.

Re: Let's build a forum! :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sun, 03 May 2009 10:56:11 +0000

commonwealth wrote: Educating people on top of taking this issue on is essential. Part of the Educating needs to be developing strategies on how to take on the leviathan.

Michael, it is a two-headed leviathan, isn't it? One head is the Republican Party, the other head is the Democrat Party.

Speaking of California, there is a forum open now for discussions specific to your efforts there:
http://forum.thirty-thousand.org/viewforum.php?f=12

...Jeff

Re: The Trucker's view - and replies thereto :: Reply by TheTrucker

no_email@example.com (TheTrucker) — Mon, 04 May 2009 03:51:04 +0000

I would like to caution everyone that the use of the term "democracy" can confuse the debate. As you know, as a republic we are a representative democracy, not a democracy in the strict sense. There is only a "democracy", so to speak, within each congressional district, as we democratically elect our Representative. Although, how democratic is that process when the candidates are pre-selected by one or two parties (and the special interests)?

In the strategy I have chosen I will be directing my words to the Democrats and the Left. Such individuals are deeply committed to the use of the word "democracy" to describe a "constitutional representative democracy" form of government.

(This republicanism of the 1780's was not in principle different from what in Britain and America by mid-nineteenth century was generally called representative democracy. The founders would not have been opposed to modern connotations of the word "democracy", nor would they have used the word "republic" to mark out a distinction from those connotations. In scorning "democracy", eighteenth-century theorists had in mind Aristotle's picture of a heedless, emotional, manipulated populace that would still be denigrated by most modern democratic theorists).

This issue is divisive in that Liberals view the latter day Republican use of the word "republic" as an attempt to mark out a difference between a constitutional representative democracy and a constitutional republic in order to impugn the virtues of democracy in any form. If there is a difference between a constitutional representative democracy and a constitutional republic it is that the latter can be extended to include state based fascist oligarchy while the former cannot. More importantly, the right employs the suggestion that modern democracy is BOTH anarchist (mod rule democracy) and statist (collectivist) at the same time. The right never seem to be bothered by this internal contradiction. But none of what the right may or may not do is actually relevant to the chosen strategy. IN THIS venue I am not interested in a right left war except as suits the advancement of our mutual goals.

In the chosen strategy I will demonize the 1920 Republicans and then show that the Democrats are, in fact, being authoritarian statist by continuing to employ the incumbency protection system engineered by the 1920 Republicans. I will throw down the gauntlet and insist that they hold true to their purported moral superiority and grant the people free and open choices as regards representatives; that they hold true to their constant call for constitutional democracy. I will impugn the current party members for their "party before country" and "party before democracy" activities and for their self serving devices to protect their lofty positions of incumbency. And I will most certainly mark out the difference between a fascist republic (as in George Bush _OR_ Barak Obama) and the CONSTITUTIONAL representative democracy that we should be able to regain in the here and now.

It is my intent to keep on beeach slapping these people until they admit their hypocrisy and issue a call for REAL CHANGE. Democracy is not a binary condition. It exists in degrees and one form of measurement is to measure the number of democratic mob rule votes compressed into one representative. The smaller the number so compressed then the more democratic will be the resulting society. I am not actually an advocate of 30k to 1 compression and feel that we can get by with more compression in today's world. But the 700k to 1 we currently have is NOT in any way representative of anything other than the oligarchy already in power; totally non democratic.

Re: The Trucker's view - and replies thereto :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Mon, 04 May 2009 04:18:08 +0000

Trucker, well, when it comes to explaining the concept of expanding representation, the bottom line is that you go with what works for you (and be willing to change the explanation if it's not working).

I'm certainly not the arbiter of what works and what doesn't. That's why we need this forum, to share these ideas.

BTW, the maximum district size I'm recommending is 50,000 (not 30,000). This number comes from "Article the first" and allows us to nearly achieve "one person, one vote" (the constitutional law of the land). But, as you say "the 700k to 1 we currently have is NOT in any way representative of anything other than the oligarchy already in power". On that we can all agree.

Re: The Trucker's view - and replies thereto :: Reply by TheTrucker

no_email@example.com (TheTrucker) — Thu, 21 May 2009 06:57:34 +0000

I am still slaving away on my show. I have 2 more "slides" to do. One is the debunking of the 3 favorite "rhetorical" defenses against greater representation, and the other is the proposed NEW "Permanent Reapportionment Act of 2009" (which is of course just a law like any other that can be changed in harmony with the next decennial census). Of course a reapportionment act is a 10 year law. That is 8 years more permanent than a normal legislative act. One of the more important aspects that MUST be communicated is that any attempt to create a Constitutional Amendment will backfire in that the red states who gain power from the Senate are not going to support ANY alteration that would diminish their power. As such it is not possible to get 3/4ths of the states to ratify an amendment that would decrease the power of the voters of Wyoming or the power the less populous states gain by keeping representation at a minimum. Constitutional Amendments are the very soul of left wing moonbatedness. Such vehicles are the heartthrob of those who wish to appear intelligent while whining and hand wringing and hating the Conservatives/Republicans. As the amendment will never happen the underlying thesis cannot be falsified. Such platitudes are religious propositions with no fear of contradiction. It is somewhat like "Campaign Finance Reform" that cannot ever work. Obama went outside the current public financing propositions and so will future candidates for all levels of government and free speech constitutional provisions will not tolerate CFR in any effective manifestation. The enlargement of the House using a new reapportionment act is the ONLY politically viable mechanism for increasing the representation of the common people and the time is RIGHT NOW. A Constitutional Amendment or Campaign Finance Reform are the left wing lollipops of the day and as such a clever diversion that will be embraced by the supporters of the status quo.

Re: The Trucker's view - and replies thereto :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Thu, 21 May 2009 11:21:18 +0000

TheTrucker wrote:...the proposed NEW "Permanent Reapportionment Act of 2009"

They have not completed the census yet. I don't know anything about a "Permanent Reapportionment Act of 2009" -- is that something that exists or something you're advocating?

TheTrucker wrote: As such it is not possible to get 3/4ths of the states to ratify an amendment that would decrease the power of the voters of Wyoming or the power the less populous states gain by keeping representation at a minimum.

Reality is more complicated than this. Many small states know they are screwed by the small number of Representatives, especially Montana which currently has 71% of the representatives that their total population would entitle them, so they are shortchanged by 30%! BTW, to your other point, many of the small states are "blue" (check the wiki map from the last election).

TheTrucker wrote:As the amendment will never happen...

You may be right that an amendment will never happen, but that is the solution that I most favor. And the amendment we need was already proposed by the House of Representative on August 24, 1789 (to become the defective "Article the first"), but if you want to promote an alternative solution then that's great. As unlikely as an amendment may be,I believe that necessary legislation is even less likely, because the oligarchic Congress will ever oppose increasing the number of fiefdoms by more than a token few. In contrast, an amendment need not originate from Congress, but could be proposed by amendment conventions in three-fourths of the state. However, it makes sense for supporters of enlarged representation to pursue all possible remedies.

Re: The Trucker's view - and replies thereto :: Reply by TheTrucker

no_email@example.com (TheTrucker) — Fri, 22 May 2009 04:48:15 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:
TheTrucker wrote:...the proposed NEW "Permanent Reapportionment Act of 2009"
They have not completed the census yet. I don't know anything about a "Permanent Reapportionment Act of 2009" -- is that something that exists or something you're advocating?

The number of representatives may or may not be tied to the population as can be seen by the fact that we have had 90 years in which such membership has NOT been tied to the census. The "Reapportionment Act of 1929" preceded the 1930 census and set forth the law that would reapportion the house in 1931 and subsequent 10 year cycles. Why not actually read the stuff at Show that explains this? A "Reapportionment Act" obviously does not need to follow the census as absolutely illustrated by the CURRENT crap created in 1929. The total number of House Members can be legislated at ANY TIME by any Congress that has the power and the balls to do it.. It is Constitutionally appropriate that such adjustment actually occur following the census because that is when such adjustment has been traditionally instantiated. It is quite obvious that the new seats must be filled by duly elected representatives and that this cannot occur until the states redistrict themselves to be in conformance with the Redistricting Act. But the rules governing such an adjustment can be defined RIGHT NOW just as the rules governing the 1931 reapportionment were set in 1929 redistricting act.

TheTrucker wrote: As such it is not possible to get 3/4ths of the states to ratify an amendment that would decrease the power of the voters of Wyoming or the power the less populous states gain by keeping representation at a minimum.

JEQuidam wrote:Reality is more complicated than this. Many small states know they are screwed by the small number of Representatives, especially Montana which currently has 71% of the representatives that their total population would entitle them, so they are shortchanged by 30%! BTW, to your other point, many of the small states are "blue" (check the wiki map from the last election).

Yes! It is more complicated than that. It has more to do with BOTH population and population density with Montana and a couple of others being outliers. Senatorial districts (the entire state) show a very clear correlation between population and population density taken together correlating with being BLUEness.

TheTrucker wrote:As the amendment will never happen...

JEQuidam wrote:You may be right that an amendment will never happen, but that is the solution that I most favor. And the amendment we need was already proposed by the House of Representative on August 24, 1789 (to become the defective "Article the first"), but if you want to promote an alternative solution then that's great. As unlikely as an amendment may be,I believe that necessary legislation is even less likely, because the oligarchic Congress will ever oppose increasing the number of fiefdoms by more than a token few. In contrast, an amendment need not originate from Congress, but could be proposed by amendment conventions in three-fourths of the state. However, it makes sense for supporters of enlarged representation to pursue all possible remedies.

Your preference is irrelevant to the realities. This picture illustrates the fallacy of a Convention of the States as the same fallacy in expecting the states to ratify such an amendment. You will never get the required 2/3rds or 3/4ths majority in a Constitutional Convention of all the states that would be required to report such an amendment out of the convention any more than you can get such an amendment past the red states even if the Congress reported it out. The Red states will block any such action no matter how you do it. It is highly unlikely that you would be able to get more than half.

The only realistic avenues are a constitutional challenge from the citizens of Montana, or a strong public outcry for the Democrats to be true to their namesake.
The latter option can be done only if there is a well organized PRIMARY challenge to a very large number of Democrats on this _ONE_ all important issue.

Re: The Trucker's view - and replies thereto :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Fri, 22 May 2009 12:22:31 +0000

TheTrucker wrote:The "Reapportionment Act of 1929" preceded the 1930 census and set forth the law that would reapportion the house in 1931 and subsequent 10 year cycles.

We know about the 1929 act. In your original post you referenced "Permanent Reapportionment Act of 2009" -- I assume you meant to reference the 1929 act.

I need to publish a chart to illustrate this, but as many small states are screwed in the apportionment as are benefited by it. That is, for every Wyoming there is a Montana. And, depending on the vagaries of the mathematics, a state which is benefited in one apportionment could be shortchanged in the next. These discrepancies obviously disappear as the number of representatives increases.

Regarding passing legislation to resolve the problem, I think that's a great idea if it can be done. The disadvantage of legislation is that they can un-legislate as easily as they can legislate (whereas amendments are far more difficult to reverse). Moreover, the original 1929 act is not constitutional (IMO). But I do not believe there is only one possible solution for getting our representation enlarged, and all possible solutions should be investigated and pursued.

Re: The Trucker's view - and replies thereto :: Reply by TheTrucker

no_email@example.com (TheTrucker) — Fri, 22 May 2009 18:28:18 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:
TheTrucker wrote:The "Reapportionment Act of 1929" preceded the 1930 census and set forth the law that would reapportion the house in 1931 and subsequent 10 year cycles.

We know about the 1929 act. In your original post you referenced "Permanent Reapportionment Act of 2009" -- I assume you meant to reference the 1929 act.

No. I meant the currently non existent "Reapportionment Act of 2009" that increases the membership of the House based on one or more proper rationales and at the same time insists on equally populous contiguous and compact single member districts. That will not create a House of more than 1700 or so (probably more like 800 - 1200) but that would be a huge improvement over what we have.

If you wish to pursue a Constitutional solution you would be much better off using the current unamended document and citing "equal protection under the law" to the extend it is allowed by "thirty thousand" as a Constitutional challenge in the courts. If you were to gain prominent headlines and notoriety with it then the chances for "Article the First" or a new "Article the First" would be greatly enhanced. I have commented on this "judicial" approach in the "Mental Blocks" thread. It may me possible to scare the * out of everyone with the possibility of a Supreme Court mandated House size of 10k.

I wonder why the ACLU hasn't found a Montana cowboy to use to enhance the ACLU image with such a case.

Re: The Trucker's view - and replies thereto :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Fri, 22 May 2009 18:59:58 +0000

TheTrucker wrote:If you wish to pursue a Constitutional solution you would be much better off using the current unamended document and citing "equal protection under the law" to the extend it is allowed by "thirty thousand" as a Constitutional challenge in the courts. If you were to gain prominent headlines and notoriety with it then the chances for "Article the First" or a new "Article the First" would be greatly enhanced. ... It may me possible to scare the **** out of everyone with the possibility of a Supreme Court mandated House size of 10k.

That's a very interesting point. Michael Warnken (http://californiacommonwealth.com/) has made this same argument previously, namely: we should continue the ratification of Article the first (in its defective state) and then go to the courts to have its obviously intended meaning reinstated. Its intended meaning being that shown on the left hand side (below) before being made defective by changing the word "less" to "more.

http://www.thirty-thousand.org/graphics ... -After.png
Click on the link above. (I don't know why I wasn't able to embed the image in the post.)

Many people do not realize that our 27th Amendment is actually "Article the second" from the Bill of Rights which was not finally ratified until 200 years after it was proposed.

Here is the text of Article the first and Article the second:
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/BoR_text.htm

Re: The Trucker's view - and replies thereto :: Reply by TheTrucker

no_email@example.com (TheTrucker) — Sat, 23 May 2009 04:50:59 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:
TheTrucker wrote:If you wish to pursue a Constitutional solution you would be much better off using the current unamended document and citing "equal protection under the law" to the extend it is allowed by "thirty thousand" as a Constitutional challenge in the courts. If you were to gain prominent headlines and notoriety with it then the chances for "Article the First" or a new "Article the First" would be greatly enhanced. ... It may me possible to scare the **** out of everyone with the possibility of a Supreme Court mandated House size of 10k.
That's a very interesting point. Michael Warnken (http://californiacommonwealth.com/) has made this same argument previously, namely: we should continue the ratification of Article the first (in its defective state) and then go to the courts to have its obviously intended meaning reinstated. Its intended meaning being that shown on the left hand side (below) before being made defective by changing the word "less" to "more.

You have missed the point I was trying to make. My own position is that in any "constitutional approach" the best means to the desired end is a Court challenge to the current situation without any attempt to ratify Article the First. In such a judicial move Article the First is only evidential regarding the fact that the people were concerned about the House of Representatives morphing into a "distant and aristocratic body" as it has. Attempting to get Article the First ratified is a waste of time and effort in that as it is currently worded it would change nothing at all. A more serious problem manifests itself when attempting to use Article the First as an actual constitutional wedge because of the actual events of the time: By 1793 the House was 105 members and the people were convinced that the House would be expanded as promised. IN 1820 the House was 213 and the district sizes were 39800 -- right on schedule. The amendment as it exists was not needed and still isn't.

But Back to the strategy:

In Baker v. Carr the Supremes ruled that whereas the federal government has the constitutional mandate to provide a "republican form of government" within all states of the union, and whereas the federal government also has the constitutional mandate to provide "equal protection under the laws" then therefore one man's vote should have equal weight with all others and the LEGISLATIVE districts must therefore be equally populous. The point I have raised is that Baker v. Carr was a complaint against the state of Tennessee and not a case against the federal government. The federal government HAS NEVER BEEN a defendant in a case such as this and the Supremes have never had to address this issue. The Montana case normally employed to ward off any persons attempting to bring suit on this issue is seems to be simply a diversion in that the complaint in that case was nothing other than a claim that a different algorithm to allocate the membership of the House among the states would have given Montana another seat. The case should have actually been won (according to some math people of pretty high notoriety) because the current method is mathematically flawed or there was an error in arithmetic (can't remember which). But that is beside the point in this strategy. The point is that no case has ever been put before the supremes on the basis of "equal protection under the laws" and such a case SHOULD be winnable because of the precedent of Baker v. Carr.

If I am right, the TwoParty WILL move toward a constitutional amendment to raise the minimum number of people per representative because that will be the only way they could hope to survive. So IMHO my own strategy has the horse in front of the cart. I would force a proper "Article the First" by threatening to enlarge the membership of the House to 10k members. This number is almost certain when we look at ALL THREE conditions concerning representation and then add "equal protection under the laws". The Congress is mandated to provide equal protection to the full extent that such equality is possible. And that extent is bounded ONLY by the limitation of "nor more than one representative for every 30 thousand".

Unless, of course, we were to amend the Constitution to specify some higher number than 30k And that's my real point.

Re: The Trucker's view - and replies thereto :: Reply by HouseSizeWonk

no_email@example.com (HouseSizeWonk) — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:27:15 +0000

The Trucker is incorrect when he says that this has never been challenged in federal court. In U.S. Dep't of Commerce v. Montana, 503 U.S. 442 (1992), the State of Montana challenged the apportionment rules on a variety of grounds, one of which was that the use of the Huntington-Hill Method deprived them of equal protection under the law. Although the challenge in that case was to the formula (taking the 435 number for granted), the Court did say that "The constitutional guarantee of a minimum of one Representative for each State inexorably compels a significant departure from the ideal. . . . [T]he need to allocate a fixed number of indivisible Representatives among 50 States of varying populations makes it virtually impossible to have the same size district in any pair of States, let alone in all 50. . . . [T]he constraints imposed by Article I, § 2, itself make that goal illusory for the Nation as a whole." That is to say, although the case was a challenge to the algorithm, the Court's decision appears (to me) to answer the broader question.

Of course, a lawyer would try to distinguish Montana by saying that what was litigated in that matter was the formula, not the size, of the House. However, the issue of judicial supervision of the size of the House was flatly rejected in Whelan, which I posted the text of in another thread.

It's also worth noting that, at least as a textual matter, the federal government is not obligated to offer the citizens the equal protection of the laws. The Equal Protection Clause actually says that "No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1 (emphasis added). Although the Supreme Court has tended to ignore that in a variety of cases, they were more liberal courts and more sympathetic subjects. See, e.g., Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954) (racial segregation in DC schools is unconstitutional).

Re: The Trucker's view - and replies thereto :: Reply by 803sccdantes

no_email@example.com (803sccdantes) — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:31:48 +0000

HouseSizeWonk wrote:The Trucker is incorrect when he says that this has never been challenged in federal court. In U.S. Dep't of Commerce v. Montana, 503 U.S. 442 (1992), the State of Montana challenged the apportionment rules on a variety of grounds, one of which was that the use of the Huntington-Hill Method deprived them of equal protection under the law. Although the challenge in that case was to the formula (taking the 435 number for granted), the Court did say that "The constitutional guarantee of a minimum of one Representative for each State inexorably compels a significant departure from the ideal. . . . [T]he need to allocate a fixed number of indivisible Representatives among 50 States of varying populations makes it virtually impossible to have the same size district in any pair of States, let alone in all 50. . . . [T]he constraints imposed by Article I, § 2, itself make that goal illusory for the Nation as a whole." That is to say, although the case was a challenge to the algorithm, the Court's decision appears (to me) to answer the broader question.

Of course, a lawyer would try to distinguish Montana by saying that what was litigated in that matter was the formula, not the size, of the House. However, the issue of judicial supervision of the size of the House was flatly rejected in Whelan, which I posted the text of in another thread.

It's also worth noting that, at least as a textual matter, the federal government is not obligated to offer the citizens the equal protection of the laws. The Equal Protection Clause actually says that "No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1 (emphasis added). Although the Supreme Court has tended to ignore that in a variety of cases, they were more liberal courts and more sympathetic subjects. See, e.g., Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954) (racial segregation in DC schools is unconstitutional).

Best way to get around this is Due Process Clause in the 5th Amendment. The analysis is basically the same as Equal Protection and it applies to the Federal government.

Seeking Nomination SCLP US House for the 4th District of SC :: Author sedwards

no_email@example.com (sedwards) — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 02:43:34 +0000

Hello,
I am running on the sole platform of apportionment or reapportionment and am seeking the SCLP nomination for the 4th District Congressional Seat for South Carolina. I am proposing that one representative per 100,000 to 125,000 constituents as I believe modern technology, travel, communication, etc, makes it possible to represent slightly larger districts. In my position papers I've stated that I believe this to be a incremental approach, and if we do not see some of the major change most of the populace desires then we should apportion again at 35,000.

Please take a look at my site

http://www.votersforstevenedwards.org

and email me sedwards@votersforstevenedwards.org if you would be willing to endorse me or help with my campaign.

Thanks
Steven

Re: Seeking Nomination SCLP US House for the 4th District of SC :: Reply by Paul

no_email@example.com (Paul) — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 22:31:48 +0000

Hi, Steven. I think that's an interesting position to take as a platform for Congress. How do you find the voters with the concept?

Are you running with the intent to make it into office or for some other purpose? I don't mean to sound rude or anything, but I know that being a candidate for office can gain other advantages within parties. (I'm sure you're aware that the LP batting average so far for candidates running for federal office is zero.)

I disagree with your positions on the apportionment. The most under-represented class of people in the U.S. is the poor people, even though nearly every policy that is passed is supposedly passed on their behalf. I believe their under-representation comes from the fact that they cannot play any major role in politics because it is completely inaccessible to them. You may not like what I am about to say, but evidence is strongly on my side:

There are only three ways to be elected to Congress:

1. Be the appointed candidate for the Republican or Democratic parties.
2. Have $5-10 million of your own cash to blow.
3. Already be famous - as in movie-star or rock-star famous.

Reducing the number to 100,000 per district will only reduce the barriers far enough to keep the poor and working class out of politics and under-represented.

Another problem is the minority populations that will exist within these smaller districts of 100,000 that will have zero representation. A city like San Jose will have significant enough populations of minority opinions that their not being represented in Congress is not justified. There may be a population of 20,000 Republicans, but the 80,000 Democrats will never, ever vote for a candidate that will care about their issues, so they will remain completely unrepresented.

The argument that somehow a group of 3,000 people will work together better than a group of 10,000 people is unsupported and irrelevant. The issue is not the size of the legislative body but rather that the citizens be fairly represented. The number of people in the body is a function of the representation, not the other way around.

We are all conditioned to this size of 700,000 people per district, so decreasing the size to 1/7 of the current size may seem like progress, but is actually a false peak. Even reducing the size to 50,000 will only give the illusion that the issue has been resolved. But what will really happen is we will have even more permanently eliminated the poor from ever having representation at a federal level. Because the majority of the people in the middle class would feel that Congress has been made open and available to them, then the same must be true of everyone. However, if you look at what it takes to get elected, you quickly realize that the poor communities will not be able to run for office and will still have to face the challenge of not having any real voice in Congress.

30,000 is the correct district size. It allows anyone to run for office: all you really need is around $20-30,000 and 20 volunteers to run a GOTV campaign. Most people who are really serious about running can get this kind of money, even poor people, especially if the candidate is going to truly support the district's interests. More money pumped into a campaign will hardly make a difference in the outcome. It is unlikely that someone would go to the expense of purchasing TV ads or even radio ads for a community of such a small size, as it would have negligible effects. And especially with websites, email, YouTube, VoIP, and heck, MetroPCS, reaching an audience of that size is not that hard. In fact, if one were really determined, it might even be possible to knock on the house every one in a district (considering that many people don't vote and many households have more than one voter).

Why is there no book published? :: Author CrosiarCM

no_email@example.com (CrosiarCM) — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:30:19 +0000

Hello,

I have been studying this issue for the last few years. Whenever I tell people about this, the first reaction is "Why haven't we heard about this before?" For example, I explained the issue to my mother yesterday who requested more information about the subject. But she is not on the internet. If the material was in a book form, I could hand it out to friends and relatives so they too could learn about the limits placed on representation and how it harms them. Educating the public should be the first goal of this organization, and yet I see no other printed resource for distribution made available. I think a book may also get more media attention for this subject.

I see plenty of source material on your website for the content of the book, it would only need to be reformatted. I don't think you would have any trouble finding a publisher.

Michael

Re: Why is there no book published? :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 13:01:53 +0000

CrosiarCM wrote:If the material was in a book form, I could hand it out to friends and relatives so they too could learn about the limits placed on representation and how it harms them.

Michael, I appreciate that suggestion and our related discussion via e-mail. For the benefit of others, the biggest constraints right now are time and money (as is often the case in life). It will be fun to write a book when the time comes for that.

As you say, "Educating the public should be the first goal of this organization". And I still believe that the best way to do that is via the website, which needs to be better designed and have the content completed. I have done very little work on the website itself since 2005 as I have, instead, focused on a number of fundamental analyses that were needed to substantiate some key assertions. These analyses, which were very time-consuming to produce, can be found in the reports listed on the Quantitative Historical Analyses page. (I'm now working on completing the fifth set of reports listed on that page.)

In the meantime, in lieu of a book, please encourage people to read “Taking Back Our Republic”, a very informative pamphlet that can be downloaded from this link:
http://www.Thirty-Thousand.org/document ... mphlet.pdf.

The purpose of this pamphlet is to explain the principal problems which result from oversized congressional districts and how we can return political power to the citizenry through representational enlargement. To make it easy to read, the pamphlet is divided into ten topics of two pages each. It is formatted for standard 8½ x 11 paper, so it can be printed on any office printer. And, being a PDF, it's also easy to read on screen.

Article Four Section 3 and Apportionment :: Author somesavvysooner

no_email@example.com (somesavvysooner) — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 12:33:49 +0000

A Commentary on the Apportionment Suit to Enlarge the Size of the US House of Representatives:
Clemons v U.S. Department of Commerce, 3:09-cv-104. in Ballot Access News.
Response by D. Frank Robinson on the end discussing the applicability of Article Four Sec. 3. to Apportionment

Department of Commerce v. Montana might appear to suggest that there is less than zero chance of the new lawsuit succeeding, but perhaps not.
Following the 1990 Census, Montana lost its 2nd representative and sued in federal court. A 3-judge panel found that the particular apportionment scheme dictated by Congress violated one man, one vote provisions of the US Constitution because it did not minimize deviation in population between congressional districts in different States.
The Supreme Court overturned that decision, but only after rejecting the US argument that the matter was strictly a political matter, and not subject to the type of judicial review set forth in the state reapportionment cases beginning with Baker v Carr.
But the court determined that there were several reasonable ways of measuring district equality (eg population per representative; representative per person, etc.), and that Congress was within its authority to choose the method that it has.
But while Congress is constrained by the requirement that each State have one representative, and districts may not cross state lines, the only constraint on the size of the House is that there cannot be more than one representative per 30,000 (about 10,000 representatives based on the current population). There is a pending amendment that would increase this to 50,000 (about 6000 representatives) but so far few legislatures have ratified it.
So the new lawsuit could be successful if the Supreme Court found that Congress had arbitrarily limited the size of the House such that its chosen measure of population equality can not succeed in providing a reasonable level of voter equality.
Jim Riley Says:
September 19th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
The inequality targeted in the lawsuit has almost nothing to do with the increase in population. For example, if the proposed population equality standards are applied to the 1910 Census when the size of the House of Representatives was first set at 435 members (Arizona and New Mexico did not accede to the Union until 1912, but the apportionment bill anticipated this and apportioned 433 representative among the other 46 States with Arizona and New Mexico to have one each if and when they achieved Statehood), and the US population was only 92 million, then 2674 members would have been required to provide the same measure of equality that a mere 1761 members could provide in 2000.
The deviation of an individual State’s deviation from the ideal varies as the number of representatives increases. California which claimed the 434th representative as its 53rd, has districts that are slightly more than 1% smaller than the ideal for the country. If the number of representatives was increased to 439, its districts would be close to the ideal; and to 443 almost 1% larger than the ideal. California would gain the 444th representative, its 54 districts would be about 1% smaller than the ideal and the cycle would repeat.
The amount of deviation is much greater for States with few representatives. For example, Montana’s lone representative has 40% more constituents than the ideal. But if the House were expanded to 441 members, Montana would gain a 2nd representative and the two districts would each have about 29% fewer constituents than the national average. Increase the House to 622, and Montana would still have two representatives, but now the districts would be almost identical to the ideal size. Increase the House to 759 representatives, and Montanans would be complaining that their two districts were more than 22% larger than the national average, and 50% larger than Vermonts.
Thus the deviation curve for each State is a sawtooth, with a period that is inversely proportional to the State’s share of the national population. Virginia with about 1/40 of the total population gets one additional representative roughly every 40 extra for the USA.
With the different frequencies among the States it is possible for the deviation curves to be in sync at certain points and this is what happens at 1761 representatives under the lawsuit’s Plan A. Several small States have an almost ideal apportionment at that point: Alaska (entitled to 3.94, but with 4 actual); Delaware (4.91, 5); Idaho (8.12, 8); Maine (8.00, 8); and Wyoming (3.10, 3). These States have small deviations at that point.
Several other small States would be modestly overrepresented at that point: North Dakota (4.83, 5); Hawaii (7.61, 8); Montana (5.66, 6); Rhode Island (6.57, 7); South Dakota (4.74, 5); New Hampshire (7.75, 8); Vermont (3.80, 4).
The most underrepresented State is New Mexico (11.41, 11). Because of its somewhat large number of representatives, its districts would be only 3.7% larger than the ideal. The total difference in deviation between the most underrepresented State and the least underrepresented State for a 1761 member Congress based on the 2000 Census dips below 10% at that point (an asymmetric +3.7% for New Mexico, and -6.2% for Rhode Island).
It is apparently this quality that causes the authors of the lawsuit to recommend Plan A with its 1761 representatives (where California would have 236 representatives, and Wyoming would have 3). Incidentally, this would result in Texas House districts and US House Districts in Texas being almost the same size.
Increasing the number of representatives further would not necessarily improve equality. Increasing the House to 1960 members from 1761 would result in the deviation between the most underrepresented and the most overrepresented States to balloon from under 10% to over 25%. And a number that worked one decade may not work at all the next. It is this fact that may cause the lawsuit’s undoing. If the size of the House varies by several 100 from decade to decade with States losing or gaining dozens of representatives, it is almost capricious.
On the other hand why stop at 1761? Why not go to Plan C with 7485 representatives? With less than 3% difference between Vermont’s 14 congressional districts and Alaska’s 17, it is close to an ideal solution to problem of one man, one vote.
The lawsuit notes that the courts have established a safe harbor of 10% deviation between the largest and smallest district for a state legislature. But that may be only be valid when observing other neutral constraints such as respect for county lines. If another plan could produce greater equality and also observe county lines, would the original plan be constitutionally acceptable?
But most States also have constitutional constraints on the number of legislators. Congress is only required to limit the number of representatives such that there are at least 30,000 persons per representative. In 2000 this would produce an upper limit on the House of 9172 members. There is a pending constitutional amendment that would increase the 30,000 to 50,000, but very few States have ratified it, suggesting that both the Congress and the States are quite content with the idea of a House of Representatives with several 1000 members?
Jim Riley Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
The “ideal” size of the House of Representatives varies from census to census; this is also true of the “good enough” Plan A promoted by the plaintiffs. This has very little to do with the overall growth in population; but is due to the relative population among the states, particularly the smaller states.
For example, imagine if the state of East Utopia has 25% more population than that of West Utopia. If West Utopia has 4 representatives and East Utopia has 5, then their district populations will be identical. But if West Utopia has 1/5 of 1% of the total USA population, then it would require around 2000 members before West Utopia could be apportioned 4 representatives.
But what about the state of Idyll that has 37% more population than West Utopia. If West Utopia has 4 representatives, and Idyll has 5, then Idyll’s districts will be 9.6% larger than those of the two Utopias. But if Idyll had a 6th representative, its districts would be 8.7% smaller. So perhaps even 2000 representative is not enough.
Or what if it is decided that 2000 members is too large. West Utopia would have 2 representative, just right for its share of the population. But would East Utopia also receive 2 representatives, each representing a district 25% larger than those in its neighbor to the west, or would it have 3 representatives, with each representing 16.7% less than the ideal?
The Constitution provides two explicit constraints on the House of Representatives. One is that each State must have at least one representative. The other is that each representative represent at least 30,000 people. This sets an upper limit on the size of the House, which increases as the total population grows.
The final constraint, that representatives be “apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers” is less well defined. Does this simply mean that apportionment must be based on the population of the States; or does it mean that the apportionment must be in accord with the population to within a certain acceptable limit; or must it me in accord with the population to within the limits of practicability, which does not mean practical or common sense, but rather capable of being put in to practice.
Congress has chosen the first standard, by first setting the size of the House at 435 representatives, and then apportioned them as equitably as possible among the States (according to the standard of equity chosen by Congress).
The lawsuit has proposed the second standard, suggesting that the size of the largest district and smallest district in the country be within 10% of each other in population, a standard that the courts have generally found acceptable for legislative districts within a State.
But the Supreme Court has adopted the 3rd standard for congressional districts within a State. With modern census data available to the block level, it is practicable to have a maximum variation of 1 person between the largest and smallest districts.
In 1912 (based on the 1910 census, but following the the admission of New Mexico and Arizona as the 47th and 48th States, it would have been possible to have a House with 2745 members. Nevada would have been apportioned the 2746th member as its 3rd, but that would have mean that each Nevada representative would represent fewer than 30,000 people. It would have been impossible to meet the 10% deviation standard used in the lawsuit for its Plan A. The best practicable plan would have 2329 representatives, which would have meant a 11.3% difference between Nevada’s 2 districts and Wyoming’s 4 districts.
For all censuses since then, the following plans would have resulted:
1910: Max 2745; Plan A (none); Best 2329, 11.30%
1920: Max 3331; Plan A 2674; Best 2693, 8.09%
1930: Max 3905; Plan A 2545; Best 2667, 7.59%
1940: Max 4117; Plan A 2485; Best 3539, 6.51%
1950: Max 4888; Plan A 1950; Best 4733, 4.16%
1960: Max 5719; Plan A 3045; Best 5507, 4.27%
1970: Max 6598; Plan A 3156; Best 5439, 4.07%
1980: Max 7410; Plan A 2269; Best 7358, 4.14%
1990: Max 8149; Plan A 2170; Best 7054, 3.16%
2000: Max 9172; Plan A 1760; Best 8575, 2.99%
As one would expect, the maximum possible size of the House has steadily increased. While 9172 members might seem unwieldy, it could provide better representation. With one representative per 30,000 or so people, many voters would personally know their representative. The amount of staff per staff could be reduced, since there would be less need to make travel and meeting arrangements across a district that sprawled for hundred of miles; or answer constituent mail from 100s of thousands of voters in the district. The five representatives from a small city of 150,000 could share office space and clerical staff. If the meeting place of Congress would move from session to session, representatives could be housed in dormitories or barracks at decommissioned military bases, and there would be less likelihood that representatives would establish a residential base near the capital where their children grow up and attend school, while eroding the links to the home district.
In 1789, Congress proposed 12 amendments to the Constitution, and invited States to consider them collectively or individually for ratification. The last 10 were quickly ratified and have become known as the “Bill of Rights” and are now known as the 1st through 10th Amendments (eg the 2nd Amendment, was the 4th article proposed to the States). Two centuries later, ratification was completed on another of the the original 12 amendments. That amendment dealing with congressional compensation is today referred to as the 27th Amendment.
The last proposed amendment is still pending (like the 27th Amendment, there is no time limit for its ratification). It would require that there be at least 50,000 (rather than 30,000) persons per representative. Instead of a cap of 9172, there would be a cap of 5390; Wyoming would be limited to 9 rather than 16 representatives.
But if the States appear not even willing to impose a limit of 9 representatives on Wyoming, why should the courts accept the Plaintiff’s Plan A which only provides 3 representatives to the Equality State, and would mean congressional districts of over 165,000 persons for Wyoming and New Mexico, but less than 150,000 for Rhode Island? All States are equal, but some are more equal than others???
Besides not providing the greatest amount of equality practicable, the plaintiff’s Plan A would result in an erratic and variable size to the House.
If the present lawsuit had been filed in 1959, its Plan A would have provided for a House of 1950 members (a total coincidence that this apportionment would have been based on the 1950 Census). If the courts accepted the 10% (in)equality standard, then following the 1960 Census, a House of 3045 members would have been needed, an increase of 56%, while the US population only increased by 18.5%. A small increase in the size of the House would have been needed in 1970, but then there would be declines for 3 straight reapportionment cycles.
While the population was increasing by 38.4%, the size of the House would have decline by 55.8%. The number of persons per representative would have more than doubled from about 73,000 to about 160,000.
While Congress fixed the size of the House at 435 following the 1910 Census, the plaintiffs Plan A criteria would have meant a much larger House initially, but that would have declined modestly for 30 years, followed by a large decline in 1950, but then a big jump in 1960. Since 1970, the House would have declined in size for 3 decades. While the population would have tripled over a century, the size of the House would have decreased under the plaintiff’s Plan A standard of equality.
And lest anyone expect that the trend continue, an apportionment based on 2008 Census Bureau estimates would require a House of 2976 members to ensure that the maximum deviation in average district population between any two States was less than 10%. This is 69% more than in 2008.

Response by D. Frank Robinson
A discussion of Article Four, Section 3 and Apportionment

It should have been rather easy for the drafters of the U.S. Constitution to anticipate that the populations of the states would not grow uniformly. I was easy enough for them to exclude Native American Indians from being counted and taxed because they may well have expected that population to be eradicated or assimilated within a few generations. But perhaps they did leave a solution right under our noses.

What Mr. Riley's discussion does not address in his able analysis is the provision Section 3 or Article Four: New states may be admitted by the Congress in this Union; but no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state form by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

As Mr. Riley demonstrates the 'paradoxes' arising from trying to apply the doctrine of one person, one vote across state lines with a perpetually fixed minimum number of states for representation in the U.S. House of Representatives appears capricious for certain values of the variables. But Article Four does offer a possible solution. The states could, with the consent of Congress, subdivide or transfer parts of their population and territory among themselves to form new states with populations apportioned to give more nearly ideal equal representation between all the states. A kind of voluntary, negotiated internal secession or de-annexation. These new states need not duplicate all of the overhead of the existing states. They could by 'compact' share functions, services and revenues. Only few essential officers (governor, legislators, Supreme Court justices. Etc.) are needed for a state to discharge its obligations under the U.S. Constitutions.

This may not appear an elegant solution to the apportionment conundrum but I argue that it is constitutionally permissible.

Re: Article Four Section 3 and Apportionment :: Reply by TheTrucker

no_email@example.com (TheTrucker) — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 03:03:47 +0000

But, but, but, but. It was designed to be "the people's house". There is no connection between the state legislatures and the congressional representatives. NONE! State government is completely isolated from the congressional representatives who represent a gaggle of people that just happen to be located in some particular state. While the state legislatures currently draw the district boundaries in an effort to ensconce a particular political party this is not an inherent proposition of the US Constitution or the original intent. If I were master of the universe I would set the membership of the House to one and one half times the cube root of the population and draw the district boundaries based on population beginning in the northwest corner of the nation and proceeding diagonally to the southeast corner. The representatives would be apportioned among the states according to their number and some districts would include persons from more than one state. All done, thank you.

Apportionment.us has posted a series of educational videos :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 20:44:00 +0000

Scott Scharpen from Apportionment.us has posted a series of educational videos that provide some background on the basis of their lawsuit against the government (Clemons et al. v. U.S. Department of Commerce) as well as some general information regarding the benefits of representational enlargement. These videos can be viewed at the Apportionment.us YouTube channel.

The videos are listed below...

Video #1 – Intro to Apportionment.US (5:04)

Video #2 – Apportionment lawsuit - Part 1 (4:23)

Video #3 – Apportionment lawsuit - Part 2 (5:37)

Video #4 – Constitutional Representation (7:03)

Video #5 – Constitutional Equality (9:18)

Video #6 – How Unequal is the US House? (6:30)

Video #7 – The Senate and Equality (3:07)

Video #8 – The Government’s position – Part 1 (6:51)

Video #9 – The Government’s position – Part 2 (6:35)

Video #10 – The Government’s position – Part 3 (3:58)

Video #11 – Mandate of “Equal as is Practicable” (7:01)

Video #12 – The Real Size of the U.S. House (4:41)

Video #13 – The Original 1st Amendment (6:28)

Video #14 – Party Loyalty & Special Interests (6:19)

Video #15 – Advantages of a Larger House - Part 1 (5:22)

Video #16 – Advantages of a Larger House - Part 2 (5:44)

Video #17 – Common Objections - Part 1 (5:33)

Video #18 – Common Objections - Part 2 (4:54 )

Video #19 – How you can Help! (4:10)

Tea Party + 2 :: Author higginsandy

no_email@example.com (higginsandy) — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 00:32:21 +0000

All - I would invite your comments on this observation:

The current Tea Party activism is a strong sentiment that we should ally with, and/or tap into. First, I do not agree with all their points of view, intents, or philosophical underpinnings, or some of the stronger political opinions of their loudest. But I do believe that they have tapped into a core dissatisfaction of the American electorate. And that - if they were to simply remember two words from our history - would allow them, and anyone allied with them, to grow in popularity and electoral strength.

Let's start with the premise that the Tea Party feels we are overtaxed. Many of their activists believe so, and say so. However, the underlying sentiment that gets them their hearing to many audiences is two words more complex - that we are overtaxed without representation! Those are the "two words" - and they're exactly what TTO has been saying.

People have forgotten that the revolution against the English crown was not about taxes, but it was about taxes being imposed from the outside, about not having colonial representation in Parliament and no say in how the French and Indian War would be paid for. The English held that a Parliament of the realm represented all of the realm. And, irrespective of colonial representation, that they could make the decision to tax the colonies for the defense of the North American empire. Maybe they were right and maybe they were wrong about who should pay for the preceding war, but we claimed - and told them in no uncertain terms! - that they were wrong about how to decide this. No one, we argued, could be taxed without proper representation in the Parliament. And failing to get that representation, we created our own representative government without them.

So my observation and suggestion for further public dialogue on this is to take our message to Tea Party forums, to engage with that group and the audiences they've captured, and to include that group of patriotic Americans into this movement. I believe a vector change of only two words - redirecting the conversation to "without representation" - would create dramatic differences in their movement and in the growth of TTO.

Re: Tea Party + 2 :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 01:31:41 +0000

higginsandy wrote:So my observation and suggestion for further public dialogue on this is to take our message to Tea Party forums, to engage with that group and the audiences they've captured, and to include that group of patriotic Americans into this movement.

Before I respond directly to your suggestion (which I agree with), allow me to make a general statement. Any citizen who is concerned about the quality of their representation in Congress should be supportive of representational enlargement regardless of their ideological perspective. The goal of decreasing the size of congressional districts (by increasing the number of Representatives) is neither “conservative” nor “liberal”; instead, it is a politically agnostic means by which we, the people, can take control of the federal government back from the Special Interests.

It is especially important for us to reach out to all patriotic political activists as those citizens should be the most motivated to embrace the cause of representational enlargement. Political activism among the citizenry is essential to a robust republic; it is unfortunate that we do not have more of it. In my view, the type of political activism that occurs at any point of time is largely a function of which groups of citizens feel the most alarmed or aggrieved as a result of the deliberate actions (or inactions) of the government. In 2010, the most active citizen activism is reflected by the “tea party” movement.

Like many grass-roots protest movements in our nation’s history, the tea parties (and related protests) are organic in nature, bringing together a somewhat disparate collection of citizens; moreover, they are not sanctioned by any establisment organizations (though some seek to co-opt it). As a result, it would be possible to instigate an endless debate over their objectives and motivations; I do not wish to initiate such a debate here! However, in my opinion, one of the fundamental themes of the tea party movement is to oppose statism (which also relates to your point about being overtaxed without adequate representation).

For the reasons explained in our pamphlet (Taking Back Our Republic), representational enlargement will most certainly ensure the protection of our liberties by thwarting, if not reversing, statism. It is on that point which I believe that representational enlargement should find wide support among those who are alarmed by the current fabianistic direction of the federal government.

Because Thirty-Thousand.org’s mission is to expand awareness of the benefits of representational enlargement, anything that can be done to obtain more support among those in the “tea party” movement would be most welcome. I agree that we should “take our message to Tea Party forums, to engage with that group and the audiences they've captured, and to include that group of patriotic Americans into this movement.”

Because of TTO’s very limited resources, success in this area will depend upon the efforts of others. I am certainly open to suggestions as to how we can improve awareness of representational enlargement among the tea party folks, but we are very limited as to what we can actually do.

Apportionment.us: three judge panel to be convened! :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:05:59 +0000

Update from Apportionment.us: "We received word from local counsel in Mississippi this morning that the motion to convene a three-judge panel is granted!" (September 21, 2009).

See the Apportionment.us blog.

Attorneys tell me that is a big deal. Not being an attorney, I have no idea what it means, other than it's more good news!

Re: Apportionment.us: three judge panel to be convened! :: Reply by Paul Taylor

no_email@example.com (Paul Taylor) — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 10:56:16 +0000

This is an interesting development, and not one that I had heard of until just now (it took me for-freaking-ever to get in gear and register, much to my chagrin!).

I would think that, in essence, this means that the process has been started of calling upon one branch to do its duty as a check on another. Of course, I am not a lawyer, myself, either. But, at the very least, if the three judge panel decides to move this on to the Supreme Court, it brings much-needed attention to the cause of improvements (i.e.: enlargement of the house) in apportionment.

Re: Apportionment.us: three judge panel to be convened! :: Reply by Paul

no_email@example.com (Paul) — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 14:52:59 +0000

Is the one person, one vote principle actually in the constitution? Seems like one thing that could happen is the supreme overturns its own ruling.

Re: Apportionment.us: three judge panel to be convened! :: Reply by HouseSizeWonk

no_email@example.com (HouseSizeWonk) — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 02:17:24 +0000

"One man, one vote" is found nowhere in the Constitution. Traditionally, apportionment debates were considered nonjusticiable (i.e., not something that it was appropriate for the courts to involve themselves in). The problem with this extreme degree of deference is that legislatures abused it, placing political expediency over principle. Thus, for example, Congress refused to reapportion after the 14th Census. Perhaps the boldest statement of judicial non-involvement was in Colgrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549 (1946); there, the Illinois congressional districts were challenged as malapportioned because they had not been changed since 1901, but a divided Supreme Court would not involve itself. The change began in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), in which the Supreme Court concluded that apportionment disputes were "justiciable," that is to say, the courts were an appropriate institution in which to seek a remedy. In Baker, at issue was the Tennessee Legislature, which had refused to reapportion since 1901. Understandably, the Supreme Court was disinclined to agree that that was wrongful, but shrug in the face of it.

Although Baker is sometimes said to be a notable case, all it actually held was that these disputes are justiciable; it didn't actually determine how they should be decided. It did not take long, however, for the Supreme Court to answer that question in the "one man, one vote" fashion. In the congressional context, it dates to Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964). In that case, the Court held that, "construed in its historical context, the command of [U.S. Const.] Art. I, 2, that Representatives be chosen 'by the People of the several States' means that as nearly as is practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's." By June, the Supreme Court went on to hold that in State legislative apportionments, districts must also be equally sized, this time relying on the Equal Protection Clause, U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1. See Lucas v. Forty-Fourth Gen. Assembly, 377 U.S. 713 (1964); Roman v. Sincock, 377 U.S. 695 (1964); Davis v. Mann, 377 U.S. 678 (1964); Md. Comm. for Fair Representation v. Tawes, 377 U.S. 656 (1964); WMCA, Inc. v. Lomenzo, 377 U.S. 633 (1964); Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964). (The most famous case in that package is Reynolds, although in my opinion, the facts of some of the other cases, especially Lucas, are more interesting.)

Re: Apportionment.us: three judge panel to be convened! :: Reply by HouseSizeWonk

no_email@example.com (HouseSizeWonk) — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 00:16:14 +0000

I hope the silence my comments got are not a sign that you think I'm pulling an Octobox.

Re: Apportionment.us: three judge panel to be convened! :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 14:15:49 +0000

HouseSizeWonk wrote:"One man, one vote" is found nowhere in the Constitution.

Not ignoring you. Last fall was a busy time for me with work and finishing the pamphlet.

"One person one vote" -- at the national level -- is found within the Constitution as "Representatives ... shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers". It is not possible to implement that nationwide without having the ratio of population/representative equal among states (that's a mathematical fact, not an opinion).

With respect to the intrastate application of one person one vote, I believe that the Supreme Court found that within the 14th amendment to the Constitution. You can debate it all you want, but there is it. In any case, it seems perfectly sensible to require all the congressional districts to have the same population size relative to the U.S. House.

I do wonder if it makes sense to impose that requirement on the upper houses of state legislatures. Why not, for example, allow two Senators for each county? That would provide a more senatorial Senate, IMO. But given that reality, it seems to me that the state houses might as well become unicameral (like Nebraska), but I digress.

Re: Apportionment.us: three judge panel to be convened! :: Reply by Paul

no_email@example.com (Paul) — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 17:59:21 +0000

I completely agree that the states should have two senators in each county, but the senators should be appointed by the county supervisor, which throws the unicameral argument out. It is counter-intuitive and unpopular, but the fact is that we need a proper voice for businesses in government. Here in California, businesses are leaving at alarming rates. There is no foreseeable end to our high unemployment rates. One of our biggest industries was housing, which will never come back (God willing) to employing the same percentage of people that it did previously. The conservative rural areas are basically slaves to to the liberal cities, who don't care and are rarely even aware of their concerns (see Delta smelt, which has decimated California's farming industry).

My understanding is that it wasn't until the 1960's that the Supreme Court began using the 14th amendment to enforce all provisions of the Constitution on the states. The intent of the 14th was only to give freedmen the rights to enter contracts, to due process, and to own property. If this was not the case, then why did Senator Blaine propose the Blaine amendment shortly after the 14th was ratified? The states have the power of nullification and should use this power with respect to Supreme Court rulings such as what we are discussing here. The Constitution simply does not grant the Federal government any powers of authority over state legislators.

Re: Apportionment.us: three judge panel to be convened! :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 18:42:13 +0000

Paul wrote:My understanding is that it wasn't until the 1960's that the Supreme Court began using the 14th amendment to enforce all provisions of the Constitution on the states.

This is a digression, but the spectacularly expansive use of the 14th amendment and the Commerce Clause provide another whole set of reasons why we need to create a representative Congress through representational enlargement. Otherwise, an unrestrained federal government will continue to pose a tremendous threat to our liberties. In addition, our oligarchic Congress will never propose amendments to limit those intrusions; a representative Congress will be willing to propose such amendments.

Re: Apportionment.us: three judge panel to be convened! :: Reply by HouseSizeWonk

no_email@example.com (HouseSizeWonk) — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 18:01:18 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:"One person one vote" -- at the national level -- is found within the Constitution as "Representatives ... shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers". It is not possible to implement that nationwide without having the ratio of population/representative equal among states (that's a mathematical fact, not an opinion).

That does not require "one-man, one-vote." It only requires that a State's share of seats in the House be the same (or as close as mathematically possible given the size of the chamber) as its share of the national population. Nothing in the quoted language requires that the districts a State is divided into be equipopulous. Traditionally, whether they were equipopulous vascillated; at times it was left to State discretion and at other times Congress (exercising its power under U.S. CONST. art. I, § 4, cl. 1) statutorily required equipopulous districts. When the 1920s apportionment gridlock arrived, the Supreme Court held that prior apportionment acts had lapsed, which killed off the then-prevailing statutory requirements of equal population and "compact" geographically contiguous districts. See Wood v. Broom, 287 U.S. 1 (1932).

JEQuidam wrote:With respect to the intrastate application of one person one vote, I believe that the Supreme Court found that within the 14th amendment to the Constitution. You can debate it all you want, but there is it. In any case, it seems perfectly sensible to require all the congressional districts to have the same population size relative to the U.S. House.

I do wonder if it makes sense to impose that requirement on the upper houses of state legislatures. Why not, for example, allow two Senators for each county? That would provide a more senatorial Senate, IMO. But given that reality, it seems to me that the state houses might as well become unicameral (like Nebraska), but I digress.

I agree it seems perfectly sensible that congressional districts be equipopulous, but I don't see how it is a constitutional imperative.

As for the state legislature side, that is because of a strained reading of the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment. The younger Justice Harlan very appropriately described it as "the constitutionally frail tautology that 'equal' means 'equal.'" Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 590 (1964) (Harlan, J., dissenting). Unfortunately, Harlan hurt those of us who care about reasonableness by advocating an absolute rule of per se deference to State districting practices, even when the apportionment is a "crazy quilt," as the Alabama apportionment was called in Reynolds. See id. at 588 (Clark, J., concurring in the judgment). The Supreme Court decided 6 cases that day in 1964, and several of them did involve apportionment schemes that had no apparent underlying methodology, including the Alabama apportionment in Reynolds. Others that were fairly messy were the apportionments in Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware. See Md. Comm. for Fair Representation v. Tawes, 377 U.S. 656 (1964); Davis v. Mann, 377 U.S. 678 (1964); Roman v. Sincock, 377 U.S. 695 (1964). On the other hand, if you want to be stunned by the utter lack of embarrassment the Court expresses in disregarding obviously functioning representational structures, peruse the opinions dealing with New York and Colorado. See WMCA, Inc. v. Lomenzo, 377 U.S. 633 (1964); Lucas v. Forty-Fourth Gen. Assembly, 377 U.S. 713 (1964).

The Court has been stricter with congressional apportionments than State apportionments, though. Compare Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983) (establishing a rule of very strict population equality between districts within a state by invalidating a New Jersey congressional apportionment plan where a perfectly average-sized district size was 526,059 and the difference between the largest and smallest districts was 3,674 when competing plans existed with a maximum deviation of only 2,375), with Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315 (1973) (distinguishing between the Equal Protection Clause’s command of equal population in state legislative districting and Article I’s requirement that Representatives be elected by “the People” to uphold a Virginia state legislative apportionment with a maximum percentage deviation from the ideal district size of 16.4%). These "one man, one vote" precedents have been extended to all levels; for example, a county cannot be governed by one representative from each municipality within the county, but instead must be governed by legislators from equipopulous districts. See Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474 (1968).

Re: Apportionment.us: three judge panel to be convened! :: Reply by HouseSizeWonk

no_email@example.com (HouseSizeWonk) — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 18:09:30 +0000

In addition to the 6 States that the Supreme Court decided at length in 1964, it also quickly handled (via something called a memorandum opinion) a stack of additional cases -- perhaps because they felt that there were not enough factual dissimilarities to bother writing separate opinions. Still, if there's some permutation of facts that you're wondering whether was dealt with, here's a list of the other cases:

Hill v. Davis, 378 U.S. 565 (mem.) (1964), aff’g Davis v. Synhorst, 225 F. Supp. 689 (S.D. Iowa
1964), and 217 F. Supp. 492 (S.D. Iowa 1963)
Pinney v. Butterworth, 378 U.S. 564 (mem.), aff’g Butterworth v. Dempsey, 229 F. Supp. 754 (D. Conn. 1964)
Hearne v. Smylie, 378 U.S. 563 (mem.), rev’g 225 F. Supp. 645 (D. Idaho 1964)
Marshall v. Hare, 378 U.S. 561 (mem.), rev’g 227 F. Supp. 989 (E.D. Mich. 1964)
Germano v. Kerner, 378 U.S. 559 (1964) (mem.), rev’g 220 F. Supp. 230 (N.D. Ill. 1963)
Williams v. Moss, 378 U.S. 558 (1964) (mem.), aff’g Moss v. Burkhart, 220 F. Supp. 149 (W.D. Okla. 1963)
Nolan v. Rhodes, 378 U.S. 556 (1964) (mem.), rev’g 218 F. Supp. 953 (S.D. Ohio 1963)
Meyers v. Thigpen, 378 U.S. 554 (1964) (mem.), aff’g 211 F. Supp. 826 (W.D. Wash. 1962)
Swann v. Adams, 378 U.S. 553 (1964) (mem.), rev’g Sobel v. Adams, 214 F. Supp. 811 (S.D. Fla. 1963)

Re: Apportionment.us: three judge panel to be convened! :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 13:11:34 +0000

HouseSizeWonk wrote:I agree it seems perfectly sensible that congressional districts be equipopulous, but I don't see how it is a constitutional imperative.

Maybe I miss your point, but it was made a "constitutional imperative" by the Supreme Court with its rulings on one person, one vote. Like it or not, that is now the constitutional law of the land. As a result, every federal congressional district within each state is perfectly equal in population size, or quite nearly so.

Given that, the question is: Why should the U.S. House of Representatives be exempt from one person one vote when every other representative body in the U.S. must meet that requirement? (The federal Senate being the only exception as explicitly defined by the Constitution.) Let's focus on that simple question.

I do have an additional argument for why the Constitution implicitly requires one person, one vote, but I won't get into that yet. Let's just focus on the question posed above.

Re: Apportionment.us: three judge panel to be convened! :: Reply by HouseSizeWonk

no_email@example.com (HouseSizeWonk) — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:26:41 +0000

JEQuidam wrote: Given that, the question is: Why should the U.S. House of Representatives be exempt from one person one vote when every other representative body in the U.S. must meet that requirement? (The federal Senate being the only exception as explicitly defined by the Constitution.) Let's focus on that simple question.

I do have an additional argument for why the Constitution implicitly requires one person, one vote, but I won't get into that yet. Let's just focus on the question posed above.

I was arguing that the Supreme Court's "one man, one vote" jurisprudence from the 60s is fundamentally misguided. It rests on "the constitutionally frail tautology that 'equal' means 'equal,'" as the younger Justice Harlan very appropriately noted. Moreover, I would also note that nowhere does the Constitution (textually) guarantee equal protection at the federal level; the 14th Amendment only says that "[n]o State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Although the Supreme Court has said that the 5th Amendment's due process clause imposes equal protection principles on the federal government in Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954), that was also misguided, in my view, and produced by pressure to produce the "right" outcome (desegregation of the public schools in the District of Columbia). (By "right," I don't mean to qualify in any way that desegregating the DC schools was a moral imperative; it was odious and unacceptable. But I question whether it was mandated by the Constitution, as opposed to simply being a very good idea.)

However, and more importantly in this context, I would argue that the Constitution's commitment to Congress of the discretion to balance representativeness against unwieldiness makes a congressional decision to set the chamber at a particular size as unreviewable as an equal protection challenge would be to the Senate.

Re: Apportionment.us: three judge panel to be convened! :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:46:09 +0000

HouseSizeWonk wrote:It rests on "the constitutionally frail tautology that 'equal' means 'equal,'" as the younger Justice Harlan very appropriately noted.

I still have no idea what Adam is talking about. Since when does 'equal' mean anything other than 'equal'?

Re: Apportionment.us: three judge panel to be convened! :: Reply by HouseSizeWonk

no_email@example.com (HouseSizeWonk) — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 21:37:05 +0000

Pseudolus wrote:
HouseSizeWonk wrote:It rests on "the constitutionally frail tautology that 'equal' means 'equal,'" as the younger Justice Harlan very appropriately noted.
I still have no idea what Adam is talking about. Since when does 'equal' mean anything other than 'equal'?

What is it to be treated "equally"? Consider two hypothetical situations:

State A has one chamber of its legislature apportioned on a population basis. The other chamber gives equal representation to each county in the State. However, legislation and amendments to the state constitution can be initiated by interested members of the public who get a sufficient number of petition signatures.

State B also has a bicameral legislature, but both chambers are apportioned on a population basis. Legislation and constitutional amendments cannot be initiated by the public; proposals must begin in the legislature and, after they get a big enough majority in both chambers, it is then (and only then) submitted to the general electorate.

Who is to say which system is more "democratic"? Who is to say which set of compromises strikes the appropriate balance? Certainly not the Supreme Court of the United States, IMO. By requiring that both chambers use an ironclad rule of population equality, you short-circuit any effort at experimenting with other decision-making methods/structures. In Lucas, the Supreme Court struck down on one-man, one-vote grounds, a just-ratified amendment to the Colorado Constitution which won a majority statewide (obviously) as well as a majority in every single county. Obviously there was a political deal that had been made there which was acceptable to Colorado's voters; who is the Supreme Court to interfere?

There are lots of variations on this. For example, State A's bicameral legislature is apportioned on a pure population basis, but it has a constitutional provision that reserves certain tax income for a special Fish and Wildlife Fund which will be a steady flow of constitutionally protected money to rural parts of the State. State B gives equal representation to each county in one chamber (irrespective of population), but contains no special spending provisions. Who is to say which is "equal treatment"?

Re: Apportionment.us: three judge panel to be convened! :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sun, 15 Aug 2010 20:46:51 +0000

HouseSizeWonk wrote:Who is to say which system is more "democratic"? Who is to say which set of compromises strikes the appropriate balance? Certainly not the Supreme Court of the United States, IMO.

Contrary to your opinion, though, the Supreme Court does indeed have the "say" on this and, barring an amendment to the contrary, one person, one vote is the constitutional law of the land.

Stated simply, one person, one vote requires that electoral districts be drawn to ensure that they are equally sized with respect to their total populations. The purpose of this is to ensure that "as nearly as practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's" (Wesberry v. Sanders). Prior to this ruling, significant inequities in the allocation of representation were allowed, such as a small district in a metropolitan area having its own Representative while a much more populous rural district would also only have one Representative. When this happens, a citizen living in the smaller electoral district has a greater share of representation than does someone living in the more populous district. For that reason, the one-person-one-vote requirement makes perfect sense relative to the lower house of a bicameral legislature, such as the House of Representatives.

Given that reality, there is no justification for permitting disparities in the congressional district sizes from state to state. Even the Supreme Court has stated: "Diluting the weight of votes because of place of residence impairs basic constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment just as much as invidious discriminations based upon factors such as race" (Reynolds v. Sims).

Personally, I'm inclined to believe that the upper house of a state legislature should not be subject to the one-person-one-vote requirement for the same reason that the federal Senate is not. That would allow there to be, for example, two senators from each county. Of course, that is a debatable assertion and, in any case, would require a constitutional amendment to enable.

Re: Apportionment.us: three judge panel to be convened! :: Reply by HouseSizeWonk

no_email@example.com (HouseSizeWonk) — Sun, 15 Aug 2010 21:37:37 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:
HouseSizeWonk wrote:Who is to say which system is more "democratic"? Who is to say which set of compromises strikes the appropriate balance? Certainly not the Supreme Court of the United States, IMO.
Contrary to your opinion, though, the Supreme Court does indeed have the "say" on this and, barring an amendment to the contrary, one person, one vote is the constitutional law of the land.

Stated simply, one person, one vote requires that electoral districts be drawn to ensure that they are equally sized with respect to their total populations. The purpose of this is to ensure that "as nearly as practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's" (Wesberry v. Sanders). Prior to this ruling, significant inequities in the allocation of representation were allowed, such as a small district in a metropolitan area having its own Representative while a much more populous rural district would also only have one Representative. When this happens, a citizen living in the smaller electoral district has a greater share of representation than does someone living in the more populous district. For that reason, the one-person-one-vote requirement makes perfect sense relative to the lower house of a bicameral legislature, such as the House of Representatives.

Given that reality, there is no justification for permitting disparities in the congressional district sizes from state to state. Even the Supreme Court has stated: "Diluting the weight of votes because of place of residence impairs basic constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment just as much as invidious discriminations based upon factors such as race" (Reynolds v. Sims).

Personally, I'm inclined to believe that the upper house of a state legislature should not be subject to the one-person-one-vote requirement for the same reason that the federal Senate is not. That would allow there to be, for example, two senators from each county. Of course, that is a debatable assertion and, in any case, would require a constitutional amendment to enable.

A constitutional amendment or a recognition that the Reynolds line of cases was wrongly-decided, which is what I am arguing for. It is not unheard of for the Supreme Court to overrule itself. Reynolds and its ilk were wrongly-decided. Yet another example of Chief Justice Warren deciding that it was his job to "fix" America via judicial fiat.

And it is simply wrong to say that "there is no justification for permitting disparities in the congressional district sizes from state to state" because of the Supreme Court's intrastate districting precedents. The Supreme Court's intrastate districting cases are an application of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment, by its own terms, applies only to the States ("No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.") But the inter-State disparities in congressional districts are not caused by the States; they are caused by Congress in setting the size of the chamber. Moreover, the Constitution expressly gives Congress the power to set the size of the chamber and make the value judgment of whether one or more additional seats are worth either their financial cost or the effects on cohesion and an orderly chamber. Thus, there are 2 separate reasons that the congressional decision to fix the chamber at 435 are insulated from judicial review.

I vehemently disagree with the value judgment made by Congress, but there is absolutely no doubt that it is their judgment to make. The solution isn't unwarranted judicial intervention; it is raising awareness of and convincing the electorate to make an issue of this, because if we, the People, demand it, it will happen.

Re: Apportionment.us: three judge panel to be convened! :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 01:50:00 +0000

Correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm sorting out my own logic as I go; but...

HouseSizeWonk wrote:The 14th Amendment, by its own terms, applies only to the States ("No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.") But the inter-State disparities in congressional districts are not caused by the States; they are caused by Congress in setting the size of the chamber.

In my opinion, it doesn't matter that the disparity originates in the Congress and not in the States. According to the wording of the 14th Amendment, "no State shall...enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"; meaning, even if Congress has the authority to write a federal law that breaks the one-man-one-vote principle, it would be unconstitutional for the States to enforce that federal law. Ergo, it seems it may be unconstitutional for the States to send Representatives to Congress in such numbers as to violate the one-man-one-vote principle in relation to the citizens of the entire (according to the wording of the 14th Amendment) United States.

What do we think of that logic?

Re: Apportionment.us: three judge panel to be convened! :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 10:05:37 +0000

HouseSizeWonk wrote:A constitutional amendment or a recognition that the Reynolds line of cases was wrongly-decided, which is what I am arguing for. It is not unheard of for the Supreme Court to overrule itself. Reynolds and its ilk were wrongly-decided. Yet another example of Chief Justice Warren deciding that it was his job to "fix" America via judicial fiat.

OK. That's not a cause that I'm interested in, primarily because I believe that they reached the correct conclusion (though perhaps not using the correct reasoning). The explanation for my belief is too long for today, but it relies upon the intent of the apportionment clause of Section 2 of the Constitution with respect to how representation and taxation were to be apportioned. Another reason is the Founders' concern about "rotten boroughs". I respect your point of view on this matter, but I accept that "one person, one vote" is a constitutional principle.

HouseSizeWonk wrote:And it is simply wrong to say that "there is no justification for permitting disparities in the congressional district sizes from state to state" because of the Supreme Court's intrastate districting precedents.

There are arguments beyond those, and as I quoted previously, "Diluting the weight of votes because of place of residence impairs basic constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment just as much as invidious discriminations based upon factors such as race" (Reynolds v. Sims). There is no reason why that principle should not apply interstate as well as intrastate. There is no plausible rationale to grant citizens in some states much greater political power than the citizens of other states. Of course, we could debate this forever. As it turns out, this will likely be decided by the Supreme Court, probably later this year, as the plaintiffs are repealing Clemons et al. v. U.S. Department of Commerce et al.

HouseSizeWonk wrote:Moreover, the Constitution expressly gives Congress the power to set the size of the chamber and make the value judgment of whether one or more additional seats are worth either their financial cost or the effects on cohesion and an orderly chamber.

Really? So based on whatever their "value judgment" may be, could Congress set the total number of Representatives at 200? At 100? At 51? If not, then why not?

Re: Apportionment.us: three judge panel to be convened! :: Reply by HouseSizeWonk

no_email@example.com (HouseSizeWonk) — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 05:19:52 +0000

Pseudolus wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm sorting out my own logic as I go; but...
HouseSizeWonk wrote:The 14th Amendment, by its own terms, applies only to the States ("No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.") But the inter-State disparities in congressional districts are not caused by the States; they are caused by Congress in setting the size of the chamber.
In my opinion, it doesn't matter that the disparity originates in the Congress and not in the States. According to the wording of the 14th Amendment, "no State shall...enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"; meaning, even if Congress has the authority to write a federal law that breaks the one-man-one-vote principle, it would be unconstitutional for the States to enforce that federal law. Ergo, it seems it may be unconstitutional for the States to send Representatives to Congress in such numbers as to violate the one-man-one-vote principle in relation to the citizens of the entire (according to the wording of the 14th Amendment) United States.

What do we think of that logic?

Actually, I think that is extraordinarily clever, but ultimately I think it would be a losing argument, both practically and doctrinally. My doctrinal argument would be that the Constitution prior to the 14th Amendment allowed government at all levels to discriminate in various ways. As the Supreme Court has said many times in struggling with implementing the Equal Protection Clause, government classifies people all the time; it's what the government is in the business of doing. Thus they struggle with interpreting the EPC in a way that accomplishes its apparent end without preventing the government from operating. But I digress: the point is, the pre-14th Constitution didn't comment on this and apparently considered it unremarkable. However, after slavery reached the political crisis status and eventually sparked a civil war, it was the consensus of Congress (and the States, sort-of) that the States had done a poor job of exercising this discretion, and so their ability to do so would be substantially narrowed (the 14th Amendment). But the 14th Amendment does not necessarily call into question the general notion of government discrimination, and apparently reflects a national consensus that the federal government could be trusted with that discretion in a way that the possibly more narrow-minded State governments could not. Thus, in a sense, when the federal government discriminates between people, we're just going to say that by definition it isn't, or it isn't in a way that is actionable, because it is trusted to discriminate wisely; only the States are not, and the EPC is then no obstacle to States conforming with the apportionment they've been assigned.

There's also an argument that, when the States draw up districts and so forth, they aren't enforcing the federal law so much as complying with it. Moreover, whether you could characterize it as enforcing or complying with the federal law, such an interpretation would put the States in a position to be independent arbiters of the constitutionality of congressional action, which has (rightly) been repeatedly and routinely denied by the Supreme Court and in this case would pretty clearly be in violation of the Supremacy Clause.

But that's a pretty clever argument nonetheless. Impressive.

Re: Apportionment.us: three judge panel to be convened! :: Reply by HouseSizeWonk

no_email@example.com (HouseSizeWonk) — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 05:26:59 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:
HouseSizeWonk wrote:A constitutional amendment or a recognition that the Reynolds line of cases was wrongly-decided, which is what I am arguing for. It is not unheard of for the Supreme Court to overrule itself. Reynolds and its ilk were wrongly-decided. Yet another example of Chief Justice Warren deciding that it was his job to "fix" America via judicial fiat.
OK. That's not a cause that I'm interested in, primarily because I believe that they reached the correct conclusion (though perhaps not using the correct reasoning). The explanation for my belief is too long for today, but it relies upon the intent of the apportionment clause of Section 2 of the Constitution with respect to how representation and taxation were to be apportioned. Another reason is the Founders' concern about "rotten boroughs". I respect your point of view on this matter, but I accept that "one person, one vote" is a constitutional principle.

HouseSizeWonk wrote:And it is simply wrong to say that "there is no justification for permitting disparities in the congressional district sizes from state to state" because of the Supreme Court's intrastate districting precedents.
There are arguments beyond those, and as I quoted previously, "Diluting the weight of votes because of place of residence impairs basic constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment just as much as invidious discriminations based upon factors such as race" (Reynolds v. Sims). There is no reason why that principle should not apply interstate as well as intrastate. There is no plausible rationale to grant citizens in some states much greater political power than the citizens of other states. Of course, we could debate this forever. As it turns out, this will likely be decided by the Supreme Court, probably later this year, as the plaintiffs are repealing Clemons et al. v. U.S. Department of Commerce et al.

HouseSizeWonk wrote:Moreover, the Constitution expressly gives Congress the power to set the size of the chamber and make the value judgment of whether one or more additional seats are worth either their financial cost or the effects on cohesion and an orderly chamber.
Really? So based on whatever their "value judgment" may be, could Congress set the total number of Representatives at 200? At 100? At 51? If not, then why not?

I agree that "one man, one vote" is the law of the land, but it is the law of the land because of the Equal Protection Clause, which I am arguing does not properly apply against the federal government. If it does not properly apply against the federal government, then one man, one vote doesn't, either. And even if the EPC did, given that the Constitution specifically commits to Congress the discretion to determine the size of the chamber, there is reason to believe that that decision would be roped off as something that the "equality" mandate did not apply to. (Have we somehow eliminated the Senate via a sub silentio amendment to the Constitution?)

And I would disagree that there's no plausible rationale: the plausible rationale is cost and feasibility. In order to give everybody an equally-sized district, you'd have to substantially increase the size of the chamber. Congress has made a value judgment that the value of the increased representativeness of the chamber is outweighed by the cost of the salaries and cacophony. I disagree, but I don't doubt it's their decision to make.

As for your hypotheticals, yes, I would say that the minimum size of the House would have to be 51, and in fact there is the occasional law review article on this topic. The consensus is clearly that Congress can pick any number it wants above the minimum, but the debate is whether the minimum is 50 or 51. Most of the stuff I've seen written on this seem to take the position that, because the House is to be apportioned "according to their respective Numbers" (or something like that; wording and capitalization may be off, I don't have the text in front of me), there would have to be at least one seat that would be apportioned on a population basis after every State got its 1 minimum.

Re: Apportionment.us: three judge panel to be convened! :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 03:26:31 +0000

Adam, I'll reply to some of your last post when time permits. In general, I'm not sure where you are coming from. A few of your arguments strike me as so specious that I don't know if you're opposing representational enlargement, or if you're simply playing devil's advocate. (Forgive me if you already made your position clear elsewhere in a previous post.) Please tell me what you believe is the appropriate number of federal legislators to represent 300,000,000+ Americans in the US House.

Re: Apportionment.us: three judge panel to be convened! :: Reply by HouseSizeWonk

no_email@example.com (HouseSizeWonk) — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 03:52:11 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:Adam, I'll reply to some of your last post when time permits. In general, I'm not sure where you are coming from. A few of your arguments strike me as so specious that I don't know if you're opposing representational enlargement, or if you're simply playing devil's advocate. (Forgive me if you already made your position clear elsewhere in a previous post.) Please tell me what you believe is the appropriate number of federal legislators to represent 300,000,000+ Americans in the US House.

I don't think, without experimentation, we can know. For now, I would like to implement the Wyoming Rule, where the national ratio of seats to population would be equal to the population of the smallest unit entitled to a seat in the chamber. Thus, since the 2000, it would have been 1:495,304 (or the apportionment population of Wyoming, the smallest State). That's 568 (or 569 if you want to round up). I'd give that a try for starters and see how it works for a while. There would be a number of challenges to address. For example, assuming that the chamber as a whole could absorb the additional members (floor debate is not something that they do much of), what about the committee structure? If every member expects to sit on one committee and subcommittee, then we will likely have to pare the jurisdiction of each of the committees and subcommittees down pretty narrowly, or else you'll have committees with dozens of people sitting on them. Perhaps we'll have to dispense with the notion that every member sits on a committee? But that would definitely be a new practice norm that we'd have to experiment with and get people used to the idea of.

Article V Amendment Convention :: Author Paul

no_email@example.com (Paul) — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 01:01:59 +0000

Jeff, can you write a quick blurb on how an amendment convention would work? I think it's widely understood that a Constitutional Convention is open game for congress to just rewrite everything.

Re: Amendment Convention :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 03:40:54 +0000

Paul wrote:Jeff, can you write a quick blurb on how an amendment convention would work? I think it's widely understood that a Constitutional Convention is open game for congress to just rewrite everything.

Paul, that's on my list of topics for the blog. I hope to get to it this year.

I call it an "Amendment Convention" because nowhere in the Constitution does it provide for a "Constitutional Convention". Instead, Article V of the Constitution specifically states that "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, ... "

Furthermore, any amendments proposed by that convention would then need to be "ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof" in order to be ratified to the Constitution!

So the Constitution clearly states that such a convention (one called by ⅔ of the states) can only propose amendments, which then could only become ratified upon approval by ¾ of the states. That ain't a Constitutional Convention!

I believe that the specter of a new "constitutional convention" is a bogeyman notion perpetuated by those who want to maintain Congress' monopoly on the amendment process by thwarting its use by we the people. It's all part of protecting the oligarchy. (We are no longer citizens; we are federal subjects.)

The prescient Founding Fathers wisely included the Article V provision to enable the citizenry (working through our state legislatures) to peacefully take back our government when the time came. Now is that time.

Well, I think I just pretty much wrote my blog posting; I need to flesh it out some more.

Having said all that, I believe that the Amendment Convention should have a single objective: to achieve citizen control of Congress by passing an amendment that establishes a maximum district size (e.g., Article the first as originally proposed on August 24, 1789). Perhaps also pursue the repeal of the 17th amendment, but nothing more! All other amendment proposals will be adequately considered by an enlarged House of Representatives. The amendment convention will fail to accomplish anything if it is a free-for-all for all sorts of amendment proposals.

When you can, please google around a little to research if anyone else has already written about this, or any other info you can find, and send me any links (or post them here if they're worthwhile).

Re: Amendment Convention :: Reply by HouseSizeWonk

no_email@example.com (HouseSizeWonk) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:24:28 +0000

I can offer some brief color on this. The 17th Amendment only happened because of this very process. The Senate had absolutely resisted popular election of Senators for quite some time. However, more and more State Legislatures chimed in that they'd like to call a convention to consider the subject, Congress relented and proposed the 17th Amendment to the States. Why? Because there was no precedent for such a convention in our nation's history. Nobody knew what it would look like, or how it would be controlled or limited to one subject (after all, the Philadelphia Convention was only supposed to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation, which is why there is a clever little literature on whether the U.S. Constitution is itself unconstitutional). Fear of the unknown led to the proposal (and passage) of the 17th Amendment.

What this means, though, is that if you could get enough State Legislatures to start asking for a convention on this topic, as the number approached 2/3rds, you'd get the attention of Congress and possibly force them to act.

Re: Amendment Convention :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:28:38 +0000

HouseSizeWonk wrote:I can offer some brief color on this. ...

That's a good point you make, that attempting to convene an amendment convention may compel the Congress to action. That is another reason for advocating this course of action relative to representational enlargement.

I don't understand where this hysteria about the prospect of a "constitutional convention" comes from. The Constitution does NOT provide for a "constitutional convention"! Even if ⅔ of the states assembled to propose amendments (regardless of whether those amendments are wise or foolish), those proposed amendments would still require the approval of ¾ of the states' legislatures to be ratified to the Constitution. That is a huge hurdle!

Re: Amendment Convention :: Reply by HouseSizeWonk

no_email@example.com (HouseSizeWonk) — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:47:06 +0000

I think, J.E., that you're ignoring the significance of the Philadelphia Convention. The Congress of the Confederation may have thought that it had control of the agenda, but it soon slipped away when they came back with a whole new Constitution (or, you might say, an amendment in the form of a substitute). Yes, it needed to be ratified by 9 States, but even that was something nobody saw coming; amendments had required unanimity to pass.

Say the convention proposed an amendment which had a rider clause inserted: for this amendment only, it only takes, say, 2/3rds of the State Legislatures to pass it (or something). Would that be legal? Who knows! It could be interpreted as an amendment of Article V of the Constitution. It's a bunch of legal questions nobody wants to confront.

Re: Amendment Convention :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:08:10 +0000

HouseSizeWonk wrote:I think, J.E., that you're ignoring the significance of the Philadelphia Convention. ....

I realize that is the basis for the hobgoblin of a "constitutional convention", but that line of reasoning is absolutely specious! That would be like expressing concern that a rogue group of NFL employees could assemble somewhere and simply announce that they have established a new league that replaces the old one.

For those familiar with the history, there could be no analog with the Philadelphia convention. Without getting into all the events that led up to (and during the convention), it takes a spectacular amount of imagination to suppose that an Amendment Convention, pursuant to our Constitution, could somehow become a constitutional convention. For one thing, the delegates to the Philadelphia convention were, with respect to their actions at the convention, never explicitly bound by the provisions of an existing constitution!

The wording of Article V of our Constitution is explicit and unequivocal: an Amendment Convention can only propose amendments and, furthermore, said proposals can become amendments only if they are subsequently affirmed by ¾ of the states! The Founders knew what they doing when they worded Article V. We also know that the Founders and Framers would have never wanted to provide for a "constitutional convention" as they were deeply opposed to another convention (because they believed that they had already drafted the best possible Constitution in Philadelphia). Remember, our Constitution was proposed on Sept. 17, 1787, and was not finally ratified until June 21, 1788 (at which time Virginia, New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island still had NOT affirmed it). So the acceptance of that constitution was quite uncertain for at least nine months, during which time they did have reason to be concerned about the possibility of another constitutional convention undoing their great work.

With respect to re-writing our Constitution, I sincerely believe that we should focus our concern on the damage that is being done by Congress (which seems to regard itself as a standing convention for the purpose of redefining the Constitution). That is a real and present danger, not an imaginary one. If only Congress were as bound in its actions as would be an Article V Amendment Convention. That is, imagine if the laws passed by Congress then required the approval of ¾ of the states' legislatures; I believe that the net effect would be greatly beneficial for the country. The only people who should be afraid of an Amendment Convention are the congressmen who wish to preserve their monopoly on amending the Constitution.

Re: Amendment Convention :: Reply by HouseSizeWonk

no_email@example.com (HouseSizeWonk) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:38:14 +0000

JEQuidam wrote: I realize that is the basis for the hobgoblin of a "constitutional convention", but that line of reasoning is absolutely specious! That would be like expressing concern that a rogue group of NFL employees could assemble somewhere and simply announce that they have established a new league that replaces the old one.

For those familiar with the history, there could be no analog with the Philadelphia convention. Without getting into all the events that led up to (and during the convention), it takes a spectacular amount of imagination to suppose that an Amendment Convention, pursuant to our Constitution, could somehow become a constitutional convention. For one thing, the delegates to the Philadelphia convention were, with respect to their actions at the convention, never explicitly bound by the provisions of an existing constitution!

This seems like a spectacular assertion. In what way was the Philadelphia Convention not bound by the provisions of an existing constitution? The Articles of Confederation were the existing constitution! And they clearly provided: "[T]he Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."

Pressure for changing the Articles had been building for some time, and was first articulated at the informal Annapolis Convention of 1786. The support of Gen. Washington was sought, but he refused to go along without the sanction of the Congress of the Confederation. Due to his qualms, the Congress pass a resolution calling for a convention "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the States render the Federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government and the preservation of the Union."

Given the intransigence of several of the States (which you mention below in this post) there is little doubt in my mind that the Philadelphia Convention did not present what the Congress had in mind. It was acquiesced in by the Congress, of course, but it was not the deal they had in mind when it was called; perhaps the fact that many of the nation's greatest luminaries attended meant that it was a rising tide the Congress could not stand against. The fact that several states held out on ratifying (as you mention below) is evidence that they felt bamboozled by the process, though. And that is why a future "Amendment Convention" is resisted: there is fear that we may be bamboozled by it again.

JEQuidam wrote:The wording of Article V of our Constitution is explicit and unequivocal: an Amendment Convention can only propose amendments and, furthermore, said proposals can become amendments only if they are subsequently affirmed by ¾ of the states! The Founders knew what they doing when they worded Article V. We also know that the Founders and Framers would have never wanted to provide for a "constitutional convention" as they were deeply opposed to another convention (because they believed that they had already drafted the best possible Constitution in Philadelphia). Remember, our Constitution was proposed on Sept. 17, 1787, and was not finally ratified until June 21, 1788 (at which time Virginia, New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island still had NOT affirmed it). So the acceptance of that constitution was quite uncertain for at least nine months, during which time they did have reason to be concerned about the possibility of another constitutional convention undoing their great work.

With respect to re-writing our Constitution, I sincerely believe that we should focus our concern on the damage that is being done by Congress (which seems to regard itself as a standing convention for the purpose of redefining the Constitution). That is a real and present danger, not an imaginary one. If only Congress were as bound in its actions as would be an Article V Amendment Convention. That is, imagine if the laws passed by Congress then required the approval of ¾ of the states' legislatures; I believe that the net effect would be greatly beneficial for the country. The only people who should be afraid of an Amendment Convention are the congressmen who wish to preserve their monopoly on amending the Constitution.

You emphasize what Article V of the Constitution says. But I don't know why that matters any more or less than what Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation said. And Article XIII (requiring unanimous consent for ratifying amendments) was ignored by Article VII of the U.S. Constitution (ratification of 9 out of 13 makes it effective as between the 9; did that mean they seceded from the "perpetual" union?). I don't understand why it's "specious" to say it could happen again.

Re: Amendment Convention :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:24:18 +0000

HouseSizeWonk wrote:This seems like a spectacular assertion. In what way was the Philadelphia Convention not bound by the provisions of an existing constitution? The Articles of Confederation were the existing constitution! And they clearly provided: "[T]he Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."

Let's focus on this aspect first, then we can return to any other points you think I missed. Even relative to the excerpt you provide above, did they not meet that requirement? That is, that "such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State"? Granted, the "agreed to in a Congress" was more tacit than explicit, but certainly the new Constitution was "confirmed by the legislatures of every State". And bear in mind that the term "alteration" is ambiguous, unlike Article V's "amendment".

But that is a digression! Let's return to my argument: the Articles of Confederation did not have the language that is provided by Article V of our Constitution, to wit: "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments ". I assume that you agree that the language of Article V explicitly and unambiguously defines the process by which an amendment to the Constitution can be proposed and then affirmed. There is no way to interpret that any differently than what it plainly states. Title V only permits amendments to be proposed, and any amendments so proposed (whether by Congress or by an amendment convention) would not be binding unless they were subsequently affirmed by ¾ of the states' legislatures. I believe that the Framers made this language precise in order to prevent another such convention as was permitted by the ambiguous language of the Articles of Confederation!

In conclusion, the only way I would be concerned about a modern runaway convention would be if the language of Title V of the Constitution were replaced with "nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in this Constitution unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State". That language fails to provide a defined process for making "alterations" to the Constitution and does not define "alteration".

Re: Amendment Convention :: Reply by HouseSizeWonk

no_email@example.com (HouseSizeWonk) — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 03:02:31 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:
HouseSizeWonk wrote:This seems like a spectacular assertion. In what way was the Philadelphia Convention not bound by the provisions of an existing constitution? The Articles of Confederation were the existing constitution! And they clearly provided: "[T]he Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."
Let's focus on this aspect first, then we can return to any other points you think I missed. Even relative to the excerpt you provide above, did they not meet that requirement? That is, that "such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State"? Granted, the "agreed to in a Congress" was more tacit than explicit, but certainly the new Constitution was "confirmed by the legislatures of every State". And bear in mind that the term "alteration" is ambiguous, unlike Article V's "amendment".

But that is a digression! Let's return to my argument: the Articles of Confederation did not have the language that is provided by Article V of our Constitution, to wit: "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments ". I assume that you agree that the language of Article V explicitly and unambiguously defines the process by which an amendment to the Constitution can be proposed and then affirmed. There is no way to interpret that any differently than what it plainly states. Title V only permits amendments to be proposed, and any amendments so proposed (whether by Congress or by an amendment convention) would not be binding unless they were subsequently affirmed by ¾ of the states' legislatures. I believe that the Framers made this language precise in order to prevent another such convention as was permitted by the ambiguous language of the Articles of Confederation!

In conclusion, the only way I would be concerned about a modern runaway convention would be if the language of Title V of the Constitution were replaced with "nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in this Constitution unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State". That language fails to provide a defined process for making "alterations" to the Constitution and does not define "alteration".

The key difference is that the Articles of Confederation contained a dissenter's veto: any changes to the Articles of Confederation had to be unanimous. But the U.S. Constitution was effective when ratified by only 9 out of 13 States. That effectively amended the unanimity requirement. You have several times in your post appeared to invoke the historical fact that the U.S. Constitution was, in fact, ratified by every State. But that was only because they were strongarmed into it: the proposal nullified their dissenter's veto by making the new Constitution effective on the ratification of only 9 out of 13. Granted, it was only effective as between the 9, but it was still a substitute Constitution. And, the Supreme Court has said that secession is unconstitutional: as the Supreme Court said in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700, 725–26 (1869), "[W]hen the[] Articles [of Confederation] were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not? . . . The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States."

So, of course the few dissenters ratified the Constitution: they had no choice in the matter, because the Articles of Confederation had been amended out from underneath their feet. They would have been left with a "country" of 2 or 3 States under the Articles of Confederation, which in itself would have been unconstitutional since, as the Court recognized in Texas, secession from a perpetual union is invalid. There were a variety of limitations placed on the Philadelphia Convention, which it proceeded to ignore in ways which were pretty clearly illegal at the time but which have since been ratified by history. But the fact that they were subsequently ratified by history is no reason to think that a future convention would not exceed the limits placed upon it as well.

Re: Amendment Convention :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 03:45:58 +0000

HouseSizeWonk wrote:You have several times in your post appeared to invoke the historical fact that the U.S. Constitution was, in fact, ratified by every State. But that was only because they were strongarmed into it: the proposal nullified their dissenter's veto by making the new Constitution effective on the ratification of only 9 out of 13. Granted, it was only effective as between the 9, but it was still a substitute Constitution.

I'm no historian, but here's what I do know: state #10 was Virginia (June 25, 1788) and New York ratified one month later. Those two states were the silver backed gorillas in the collection of states and NOBODY could strong arm them into ratifying the Constitution! Had those two states refused, the whole deal would have then either unraveled or the Constitution's promoters would have promised any additional amendments necessary (in the anticipated Bill of Rights) to bring NY and VA into the fold. In fact, I'm confident that it was the promised amendments, including "Article the first" that did indeed ultimately induce VA and NY to ratify. In any case, it is clear from the historical accounts that the viability of the Constitution was still quite precarious even after those first nine states affirmed it.

However, there is probably no point debating that history as it is not directly relevant to the main argument in my prior posting. Allow me to repeat it: the Articles of Confederation did not have the language that is provided by Article V of our Constitution, to wit: "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments ". I assume that you agree that the language of Article V explicitly and unambiguously defines the process by which an amendment to the Constitution can be proposed and then affirmed. There is no way to interpret that any differently than what it plainly states. Title V only permits amendments to be proposed, and any amendments so proposed (whether by Congress or by an amendment convention) would not be binding unless they were subsequently affirmed by ¾ of the states' legislatures. I believe that the Framers made this language precise in order to prevent another such convention as was permitted by the ambiguous language of the Articles of Confederation!

Re: Amendment Convention :: Reply by HouseSizeWonk

no_email@example.com (HouseSizeWonk) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:53:08 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:I'm no historian, but here's what I do know: state #10 was Virginia (June 25, 1788) and New York ratified one month later. Those two states were the silver backed gorillas in the collection of states and NOBODY could strong arm them into ratifying the Constitution! Had those two states refused, the whole deal would have then either unraveled or the Constitution's promoters would have promised any additional amendments necessary (in the anticipated Bill of Rights) to bring NY and VA into the fold. In fact, I'm confident that it was the promised amendments, including "Article the first" that did indeed ultimately induce VA and NY to ratify. In any case, it is clear from the historical accounts that the viability of the Constitution was still quite precarious even after those first nine states affirmed it.

However, there is probably no point debating that history as it is not directly relevant to the main argument in my prior posting. Allow me to repeat it: the Articles of Confederation did not have the language that is provided by Article V of our Constitution, to wit: "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments ". I assume that you agree that the language of Article V explicitly and unambiguously defines the process by which an amendment to the Constitution can be proposed and then affirmed. There is no way to interpret that any differently than what it plainly states. Title V only permits amendments to be proposed, and any amendments so proposed (whether by Congress or by an amendment convention) would not be binding unless they were subsequently affirmed by ¾ of the states' legislatures. I believe that the Framers made this language precise in order to prevent another such convention as was permitted by the ambiguous language of the Articles of Confederation!

The key dissenters I'm referring to are North Carolina and Rhode Island, who did not ratify the Constitution until Nov. 21, 1789, and May 29, 1790, respectively. In Rhode Island, which had been sitting on the sidelines for over a year while the new government came into operation and started making decisions without Rhode Island's input, the decision to ratify was decided on a 34-32 vote. It is quite clear that both of them, and Rhode Island in particular, did not want to ratify the U.S. Constitution and preferred the Articles of Confederation instead. And, under the unambiguous language of Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, which set up a "perpetual" union between the 13 States, either one of them was entitled to a dissenter's veto because amendments were to be unanimous, but that dissenter's veto was nullified when it had already become effective on the ratification of 9 States (plus 2 more). So, when New York ratified and you're sitting on 11 out of 13 having ratified it, and it's an effective document as between those 11, they have either (a) apparently seceded from the "perpetual" union under the Articles of Confederation, which everybody agrees is unconstitutional (and, as I noted in the quote from Texas v. White, the Supreme Court even pointed to that language from the Articles of Confederation to reach such a conclusion), or (b) "amended" the Articles of Confederation (an amendment in the form of a substitute) in violation of Article XIII. Either way, they're in violation of the clear, unambiguous language of the Articles of Confederation.

So yes, I absolutely agree that Article V of the U.S. Constitution is unambiguous. But I fail to see how the example of the Philadelphia Convention and the ratification process of the U.S. Constitution stops a convention from proposing something with its own ratification rules. If an amendment convention proposed an all-new Constitution (an amendment in the form of a substitute), that would be clearly outside of its mandate in much the same way that an all-new Constitution was outside the mandate of the Philadelphia Convention; yet the Philadelphia Convention got away with it. Even if an amendment convention stayed within its mandate and proposed on-point amendments/alterations to the Constitution, nothing stops it from attaching language to that proposal that says it is effective when ratified by, say, 2/3rds of the State Legislatures, in exactly the same way that the U.S. Constitution became effective on the ratification of 9/13 States instead of 13/13.

So, to repeat: I agree that Article V of the U.S. Constitution is absolutely unambiguous. However, I think that Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation was just as unambiguous. Just to be clear, this is what it said: "nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made . . . unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State." Now, while it is true that the U.S. Constitution was eventually confirmed by every State, it was not confirmed by the legislature of every State; instead, Article VII required that a special convention be called to consider the question in each State. And, moreover, the proposed Constitution did not consider itself bound by the rule that it had to be confirmed by every State; it only needed to be confirmed by 9/13, which nullified the dissenter's vetoes that properly belonged to North Carolina and Rhode Island, leaving them little choice but to ratify it if they wanted a voice at the table (which they eventually did, after lengthy hold-outs). This language seems just as clear and unambiguous to me as Article V of the U.S. Constitution; if it could be disregarded (and I think it's clear to see that it was), what's stopping a future convention from disregarding Article V?

Re: Amendment Convention :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:31:39 +0000

Here's a Wall Street Journal editorial about the need for an amendment convention:
The States Can Check Washington's Power (Dec 21, 2009)
by David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey

From the article:

The gain will be substantial. Although it seems that permitting the states to propose amendments is a small thing, especially because ratification would still require three-fourths of the states to agree, it would shift the power calculus—and create a potential for action that the president, Congress and courts could never ignore as they consider the proper boundaries of their own authority.

Moreover, the effort to enable the states to check Washington's power would provide a constructive outlet for much of the growing anger—specially evident in phenomena such as the "tea party" movement—toward the political elites of both parties. It is not a partisan proposal and is difficult to oppose. The purpose is to move significant authority closer to the electorate, but in a measured, "conservative" manner that is in no sense "populist."

Re: Amendment Convention :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 13:24:33 +0000

Isn't the whole concern over a new Constitution being created from an Amendment Convention somewhat moot? It's a necessary risk and severely unlikely to result in a new Constitution getting passed by completing disregarding the rules of the former, despite the precedent of the Articles of Confederation.

I'm more concerned about starting a topic on what the new Apportionment Amendment should actually say. Why isn't there a topic where we debate the wording and debate the realistic nature of jumping immediately from 435 to 6000+ Representatives? And why can't I create a topic on it?

Let's get to discussing the actual wording of a new Apportionment Amendment!

Re: Amendment Convention :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 14:14:26 +0000

Pseudolus wrote:Isn't the whole concern over a new Constitution being created from an Amendment Convention somewhat moot?

I understand your point, but here is why it's not moot: many people labor under the misconception that Article V of the Constitution authorizes some sort of "constitutional convention" when it fact it does no such thing. This misperception is fostered by propaganda and hysteria and it needs to be overcome before we will see any progress towards getting the states to call an Article V amendment convention.

Pseudolus wrote: Why isn't there a topic where we debate the wording and debate the realistic nature of jumping immediately from 435 to 6000+ Representatives?

Now that you point that out, I hadn't thought about it because (from my perspective) that amendment has already been drafted! It was proposed by the House of Representatives on August 24, 1789 (see page 6 of "Taking Back Our Republic"). I believe that for many people, it will be more credible to start with what was intended as the first amendment in the Bill of Rights, rather than starting anew. Do you disagree? (I'm not opposed to creating an area in the forum for this discussion if you think it necessary.)

Re: Amendment Convention :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 21:40:42 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:
Pseudolus wrote: Why isn't there a topic where we debate the wording and debate the realistic nature of jumping immediately from 435 to 6000+ Representatives?
Now that you point that out, I hadn't thought about it because (from my perspective) that amendment has already been drafted! It was proposed by the House of Representatives on August 24, 1789 (see page 6 of "Taking Back Our Republic"). I believe that for many people, it will be more credible to start with what was intended as the first amendment in the Bill of Rights, rather than starting anew. Do you disagree? (I'm not opposed to creating an area in the forum for this discussion if you think it necessary.)

I think after we get people involved through an education of Article the First, they are going to want it approved. As we can guess, no present state legislature is going to approve the joint House & Senate version of the amendment since it admittedly is mathematically incongruous. The original House version, though mathematically correct, seems so drastic an increase that to enact it overnight may cause a societal-wide panic and/or may cause otherwise supportive legislators to dismiss the Apportionment Amendment as a joke. Furthermore, all experience dictates that, should there be enough support for ratification, the wording of the Apportionment Amendment will still be hotly debated by today's legislators regardless of what was originally proposed by the House in 1789.

It's my firm belief that we should start this wording debate with known supporters of the Apportionment Amendment before we're caught unawares by non-supporters, a dismissive public, and or those who have other proposals. It's best we know as many arguments as we can in advance so we know how to respond.

Re: Amendment Convention :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 22:55:28 +0000

I'm of the opinion that, in order to protect the United States government from drifting into oligarchy, an Amendment Convention actually needs to ratify not only a simple Apportionment Amendment, but a complete short list of Amendments specifically designed to prevent oligarchy and protect individual liberty. I call these Amendments the Liberty List and have started a Facebook Group to discuss and draft these amendments. Anyone who is interested should check it out on Facebook, just search for The Liberty List under Facebook Groups. (There's also a Facebook Page for The Liberty List, but that Page will not display all the nitty-gritty drafting; it will more or less be a way for the Liberty List, once completed, to be submitted from the Group to the general public for their inspection and approval.)

Obviously, only the Apportionment Amendment should be discussed in this forum; but for those who are curious, the current amendments I'd like to debate for inclusion in the Liberty List are:

1) an Apportionment Amendment, which will increase representation in the House
2) a Repeal of the 17th Amendment, which will stabilize the Senate while keeping them dedicated to their States rather than their parties and campaign contributors
3) a Freedom of Autonomy Amendment, which will protect individuals from the overreach of government via the Commerce Clause
4) a Freedom of Voice Amendment, which would alter our present plurality-based voting system to make it less susceptible to Duverger's Law yet still avoiding the flaws of a strict approval-based voting system, thereby maximizing choice while maintaining stability

5) possibly a Balanced Budget Amendment, which would further help prevent governmental overreach and oppression
6) possibly a Repeal of the Income Tax Amendment
7) possibly a Fair Tax Amendment, which would repeal the 16th Amendment and insure that the government treats all citizens equally and fairly though they may ultimately be required to pay different sums of taxes
8) possibly an Identical Treatment Amendment, which would prevent Congress from passing a law that does not equally apply to the members of government themselves as it does to all citizens
9) possibly a Ratification Amendment, which would more clearly lay out the way in which an Amendment Convention would convene and operate so as to prevent the threat of an entirely new Constitutional Convention resulting in state succession and/or state coercion

There may be more, and the list may most certainly be consolidated; but that's my jumping off point for things to discuss at an Amendment Convention.

Re: Amendment Convention :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 16:23:26 +0000

Pseudolus wrote:...the current amendments I'd like to debate for inclusion in the Liberty List are..

Pseudolus, that’s quite a list! Speaking for myself, I don’t have the time to engage in discussion of other amendment proposals and, more importantly, I am not knowledgeable enough to take a firm position on most of them one way or the other.

Not to discourage you, but this probably isn’t the best forum for engaging in discussion on a wide ranging list of possible amendments. There are other organizations with a broader mission relative to an Article V convention and you may find those to be more conducive to such a debate. Here are two that I’m aware of:
Friends of the Article V Convention also on Facebook.
Convention USA also on Facebook.

That’s my short answer. Below is an elaboration of my views which probably nobody will read, but I’ll put them on the record anyway. That allows me to reference it in response to any future questions. (Some of my postings are like reusable code objects that I can evoke when someone asks the question again.)

I advocate the following two constitutional amendments:
1) Article the first as originally proposed by the House of Representatives on August 24, 1789
2) Repeal of the 17th Amendment

The effect of both of these proposals is to return to the original intent of the Founders with respect to representation in Congress. Thirty-Thousand.org (TTO) is exclusively dedicated to the first proposal. Though I support repeal of the 17th Amendment, that is not explicitly a part of TTO’s mission.

I should explain why I do not actively support other amendment proposals. First, I do not want to distract from TTO’s mission of expanding awareness of the benefits of representational enlargement. The problem with promoting a list of amendments is that many people will, in my opinion, view them as a bundle and reject them en masse if they don’t like one or two of them. For example, let’s say your organization (hypothetically) focused on the repeal of the 17th and 16th amendments. Because there are people who are committed to the former but not the latter (or vice versa), you will not gain as much support as you would by focusing exclusively on either objective. That reality also undermined, IMO, Sabato's book "A More Perfect Constitution" (which advocated 23 different amendments).

Before I get to my fundamental rationale for not actively supporting other amendments, let's identify the main reason our Congress does not put forth any new amendments: They are no longer answerable to the people. After all, why not put forth many of the amendments proposed by you, Saboto and others? Their ratification would not occur until ¾ of the states’ legislatures affirmed them anyway, and that is a very long journey for an amendment! So, as a hypothetical, imagine that the current Congress proposed an amendment which requires the distribution of goods & services in the U.S. to be “determined and directed by the state national economic plan” according to the principle that “from each according to his ability, to each according to his work” (having taken their inspiration from Articles 11 & 12 of the now defunct Soviet Constitution). As disturbing as their proposal would be, I would not be overly alarmed simply because no more than two or three states would even consider affirming such an amendment. As far as I’m concerned, Congress should put forth virtually all proposals that have widespread support and let the states’ legislatures exercise their authority as provided by Article V.

Of course, Congress (as it is currently comprised) will not propose any amendments for the states’ ratification because they realize that the only ones that would be affirmed are those which reduce the power and majesty of our imperial Congress. Otherwise, why not let ¾ of the states decide if the 17th amendment should be repealed, or whatever? Put it all out there for the states to decide. Congress is terrified at the prospect of empowering the states to that extent, which is why we will need an Article V convention.

That leads to my belief in the fundamental essentiality of representational enlargement. We now have a Congress that is largely of the Special Interests, by the Special Interests, and for the Special Interests. (As explained in Taking Back Our Republic, this is a direct result of oversized congressional districts.) It is clear that, had we a “People’s House”, it would approve many amendment proposals for the states to consider. Representational enlargement will enable us to realize that vision by replacing 435 politician-oligarchs with several thousand citizen representatives. I know many people will take issue with my conclusion, but that is why representational enlargement is the gateway solution. That is, if we were able to ratify only a single new amendment, that amendment should require representational enlargement. That would enable the citizenry to regain control of the U.S. House and replace an obstructionist Congress with one willing to allow the states’ legislatures to consider additional amendments to the Constitution.

Re: Amendment Convention :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 22:59:27 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:Speaking for myself, I don’t have the time to engage in discussion of other amendment proposals and, more importantly, I am not knowledgeable enough to take a firm position on most of them one way or the other.

If you join The Liberty List on Facebook, you could participate in only the areas where you have interest and disregard the others. (I definitely put in amendments that I have no interest in getting passed; but I figured a group think tank dedicated to discussion and drafting of amendments should at least talk about all ideas, then draft them to be as clear as they can be, then decide to either accept or reject them in the final Liberty List.) I'm of the opinion that #1-4 of the list are all individual gateway solutions which, if even one is passed, would lead us away from oligarchy.

JEQuidam wrote:Not to discourage you, but this probably isn’t the best forum for engaging in discussion on a wide ranging list of possible amendments.

Agreed, I think this forum should be specifically focused on only the Apportionment Amendment. But I also think we need a topic thread dedicated to a debate about its new wording. Let's get that thread going!

JEQuidam wrote:The problem with promoting a list of amendments is that many people will, in my opinion, view them as a bundle and reject them en masse if they don’t like one or two of them.

Agreed again. However, I do think different states will be attracted to different amendments; so having a list and then breaking it into sections for petition (almost like having separate organization who pursue solely only one of the amendments from the list like TTO does) is the best way, in my current opinion, to get real and widespread traction about an Amendment Convention. Obviously, states without a large population are going to be against an Apportionment Amendment and thus will always be un-supportive of an Amendment Convention to debate solely that one amendment. If, on the other hand, that state without a large population wanted an Amendment Convention for its own separate reason and knew that that reason would at least be discussed at said Amendment Convention, then I believe the smaller states would risk supporting an Amendment Convention--hoping that they could pass the amendment that serves their own interests while that blocking those amendment that hurts their power. Once the various states agree to an Amendment Convention for their separate and own interests, I believe there would be a tug and pull ultimately resulting in compromises such as: "If you support mine, I'll support yours." And thus, more than one amendment would be passed and likely none of them would be passed without the existence of the others.

But let's not get bogged down in debating my stuff here; let's instead focus on writing the new language of an Apportionment Amendment, which is within the scope of TTO. Get that topic thread going!

Re: Amendment Convention :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 01:25:13 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:For example, let’s say your organization (hypothetically) focused on the repeal of the 17th and 16th amendments. Because there are people who are committed to the former but not the latter (or vice versa), you will not gain as much support as you would by focusing exclusively on either objective. That reality also undermined, IMO, Sabato's book "A More Perfect Constitution" (which advocated 23 different amendments).

I didn't read Sabato's book, but I read through his 23 proposed amendments. Every one of them was ridiculous, some were authoritarian by nature, and most showed a lack of understanding of the American system. As his amendments are written, I'd be against every single one. That's the reason, IMO, his amendments never gained traction: because his proposals were all inherently flawed and/or destructive toward liberty.

Re: Amendment Convention :: Reply by HouseSizeWonk

no_email@example.com (HouseSizeWonk) — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 04:36:43 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:
Pseudolus wrote:Isn't the whole concern over a new Constitution being created from an Amendment Convention somewhat moot?
I understand your point, but here is why it's not moot: many people labor under the misconception that Article V of the Constitution authorizes some sort of "constitutional convention" when it fact it does no such thing. This misperception is fostered by propaganda and hysteria and it needs to be overcome before we will see any progress towards getting the states to call an Article V amendment convention.

Pseudolus wrote: Why isn't there a topic where we debate the wording and debate the realistic nature of jumping immediately from 435 to 6000+ Representatives?
Now that you point that out, I hadn't thought about it because (from my perspective) that amendment has already been drafted! It was proposed by the House of Representatives on August 24, 1789 (see page 6 of "Taking Back Our Republic"). I believe that for many people, it will be more credible to start with what was intended as the first amendment in the Bill of Rights, rather than starting anew. Do you disagree? (I'm not opposed to creating an area in the forum for this discussion if you think it necessary.)

I don't see where there's any misconception. Obviously, Article V does not authorize calling a constitutional convention; it only authorizes calling an "amendment convention." But one man's notion of an "amendment" is another man's notion of wholescale, fundamental change. (Indeed, the Michigan Supreme Court struck down a voter-initiated "amendment" to the state Constitution in 2008 which, in the judgment of the Court, was too broad and sweeping a set of changes to be dealt with via a voter-initiated amendment. They held that the constitution's separate treatment of "amendments" and a "convention" implied that the sorts of proposals they could consider were separate, and that "amendments" had to be more limited in scope that the sort of general revision that a convention could consider. Ergo, if a proposed "amendment" amounted to a general revision, it could not be placed on the ballot via a voter-initiated process, and instead would have to be vetted by a full constitutional convention called for the purpose. For more information, see Citizens Protecting Mich.'s Constitution v. Sec'y of State, 761 N.W.2d 210 (Mich. Ct. App.), aff'd, 755 N.W.2d 157 (Mich. 2008).) The concern is that a runaway convention would ultimately make proposals far broader than the Constitution allows it to, but that there would be no workable political mechanism in place to prevent those proposals from running roughshod over the limits that the convention was supposed to observe but ignored -- exactly what happened with the Philadelphia Convention.

Start a Facebook Group :: Author 803sccdantes

no_email@example.com (803sccdantes) — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 21:42:59 +0000

This just popped into my head as I deleted the 20th e-mail from the 10th amendment center in my facebook group. Perhaps creating a facebook group could help at least inform people about this idea being out there.

Re: Start a Facebook Group :: Reply by Paul

no_email@example.com (Paul) — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:26:35 +0000

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Thirty-Th ... 8406911652

Re: Start a Facebook Group :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 23:22:58 +0000

And now with an even shorter URL!

http://www.facebook.com/ThirtyThousand.org

Please ask others to "like" TTO at the link above.

Clemons v. Department of Commerce dismissed by Supreme Court :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 23:09:37 +0000

The Supreme Court reviewed Clemons v. Department of Commerce and announced (on December 13, 2010) that “The judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.” (Supreme Court website.)

By dismissing Clemons v. Department of Commerce, the Supreme Court has effectively sanctioned voter inequality nationwide. Though the constitutional principle of “one person one vote” is required intrastate, the citizens of some states will continue to enjoy more political clout than the citizens of other states. It can now be said that implementing political equality among citizens is only an obligation of the states, not the federal government. The court’s decision ensures that the House of Representatives – the cozy federal country club of 435 – will continue to operate for the benefit of the Special Interests. This decision marks a great victory for the Status Quo, the lobbyists, and the professional political class!

It was irresponsible, if not cowardly, for the Supreme Court to sidestep such a critical question by claiming a “lack of jurisdiction” by the federal courts. In 1857, the Supreme Court also declared that the federal courts lacked jurisdiction in Dred Scott v. Sandford. That proved to be yet another tragically timorous moment in the court’s history. Allowing the federal House to be exempt from compliance with the constitutional requirement of “one person, one vote” further elevates Congress above the law. Though John Adams envisioned “a government of laws, and not of men”, we have long been on the path of becoming merely a government of men. The Supreme Court missed a critical opportunity to reverse this perilous trend.

Relative to Clemons v. Department of Commerce, the Supreme Court also vacated (nullified) all of the work and research done by the diligent U.S. District Court (Three-Judge Panel) and the U.S. Attorney’s office. In other words, it is as if this case never happened. This is a legal mystery that is well beyond my expertise to evaluate. The good news, as I understand it, is that their ruling allows this legal challenge to be pursued again in the future.

The cause of representational enlargement is correct and just, initiated by our nation’s Founders, and fully supported by logic and facts. It will now be necessary to win this battle in the court of public opinion. This is a major challenge as many of our fellow citizens do not yet understand that increasing the number of representatives will yield many benefits including improving the quality of our representation, reducing government spending, and subduing political corruption. Gaining broad popular support will require a long-term educational effort: We must convince people one by one. A breakthrough will come when prominent and influential leaders join our non-partisan struggle to restore representative democracy in the United States. Towards these goals, please encourage others to read "Taking Back Our Republic" (which can be downloaded from: http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/TBOR.htm).

Finally, everyone should know that the legal effort launched by Scott Scharpen (at Apportionment.us) and their attorney, Michael Farris, was extraordinary and heroic. Those of us who have witnessed their efforts and read their work can attest to their commitment and intelligence. I regret that so few people will know how much they have contributed to this historic cause. We should all be grateful for their efforts.

Re: Clemons v. Department of Commerce dismissed by Supreme C :: Reply by HouseSizeWonk

no_email@example.com (HouseSizeWonk) — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 01:09:17 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:The cause of representational enlargement is correct and just, initiated by our nation’s Founders, and fully supported by logic and facts. It will now be necessary to win this battle in the court of public opinion.

This will be a sounder basis upon which to rest the victory anyway. Most court-ordered social engineering has provoked populist anti-judicial backlash (e.g., school desegregation/busing, abortion rights). By fighting and winning in the court of public opinion, you have a much better chance of an enduring victory.

Senate too! :: Author gparmer

no_email@example.com (gparmer) — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:23:43 +0000

Assume for a moment that I am supportive of Article the First, because it is true. I am horribly frustrated by the inability of our citizenry to personally know their representatives. I found this site after deciding how much better federal elections would be if they were more like *local* elections.

On the other hand, I have noticed something which could prevent me from voting for the change we desire. If the House size were increased over 10x, while the Senate remained constant, our Presidential elections would heavily favor more populous states. I believe our founding fathers sought to balance power between population and geography when they created our system of government. The Senate provides a legislative body which represents all states equally (which I am loosely correlating to geography) while the House represents the population centers of our country.

I hope I missed a part of this movement which includes Senate increases. Do you have a chart which shows the contribution each state would have toward a Presidential election, both before and after the change? I expect it to show a distinct lack of need for Presidential campaigns to ever visit rural states at all. As a citizen of a semi-rural state which is near the bottom of many charts, this is a huge concern. Recent Census data suggest that relative population density has not changed much, making my blog post about the US Presidential Elections from 2008 remain fairly accurate.

Great movement overall. Keep up the spirit. I fear we're going to need it.

-greg

Re: Senate too! :: Reply by HouseSizeWonk

no_email@example.com (HouseSizeWonk) — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:41:29 +0000

The problem with this reasoning is that it takes for granted (it "bakes in") the amount of influence that the Senate has now (or the 2 "Senate votes" in the Electoral College anyway) is much higher than it has been at any prior point in U.S. history because of the way we've allowed the House to get increasingly malapportioned.

Re: Senate too! :: Reply by USeagle

no_email@example.com (USeagle) — Wed, 25 May 2011 04:05:18 +0000

The Senate was to remain constant, two per State and the House to grow.

Presidential elections would heavily favor more populous states

Take a look at the 2010 census:
There are 39 States with 142,471,899 inhabitants/ 50,000 per district = 2,849 House Representatives, but those 39 States hold 78 Senators.

The remaining 11 States have 166,273,639 inhabitants/ 50,000 per district = 3,325 House Representatives, with only 22 Senators.

Even though the larger States had the upper hand in the Presidential election the smaller less populous States held the Senate.

Our Founder and Framers had it right!!!!!! IMO

Re: Senate too! :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Wed, 25 May 2011 09:11:07 +0000

USeagle wrote:The Senate was to remain constant, two per State and the House to grow.
Presidential elections would heavily favor more populous states
Take a look at the 2010 census:
There are 39 States with 142,471,899 inhabitants/ 50,000 per district = 2,849 House Representatives, but those 39 States hold 78 Senators.

The remaining 11 States have 166,273,639 inhabitants/ 50,000 per district = 3,325 House Representatives, with only 22 Senators.

Even though the larger States had the upper hand in the Presidential election the smaller less populous States held the Senate.

Our Founder and Framers had it right!!!!!! IMO

I think the founders had it right too, however the drastic loss of present-day electoral college influence for the small states is certainly a roadblock we'll have to hurdle somehow if we're going to increase representation in the House.

Re: Senate too! :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Wed, 25 May 2011 20:12:16 +0000

Pseudolus wrote: I think the founders had it right too, however the drastic loss of present-day electoral college influence for the small states is certainly a roadblock we'll have to hurdle somehow if we're going to increase representation in the House.

That's a good point. You are referring to the two extra Electoral College votes relative to their other EC votes. That is, the state with only one House Representative effectively triples their vote EC vote because of their two Senators (so they have three Electors).

Mitigating that will be those small states that are under-represented in the House relative to their population. E.g., if they have .5% of the population but only .2% of the representation in the U.S. House (hypothetically). Increasing their number of Reps from 1 to 18, and thereby increasing their representation in the House up to .5%, should be very appealing. That is a continuous benefit rather than a quadrennial benefit of uncertain value.

Re: Senate too! :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Thu, 26 May 2011 02:46:00 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:Mitigating that will be those small states that are under-represented in the House relative to their population. E.g., if they have .5% of the population but only .2% of the representation in the U.S. House (hypothetically). Increasing their number of Reps from 1 to 18, and thereby increasing their representation in the House up to .5%, should be very appealing. That is a continuous benefit rather than a quadrennial benefit of uncertain value.

That too is a good point. But, by my calculations, most of the states (28?) actually go down in their % of representation in the House once we expand based on population, so our strategies for inducing change will have to vary from state to state. It would be helpful to have a spreadsheet comparing current %'s of representation in the House vs population %'s and prospective post-enlargement %'s of House representation. Perhaps you already have one?

It also might be worthwhile to run through old Presidential election returns and see if the Presidential outcomes would have changed if the House had been continuously enlarged according to the Madison method. (However, that's a much more involved process as we would have to break down actual election results based on individual district returns then combine them based on the various state laws.)

Re: Senate too! :: Reply by USeagle

no_email@example.com (USeagle) — Fri, 27 May 2011 03:21:15 +0000

Did someone say spreadsheet….just so happens I started one a few weeks ago based on IMO.
I have finally found some people that see this issue (Ratio) as important as I do. Out of this new found exhilaration….. I find myself with a fire under my butt, to finish what I started. The spreadsheet only contains the ratio as it relates to the States; Census 2010, # State House Reps, # State Senate Reps and the ratio of sovereign individual per voting district. Oh, by the way it only includes 50 States and not the 56 or 58!!!! I was going to carry it out to the Federal House and Senate, then and now ratio.

I will get this uploaded in the next few days and you guys can help cur teak, adjust what ever to make it right. Many minds are better than one (mine is getting old and slow) between all of us, maybe we can justify the need to the many.

I think I have my notification set right on my profile, so if you do not hear from me by the middle of next week, throw another log under my butt.

Re: Senate too! :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Fri, 27 May 2011 11:57:03 +0000

USeagle wrote:The spreadsheet only contains the ratio as it relates to the States; Census 2010, # State House Reps, # State Senate Reps and the ratio of sovereign individual per voting district.

I have a huge number of spreadsheets, many of them multi-gigabyte, but almost all focus on the federal analysis. They are still using 2000 Census data. I look forward to updating them to 2010.

However, you may find this interesting: “The Naming of Thirty-Thousand.org” This short article explains how small the states’ electoral districts were in 1787. The data for that came from this report: “Average Number of Residents per Representative Relative to Thirteen State Legislatures”

Perhaps something in there will be useful to you.

Win for 2012 :: Author revolution to win

no_email@example.com (revolution to win) — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 14:37:47 +0000

Educate each other....' Number of representatives shall not exceed 1 for every 30,000,' The first article of our constitution...EXACT WORDS.
At the time for the first census, the state was in charge of counting citizens, assigning districts, and conducting elections. The states submitted
the maximum representatives they are guaranteed by the first article, a total of 106 for 3 million plus people, all recorded by the Clerk of the House.
The second and third census and reapportionments were similar, after the passing of the founders, as each decade came and went, there were
different levels of ' apportioning '.
After the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920 ( the right of women to vote ) there was no change in the number of seats.
In June 1929 the reapportionment Act was passed, stating a fixed number of seats according to the Act of August 8, 1911. The CRASH of Wall Street
occured in October 1929, causing the Great Depression.
Today most people don't know the number of seats ever changed, yet alone the number of seats.

Defend the Constitution with legal remedies, the right to redress grievances of under representation, Check out ' Litigating for more Representation ' forum , and click on
" Actual filing for Litigation"

if you need any help e-mail me ....guy@bestamericanrevolution.com

Have We Considered Forming a PAC or Annual Meeting? :: Author 803sccdantes

no_email@example.com (803sccdantes) — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 06:48:06 +0000

Recently I've been thinking about this an awful lot. I was just wondering if anyone has considered forming a PAC? If not, maybe we (I'd be willing to help) could work on forming one. If we're able to even influence one state election, we could get something proposed in a state legislature. Heck, if we get enough supporters, we could influence several elections. Plus, as a PAC we could probably pitch the idea to some major players that would probably want to seen an expanded House- groups like NOW and the NAACP. Both of these groups would likely get more representation should the House be expanded. An idea like this sounds a whole lot different coming from a PAC than a guy running a website.

I also think it'd be a good idea to have some sort of annual convention type thing- maybe at a hotel. I realize all this costs money and it could be a slow process getting it going without a large upfront donation. I'm just a poor law student- so I don't have a lot of money to waste, but I'd be more than willing to spend money getting myself wherever and pay for a hotel for a few nights. Sure it'd be small and awkward at first, but I think it'd be good to talk about this with people who actually know a little about this and feel passionately about it.

I'm not really sure how something like this gets started- and forgive me if this legwork has already been done-but maybe forming some sort of committee to investigate the PAC and the convention ideas- see how much it would cost, what it would take to make it a profitable group, etc. would be something to just dip our toe into the water to see whether this is something we want to pursue.

I really think we can do this if we're willing to. The pending court case is a good first step- but I think we all know it'd be a miracle if they won. Let me know whether you think any of this is possible or if we should take a different route.

Re: Have We Considered Forming a PAC or Annual Meeting? :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:20:08 +0000

803sccdantes wrote:I was just wondering if anyone has considered forming a PAC?

I have considered it, but that's all. It is a good idea to anticipate that eventuality.

My opinion, which is open to change, is that we're not ready for that yet.

I believe that job #1 is building widespread awareness of the critical need for representational enlargement. That is where I encourage people to devote their limited time and resources (and that is the primary objective of the TTO website). What we need most right now is the support of prominent opinion and political leaders of all types, along with favorable media and editorial coverage. That should be our top objective whether or not we had a PAC.

Unfortunately, I don't have any bandwidth myself to do more than what I'm doing now. I'm regularly creating new analyses and working on several in-depth papers dealing with various aspects of this matter. I also attempt to reach various sorts of opinion leaders, but obviously without much success.

Re: Have We Considered Forming a PAC or Annual Meeting? :: Reply by 803sccdantes

no_email@example.com (803sccdantes) — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:04:41 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:
803sccdantes wrote:I was just wondering if anyone has considered forming a PAC?
I have considered it, but that's all. It is a good idea to anticipate that eventuality.

My opinion, which is open to change, is that we're not ready for that yet.

I believe that job #1 is building widespread awareness of the critical need for representational enlargement. That is where I encourage people to devote their limited time and resources (and that is the primary objective of the TTO website). What we need most right now is the support of prominent opinion and political leaders of all types, along with favorable media and editorial coverage. That should be our top objective whether or not we had a PAC.

Unfortunately, I don't have any bandwidth myself to do more than what I'm doing now. I'm regularly creating new analyses and working on several in-depth papers dealing with various aspects of this matter. I also attempt to reach various sorts of opinion leaders, but obviously without much success.

See I think the only way we even get into the room with any political leader with any credibility is to form a PAC. When it comes down to it, these guys care about their office. Sure they may see legitimate arguments on our side, but what's in it for them? They put themselves out on a ledge with no discernible benefit other than it being the right thing to do. Maybe I'm cynical, but I can't see a good reason a current politician would have for expanding the House- unless they themselves would want to run for a newly created office. In any event PAC's can support candidates of both parties- or if we created one we could find an independent candidate and support him. I agree wholeheartedly that we need to support all walks of life and all points of view. What better way than to spread PAC funds out among different candidates that are clearly on different sides ideologically?

Moveon.org was and is a PAC that had a great deal of influence in the recent election. Putting whatever opinions we for or against them aside, they picked up on something by forming a PAC. I'm telling you, they have no credibility and no influence unless they can put either dollar signs or voters behind it. Not only did they gain credibility, but they also gained media coverage. You start raising money for a certain cause and suddenly the Media is interested- especially if its supported by a lot of small donations like ours would likely be.

Plus, I think forming a PAC would likely help you with your primary goal of spreading awareness. Right now we're some guys on the internet who have a weird hobby. Form a PAC and I think potential supporters will see this as a legitimate movement- something they can support. A good idea on the internet can die a good idea because people don't take it seriously.

I think forming a PAC could also help you out with your hard work. You're busting your * on these reports- I know I've read the most recent one. I'll likely use it in an article I'm working on myself. It's polished and very well done. If we form a PAC, now you can distribute those reports to Representatives or their staff who may give them a second glance. Furthermore, a PAC wouldn't lie entirely on your shoulders. You could continue working on the reports and those of us willing to work on the PAC could do so. I'm not proposing you take on any more duties than you can manage- I'm proposing that those of us interested in seeing this come to fruition either put up or shut up.

If nobody but you and me are interested in working on this, then you're right- the PAC idea may not be the best solution. Regardless, of what we do, I want to get more involved in this and I am throwing my hat in the ring. If you need any help with anything JEQuidam- just let me know. I'm busy and poor, but I can find time to help take the next step in getting this idea moved from just an idea into a legitimate, substantive organization. Let me know if you want to go forward with the idea- I can do some research about it and see what steps we need to take. If you need help with anything else, just let me know.

Re: Have We Considered Forming a PAC or Annual Meeting? :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 20:37:23 +0000

803sccdantes wrote: If nobody but you and me are interested in working on this, then you're right- the PAC idea may not be the best solution. Regardless, of what we do, I want to get more involved in this and I am throwing my hat in the ring.

Richard, believe me: I am quite grateful for your spirit. I want to say "hold that thought!" (not to give up on the idea).

Your reference to "MoveOn.org" helps make my point: that organization was seeded with $5 million from George Soros (Wiki) and, presumably, other major donors. If a benefactor provided a significant donation to our effort, then we would be having an entirely different conversation. Until then, I believe that we must focus on more modest goals.

Re: Have We Considered Forming a PAC or Annual Meeting? :: Reply by bwatson

no_email@example.com (bwatson) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 03:25:40 +0000

I am in favor of both of these ideas, an annual meeting and forming a PAC. While the feasibility of achieving a simple vote in congress to expand its size may be debatable without action, it is none the less the most straightforward method which I have encountered. The fact is, you never know till you try. For what it is worth, I once spoke with a respected state level representative (WA) about it and I was not laughed at. In fact, he leaned forward. In my gut, I think this approach has some merit. Forming a PAC would seem like a good first move towards exploring the actual, rather than theoretical, feasibility of this idea. This may be the type of thing that we have to work until 2020 or beyond to accomplish. A PAC would give it structure for the long fight. Forming a PAC also seems to me a good way to expand this effort's visibility, which could make raising funds easier. I for one am willing to put in some time.

The question is, how much would it cost to form a sustainable PAC?

Re: Have We Considered Forming a PAC or Annual Meeting? :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:50:51 +0000

bwatson wrote:I am in favor of both of these ideas, an annual meeting and forming a PAC.

I have two questions. First, what would we expect a PAC to do that Thirty-Thousand.org, which is a 501(c)(3), cannot do? I'm not asking that question as a challenge; instead, I'm only trying to understand the expectations. I realize that Thirty-Thousand.org ("TTO") cannot lobby in support of specific legislation nor make campaign donations, but there is much that TTO can do.

Second, do we expect the existence of a PAC to encourage donations (to this cause) that would not otherwise be made to TTO? Bear in mind that donations to TTO are tax deductible, but donations to a PAC would not be.

bwatson wrote: For what it is worth, I once spoke with a respected state level representative (WA) about it and I was not laughed at. In fact, he leaned forward.

This is a good example. I have long wanted to promote this to state legislators. They are in the best position to quickly grasp the various benefits of representational enlargement (of the U.S. House). There are several ways to promote this cause to state legislators, including a direct mail campaign. Here's my point: this is something that could easily be done by TTO if we could afford it (as it is education and outreach, not lobbying for specific legislation). In support of such an effort, it is more likely that donations would be made to TTO (tax deductible) than to a PAC (not tax deductible).

bwatson wrote:The question is, how much would it cost to form a sustainable PAC?

A PAC's total budget would depend on what activities it would be expected to engage in, which takes us back to my first question. We would want to identify activities that the PAC would engage in (that TTO cannot), as well as determine the feasibility of raising money in support of those activities.

Re: Have We Considered Forming a PAC or Annual Meeting? :: Reply by 803sccdantes

no_email@example.com (803sccdantes) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:18:37 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:
bwatson wrote:I am in favor of both of these ideas, an annual meeting and forming a PAC.
I have two questions. First, what would we expect a PAC to do that Thirty-Thousand.org, which is a 501(c)(3), cannot do? I'm not asking that question as a challenge; instead, I'm only trying to understand the expectations. I realize that Thirty-Thousand.org ("TTO") cannot lobby in support of specific legislation nor make campaign donations, but there is much that TTO can do.

Well I believe a 501(c)(3) is very restricted in its political activity I believe it's actually limited to only voter registration activities and indirect lobbying. Here's a link comparing the various types of advocacy organizations. http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/types.php I'm sure this isn't a complete authoritative breakdown, but it does provide a general explanation of the different types.

Second, do we expect the existence of a PAC to encourage donations (to this cause) that would not otherwise be made to TTO? Bear in mind that donations to TTO are tax deductible, but donations to a PAC would not be.

While I think we're all a little new at this, I would guess there's a reason that the big time lobbying organizations- Right to Life, NOW, Realtors, etc., all form PACs and not 501(c)(3)'s or if they are 501(c)(3)'s they have a 527 component separate from the 501(c)(3) because 501(c)(3)'s are so limited. Again, maybe we're not ready for this yet-but at least discussing it now gets it in our minds for the future.

bwatson wrote: For what it is worth, I once spoke with a respected state level representative (WA) about it and I was not laughed at. In fact, he leaned forward.
This is a good example. I have long wanted to promote this to state legislators. They are in the best position to quickly grasp the various benefits of representational enlargement (of the U.S. House). There are several ways to promote this cause to state legislators, including a direct mail campaign. Here's my point: this is something that could easily be done by TTO if we could afford it (as it is education and outreach, not lobbying for specific legislation). In support of such an effort, it is more likely that donations would be made to TTO (tax deductible) than to a PAC (not tax deductible).

My only real disagreement with that is state legislators get mailings from hundreds of organizations a year. I'm willing to bet 90% of that is thrown in the garbage without it being read. However, if you donate $5k to a state legislator who only has 100k in the bank to run with- suddenly your ideas have a value to him. Not that you bribe the legislator to agree, just that we live in a world of "what can you do for me" and sending this guy a piece of paper to have him step out on a limb for some people he's never met and an idea that he's just now heard of, is a bit of a stretch--but that may be all we're capable of doing at this point and that's fine. Gotta start somewhere.

bwatson wrote:The question is, how much would it cost to form a sustainable PAC?
A PAC's total budget would depend on what activities it would be expected to engage in, which takes us back to my first question. We would want to identify activities that the PAC would engage in (that TTO cannot), as well as determine the feasibility of raising money in support of those activities.

Again, it may not be feasible yet to form and fund a PAC, but some sort of meeting- even if an online Skype meeting or whatever could be an important step for making people feel like we're actually taking a small step towards the ultimate goal rather than just having a good idea online like 10 million other people.

Re: Have We Considered Forming a PAC or Annual Meeting? :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:20:06 +0000

803sccdantes wrote: Again, it may not be feasible yet to form and fund a PAC, ...

I wish I were able to work on TTO full time. My biggest challenge is that I am incredibly time constrained (you all probably are as well) and so don't have any bandwidth available to do many things that I would like to do. For example, if I had more time, I would want to investigate the feasibility of raising money to support those activities which a PAC can engage in (that TTO cannot). The only major things that a PAC could do, that TTO can't, is lobby for specific legislation and support specific candidates. If someone wants to provide significant funding for those activities, then I promise we'll quickly form a PAC! But lacking that financial commitment, it would be impossible for me to spend time on a speculative endeavor (which may or may not raise funds).

Please bear in mind that there is much that TTO can do (as a 501c3), and it is generally easier to solicit tax-deductible donations than those for a PAC (which are not tax deductible). TTO can do a great deal of "marketing" of representational enlargement to the general public, public officials and the media. The only limitation is budget!

803sccdantes wrote: but some sort of meeting- even if an online Skype meeting or whatever could be an important step for making people feel like we're actually taking a small step towards the ultimate goal ....

We're not ready for that. Our numbers are too few for any type of credible meeting. Look how few are participating in this forum. Consider how difficult it is for people to understand the need for representational enlargement. You must be finding this as you discuss this with others. The common reaction is "I hate politicians, why would I want more? "

Representation is an abstract concept for many and the need to replace career-politicians with citizen legislators is not yet widely understood. Right now, I believe that our best efforts are at the grassroots level of persuading others, and that has to be done by people (not by a website or a PAC). Currently, the purpose of the TTO website and forum is to train the trainers. Most people will not take the time to read much of the information that is here, but the leaders of this movement will read this information and spread the word throughout their communities. Job #1 is educating the general public about representational enlargement. If the people are not yet ready for this, the political leadership will not embrace it.

Re: Have We Considered Forming a PAC or Annual Meeting? :: Reply by 803sccdantes

no_email@example.com (803sccdantes) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:44:36 +0000

I will say this- there must be some interest and some money behind this idea because I don't think those lawyers for the apportionment lawsuit are working for free. Maybe it would be a good idea to ask them if they're interested in forming some sort of united group to start a PAC.

Re: Have We Considered Forming a PAC or Annual Meeting? :: Reply by bwatson

no_email@example.com (bwatson) — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 00:30:12 +0000

Perhaps it is premature after all to commit to an annual schedule. However, I believe that it would be very beneficial to get together to discuss this issue face to face with other interested people. I have had limited experience with conference planning but it is enough to recognize that it is something that can be pulled of with with a little diligence. If it is decided to hold one, I will commit to helping to make it happen in any way possible.

I noticed in the Sep. 17th NYT piece that a conference related to this issue was held in DC by the Population Resource Center recently. Does anyone know anything about that? I have considered contacting that organization directly but I wanted to see if there was anything anyone here knew about it first.

Re: Have We Considered Forming a PAC or Annual Meeting? :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 13:50:24 +0000

bwatson wrote:I noticed in the Sep. 17th NYT piece that a conference related to this issue was held in DC by the Population Resource Center recently. Does anyone know anything about that? I have considered contacting that organization directly but I wanted to see if there was anything anyone here knew about it first.

TTO participated in the same conference (at the PRC) when it took place on Jan 12, 2007, at the Rayburn Office Building. It was chaired by Congressman Rush Holt (who does not support enlargement) and Dr. Prewitt (Columbia). Several other notables were there. I was pleased to have Thirty-Thousand.org represented there.

It is my perception that this was intended to be a little social meeting of like-minded folks, and that TTO's proposal (for a substantial enlargement of representation) was well outside what should be discussed among polite and sophisticated people. Perhaps my perception is mistaken. In any case, we have not been invited back!

Re: Have We Considered Forming a PAC or Annual Meeting? :: Reply by sbozich

no_email@example.com (sbozich) — Tue, 24 May 2011 15:48:19 +0000

Instead of employing a "sniper rifle" approach and targeting individual leaders, why not adopt a "shotgun" tactic and approach grassroots movements, left and right alike. Personally, I think you'd have more luck with those on the right than the left, but that wouldn't stop me from trying.

The Tea Party is a great example. They are not a vertical organization, although they do have a hierarchy. They are very horizontally integrated, and approaching a local Tea Party group can have the same effect as going straight to the top. They have a huge base from upon which they can draw, and have the ear of many political leaders.

The 30K:1 movement is attractive to the likes of the Tea Party. That said, I wouldn't shy away at all from approaching groups that approach their politics from the left. There are many such groups that are also disenchanted with the status quo, and the 30K:1 movement has a baked-in nonpartisianshipness (no, that's not a word; but one of things things about English is I can make it a word) to it.

I occasionally attend Tea Party events, I will make sure to bring it to their attention next chance I get.

Re: Have We Considered Forming a PAC or Annual Meeting? :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Wed, 25 May 2011 08:17:50 +0000

This is one of those rare threads where I actually agree with all of the above statements. I understand Jeff's concerns, but I also understand the need/desire for those passionate to become more involved.

Ultimately, I don't see a reason why we can't have both a PAC and the current TTO 501(c)(3) working. It can only help to involve more people in what needs to eventually become a citizens movement.

There are only 100 members on this site; and I'm not sure how many regularly participate, let alone are addicted to it like myself. It would be good to chat with others in an environment that promotes creative thinking and personal discussion so that we can learn each others resources and talents. I'm a bit of a polymath, and I suspect--unlike the population at large--many others on this site are equally diverse in their knowledge. If we could pool those resources in some way, we'd be much better off. I've got lots of plans that would help TTO, but I've yet to find someone with the mathematical computer programming skills necessary to test my final theory in a 3-part plan.

An annual meeting would be a good thing, plus perhaps intermittent Skype meetings for those interested. It can't hurt to talk. What states are we all located in? It would be a shame not to know if someone lives around the corner. I'm currently in New York, NY; but still have ties in New Orleans, LA.

If we ever want to have an annual in-person meeting might I suggest it be on a date with historical significance toward our cause, such as:

December 15th, the day the Bill of Rights was ratified into the U.S. Constitution sans Article the First,
September 25th, the day the first Congress sent the Bill of Rights including Article the First to the states for ratification, or
September 12th, (the best of all dates in my opinion) the day the founding Philadelphia delegates debated and agreed upon the idea of a Bill of Rights to be included in the Constitution (one of the big reasons the Constitution actually was adopted 5 days later on Sept. 17th); it's also the day after 9/11 which has become solidified in the minds of present-day Americans as a day for national unification and remembrance of our founding American principles. The coincidence of these two dates in 1789 and 2001 can only be a boon to our cause if we adopt and utilize it for our own goals, because it informs the past while resonating in the present.

For now, I'd love to set up a Skype meet with those interested. Perhaps drop me a private message and then we can collectively coordinate the exact Skype time and day. Though I'm already inclined to suggest two weeks from today, which would be Tuesday, June 7th--(somewhat) coincidentally the same day Richard Henry Lee came to the Continental Congress with Virginia's initial resolution for American Independence.

Re: Have We Considered Forming a PAC or Annual Meeting? :: Reply by 803sccdantes

no_email@example.com (803sccdantes) — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 02:27:29 +0000

Just re-checked the website today for the first time in a while.....been really busy the past few months with having a child, starting a new job, taking the bar, etc.

Anyways, did anyone ever meet up? If not, we should plan to in the future-at least via skype.

File in Federal Court for more seats :: Author usa1wat

no_email@example.com (usa1wat) — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 01:44:04 +0000

File in Federal Court in your district. File a Civil Case, request an injunction, Use 28 USC 2284 (a) That statute is a constituional challenge to redistricting.
File for the injunction to require the State, the state legislature, and the State Board of Elections to redistrict the US House seats * 1 for every 30,001
citizens of your State. Article 1 Section 2 states "no more then 1 US House seat for every 30,000 people.
The current law stating 435 is repealed...Look at United States Code Title 2 Section 2...Library of Congress site
Enter 2 USC sec 2

SPREAD THE WORD

Re: File in Federal Court for more seats :: Reply by CurtisNeeley

no_email@example.com (CurtisNeeley) — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 15:55:35 +0000

Please read carefully before you "spread the word" or you will negatively impact your wallet.
Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3 from Wikipedia follows.:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse [sic] three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

The Injunction recommended above would be summarily denied properly due to the simple meaning of the text in the statute. Please do not waste your time/money attempting. The thirty-thousand per one ratio was listed as a MAXIMUM amount of representation permitted for thirty-thousand. 1/30,000 is HUGE compared to 1/650,000 as now exists.

The text does not in any way require one per 30,000.
Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3 allows a MAX of one per 30,000.
We are now misrepresented by around 0.087 per 30,000 or MUCH less than the max of one allowed for thirty-thousand.
I am NOT an attorney but am currently teaching law professors and judges that law is either logical or WRONG.

Re: File in Federal Court for more seats :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 03:19:12 +0000

CurtisNeeley wrote:The text does not in any way require one per 30,000.

That is correct. The Constitution requires only that the minimum population size of a congressional district be 30,000. The need for smaller congressional districts rests upon many other arguments which are outlined in "Taking Back Our Republic" which can be downloaded from this page. Please read that, especially section 3.

Re: File in Federal Court for more seats :: Reply by CurtisNeeley

no_email@example.com (CurtisNeeley) — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 15:28:21 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:
CurtisNeeley wrote:The text does not in any way require one per 30,000.
That is correct. The Constitution requires only that the minimum population size of a congressional district be 30,000. The need for smaller congressional districts rests upon many other arguments which are outlined in "Taking Back Our Republic" which can be downloaded from this page. Please read that, especially section 3.

Well; Yes the text says max of one per 30,000 and yes it was an error by a transcription-er or other demon.

There is no "legal" course that can right the wrong that was done 200+ years ago.

There is no "process" either legal or political that I see to redefine what the United States is since it claims to be "responsive to the people" instead of the "oligarchy of 435 corporate leaders". The United States IS the best country on earth in my opinion. Even that belief does not make two + two = five. It is a NOT funny joke that the USA is by the people.

Re: File in Federal Court for more seats :: Reply by revolution to win

no_email@example.com (revolution to win) — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 18:08:44 +0000

Gentlemen,

The very point, 1 for every 30,000 is the maximum established in the Constitution. a fixed number of 435 is not the maximum
number in the Constitution. Marbury v Madison a Supreme court ruling states the Constitution is the Supreme Law.

435 10,000 1:30,000 308 million people

The rule in article 5, is to amend the Constitution, specifically when there is a numerical, or substantive change.
ie. voting for any race, also voting for both genders.

The rule of the wallet, the Congress, House and Senate, votes the funds for the operation annually. Funding both institutions
is a Constitutional obligation.

Actual filing for litigation :: Author revolution to win

no_email@example.com (revolution to win) — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 13:53:08 +0000

Google : US District Court for (ie. ) state. Go to page for forms and fees, search for JS 44 Civil Cover sheet, this is the first page to fill out.
Some courts have it fillable to print, so it can be submitted directly in the Clerk's office with the filing fee.
Fill in Plaintiff section, the Defendants are the State, Governor, the state legislative body, the state board of elections, ( commission, etc.) .
II. Basis of Jurisdiction check ' Federal question '
III. Citizenship of Principal Parties check citizen of the state ( has to be registered voter and citizen of the state to proceed )
IV. Nature of Suit under column for other statutes check box 400 State Reapportionment.
V. Check original proceeding
VI. Cause of Action Cite US Civil Statute enter ' 28 USC Sec 2284(a)
Brief Description of cause enter ' Increase number of US House of Representative districts for ( State), 1 for every 30,000 citizens.
Date and sign
Search for civil complaint sheet
Next Page Civil Complaint Sheet
Fill in Plaintiff, and Defendant sections
# 1 then check Federal question box
# 2 the facts in the case : ie. The Governor has been informed by the Clerk of the US House the number of US Representatives the State is allowed.
The citizens of the State have been harmed by this lack of Representation that is guaranteed by Article 1 section 2
of the Constitution of the United States clearly written maximum, " Number of representatives shall not exceed 1 for every 30,000,"
and the 14th Amendment Section 2.
#3 check 'An injunction ordering' The Governor, (state) (legislative body), (board of elections) redistrict 1 US House district for every 30,000 citizens with strict
population equality.
Date and Sign
then you need a summons form, and a certificate of service.
if you need any help, e-mail me guy@bestamericanrevolution.com

Re: Actual filing for litigation :: Reply by 803sccdantes

no_email@example.com (803sccdantes) — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 02:37:04 +0000

Unfortunately, you will never win a lawsuit seeking an injunction to order the wrong people to expand the House. Barring a Constitutional Amendment, only the Federal Congress has the power to expand the Congress. As it is, Congress has delegated the power to re-apportion to the Executive branch.

Re: Actual filing for litigation :: Reply by revolution to win

no_email@example.com (revolution to win) — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 04:28:59 +0000

The precedent was long established, from the first apportionment in 1790. The states conducted the population count, and the districts for the seats. It was in the states best interests to asssign the most representatives possible, for the maximum effect at a federal level, to represent the people of the state. The records show the apprtionment at 1 for every thirty thousand, or 106 members.
Your point is interesting, the Congress never amended the Constitution to assign the power to any other positions, or agencies.
Google; clerk of the House, click on art history, then click on House History. Find the new increased members starting with the third
session of congress, then the eighth session, the thirteenth, and every ten years.

Re: Actual filing for litigation :: Reply by 803sccdantes

no_email@example.com (803sccdantes) — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 18:32:20 +0000

revolution to win wrote:The precedent was long established, from the first apportionment in 1790. The states conducted the population count, and the districts for the seats. It was in the states best interests to asssign the most representatives possible, for the maximum effect at a federal level, to represent the people of the state. The records show the apprtionment at 1 for every thirty thousand, or 106 members.
Your point is interesting, the Congress never amended the Constitution to assign the power to any other positions, or agencies.
Google; clerk of the House, click on art history, then click on House History. Find the new increased members starting with the third
session of congress, then the eighth session, the thirteenth, and every ten years.

Congress doesn't have to amend the Constitution to delegate certain powers to the executive branch. It's extremely complicated, but Federal Courts have consistently held that Congress can delegate certain powers to the executive branch should it so choose.

Historically, the House of Representatives itself has decided how it was apportioned. Jefferson and Hamilton had a major disagreement about the formula used to apportion the representatives. It's incredibly complicated, and if you're interested, I've got an article coming out in the Alabama Law Review regarding just this topic.

Perhaps you're disagreeing on the states performing the counting? The Federal Census Bureau conducts the Census now, so the states do not have any role in the census whatsoever. Perhaps states counted their own population back in the day, but that role has been abrogated by the Federal government. No court, judge, or lawyer worth their salt will tell you there's anything that can be done about the Federal government conducting its own census as is outlined in the Federal Constitution.

Again, perhaps the Federal Government used to allow the states to conduct the census, but certainly if Congress has the power to give the states the power to conduct the census, it has the power to take that same power away from the states-which is exactly what it has done.

Re: Actual filing for litigation :: Reply by revolution to win

no_email@example.com (revolution to win) — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 18:47:58 +0000

In review, you will find Marbury v Madison 1803, a Supreme Court ruling stating clearly that the Constitution is the
Supreme Law. Also, Congress cannot give power to the Executive, or Congress, that is not enumerated in the Constitution.
The ruling was to stop the assignment of individuals during a lame duck session, assigned by the Congress and the President.

The Constitution does state, " The actual enumeration shall be made ....., in such manner as they shall by law direct." Period.

The next sentence " Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have one
until such enumeration shall be made, .."

It does not state anywhere in that sentence,--- in such manner as they shall by law direct.

It is my point, the founders knew the nation would grow, to maintain the people's representation from being diminished they
divised the only formula written, that formula allows the growth of the House would stay equal with the growth of the nation.

In the first census and apportionment, the actions represent the will of the people to have the maximum representation they are
allowed by the Constitution. The Nation should want to repeat that action in this century.

Transitioning to a larger House :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 01:53:22 +0000

Pseudolus, I was trying to move that last thread but I accidently deleted it. I'm sorry! It just so happens that I didn't lose my reply to your last posting that I was working on (below). Of course, feel free to re-post any of your points. Again, my apologies. (I'm still on a learning curve with this forum.)

Pseudolus wrote: ...jumping immediately from 435 to 6000 doesn't make sense

I understand your concerns and respect your views, but I'm optimistic that we can make such a transition relatively quickly.

You ask how they will "successfully debate and negotiate bills once there are so many representatives". You may not be aware of this, but that debate and negotiation currently takes place in committee rooms, back rooms, hallways and elsewhere. There is no longer a deliberative process of the larger body (and if you don't believe me, I can recommend several books for you to read).

In a much larger federal House, legislation will be proposed out of committee – just as it is today. And 6,000 Representatives can vote up or down on such legislation - just as they do today. If tens of millions of California's voters can vote on propositions (sort of like an ad hoc national assembly), so can a few thousand Representatives. And, as explained in the pamphlet, there is no reason they have to be in DC to cast their vote. So it will be necessary to change a few rules, but that happens when the status quo is overthrown.

I realize that some will want to discuss transition concepts. That is a fair topic but, at this time, I'm just not very interested in it.

Pseudolus wrote: ...and I doubt highly any House would reduce their power and effectiveness in such a dramatic way.

I do not have any hope they will be willing to increase their numbers at all, except perhaps to an inconsequential extent. This change will be forced upon them either by a victory in the court (in order to achieve one person one vote), or by an amendment proposed out of an Article V convention.

Re: Transitioning to a larger House :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 13:03:59 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:Pseudolus, I was trying to move that last thread but I accidently deleted it. I'm sorry! It just so happens that I didn't lose my reply to your last posting that I was working on (below). Of course, feel free to re-post any of your points. Again, my apologies. (I'm still on a learning curve with this forum.)

Mistakes happen. We'll just move forward in the conversation and I'm sure the old thoughts will eventually swing back around.

JEQuidam wrote:
Pseudolus wrote: ...jumping immediately from 435 to 6000 doesn't make sense
I understand your concerns and respect your views, but I'm optimistic that we can make such a transition relatively quickly.

Your optimism isn't going to sell such a radical plan to millions of Americans. We need clear cut answers to very real concerns.

JEQuidam wrote:You ask how they will "successfully debate and negotiate bills once there are so many representatives". You may not be aware of this, but that debate and negotiation currently takes place in committee rooms, back rooms, hallways and elsewhere. There is no longer a deliberative process of the larger body (and if you don't believe me, I can recommend several books for you to read).

So you're basically saying that if a Representative doesn't have legislative pull or clout or likability outside of the debate room, then his/her ideas will never be brought to the table since open public debate will become a thing of the past. That sounds like a really great way of ignoring ideas that might seem crazy at first glance. You know the kind of ideas I'm talking about. Crazy sounding ideas that might otherwise actually have merit. Ideas--and this sounds really crazy, I know--but ideas like: increasing the size of the House of Representatives by 1380% in a single year from 435 members to 6000.

In fact, why don't we attempt to set a great example for how the new House would work by convincing a lone Representative (someone who makes clear arguments on the House floor, but is generally personally ignored when not in that venue) to propose "Article the First" legislation; but the catch is, he must get the Article passed into law without any debate on the legislative floor. Sound effective? Not at all!

Seriously, providing opportunities for all voices at the table to be heard is key to having a healthy House. If our Founders had been forced to debate the merits of a radical idea outside the Continental Congress, the world would not have the Declaration of Independence. As the supporters of a larger House, we must either: a) figure out how to solve the inevitable growing pains of such an increase, or b) include a method for gradual growth so that the House will naturally figure out its own solutions.

JEQuidam wrote:I realize that some will want to discuss transition concepts. That is a fair topic but, at this time, I'm just not very interested in it.

Get interested in it. And fast. If ever we convince the powers that be to expand their numbers, the first question will be: to what size? Most will suggest small changes. But if someone has the political cojones to propose something as radical as a 1380% increase and someone else has the audacity to take the suggestion seriously, then the next question will be: how would that work? And when the response back is simply a symphony of crickets, then the idea will never be brought up again.

Thirty-Thousand.org must answer the complaints of its critics who claim such an increase would result in ineffectual governance where the House accomplishes nearly nothing.

Re: Transitioning to a larger House :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 02:57:38 +0000

Pseudolus wrote: So you're basically saying that if a Representative doesn't have legislative pull or clout or likability outside of the debate room, then his/her ideas will never be brought to the table since open public debate will become a thing of the past.

I hope you realize that is not what I’m saying. What I asserted was that a larger House of Representatives will operate fundamentally the same way it does today: Bills will be generated by committees to be voted upon by the larger body. The larger body will determine who is on those committees.

By the way, I don’t measure the quality of a legislature by how many bills it passes. If one legislature passes ten times as many bills as another, I don't perceive the more profligate legislature as the superior one. As Melancton Smith said in 1788: “It was rare that the people were oppressed by a government’s not doing; and little danger to liberty could flow from that source.” Related quotes:
“There is good news from Washington today. The Congress is deadlocked and can’t act.” ― Will Rogers
“No matter how bad something is, Congress can make it worse.” – Congressman Thaddeus McCotter

I like to ask people: when was the last time you went out and celebrated a law passed by Congress?

Forgive me my “optimism”, but I have faith that a federal House comprised of several thousand of my fellow citizens will effectively manage to pass that legislation which is truly essential to the continued viability and success of our Republic.

Pseudolus wrote: Thirty-Thousand.org must answer the complaints of its critics who claim such an increase would result in ineffectual governance where the House accomplishes nearly nothing.

Some of those arguments have been made, but they do need to be bolstered and better assembled. Here's an example of one such argument: “Freedom and Legislative District Sizes”.

Jeffrey, I really appreciate your enthusiasm for representational enlargement and encourage you to further investigate this area of inquiry (i.e., the considerations related to a rapidly growing legislative body). That would certainly be a helpful endeavor.

Re: Transitioning to a larger House :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:43:12 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:
Pseudolus wrote: So you're basically saying that if a Representative doesn't have legislative pull or clout or likability outside of the debate room, then his/her ideas will never be brought to the table since open public debate will become a thing of the past.
I hope you realize that is not what I’m saying. What I asserted was that a larger House of Representatives will operate fundamentally the same way it does today: Bills will be generated by committees to be voted upon by the larger body. The larger body will determine who is on those committees.
I do realize that's not what you're saying; but I'm suggesting it is a very real outcome, especially as time progresses.
JEQuidam wrote:By the way, I don’t measure the quality of a legislature by how many bills it passes.
Agreed.
JEQuidam wrote:Forgive me my “optimism”, but I have faith that a federal House comprised of several thousand of my fellow citizens will effectively manage to pass that legislation which is truly essential to the continued viability and success of our Republic.
I appreciate your optimism and may even be persuaded to agree with you on everything, but at the same time our critics will claim they can't be expected to believe on blind faith alone that such a large body can be effective. And I'm inclined to agree with that argument as well.

Perhaps, when proposing a modern day version of Article the First, we should consider Dunbar's Number* rather than setting the size of a Congressional district to a rather arbitrary x number of thousands. Perhaps, too, Dunbar's Number may be useful in suggesting how the large House should be organized and function once they exist.

Also, I think it's probably vastly important to consider the Allen Curve** when suggesting that legislators can work effectively when separated by vast distances.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_curve

Re: Transitioning to a larger House :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 02:15:53 +0000

Pseudolus wrote: I appreciate your optimism and may even be persuaded to agree with you on everything, but at the same time our critics will claim they can't be expected to believe on blind faith alone that such a large body can be effective.

You are correct that some people will require more tangible arguments in support of our contention that a much larger legislative body can function properly. However, at the same time, we should demand that critics substantiate their assertions; that is, provide evidence that 435 legislators is a superior solution to 436, 450, 4500, or 6000. Opponents of representational enlargement will rely more on fearmongering than data.

You ask about determining the number of Representatives (therefore the number of congressional districts) by evaluating what might be suggested by theoretical social group concepts such as Dunbar's Number ("a theoretical cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships") and the Allen Curve (the "drop of frequency of communication between engineers as the distance between them increases").

First, though these theoretical concepts make sense at a conceptual level, I am doubtful of their ability to produce reliable solutions in practice, especially in regards to something as profound as the quality of our governance.

Second, I believe that your question, as posited, takes a legislature-centric view instead of a constituency-centric view, thereby inverting the chain of command and subverting the purpose of republican government. (I realize that you did not do that intentionally.) What I'm saying is that our focus should be on the "social relationships" and "frequency of communication" between a Representative and his or her masters (the citizens) as well as among those citizens. I am concerned about the distance between the constituents and their Representative. I am concerned about the dearth of real social relationships between the citizens and the Representative. I believe that the success of our republic will depend on the efficacy of that body – the body of citizens comprising each legislative district – rather than the legislative body. I am not concerned about maintaining a country club environment for the Congressmen. I don't give a wit whether or not it is convenient for them to play golf together and attend one another's Christmas parties.*

Again, consider the analogy of tens of millions of Californians voting up or down on propositions. They accomplish this despite the lack of "social relationships" among all those voters. I believe this analogy to be quite valid even if it is imperfect.

We need to ensure that the Representative is beholden only to his or her constituents, and is easily lobbied by us as well (rather than by external and foreign special interests). That is the true foundation of our republic – to do otherwise is like building the Capitol Building on a swamp instead of upon rock.

* With respect to conducting "the business of Congress", we could still expect some percentage of Representatives to serve on the various committees for the purpose of developing legislation, conducting investigations, and the other various committee duties. For the sake of illustration, let's suppose that of 6,000 Reps, 10% serve on various committees. It is likely that those committee members would still travel to DC to conduct their business. However, I would be perfectly happy if the remaining 90% remained home and read the proposed legislation and then voted in such a way that faithfully represents his or her constituents. That is really all I want my Representative to do, other than providing necessary constituent services. (And no staff! They can answer their own damn phone!)

Re: Transitioning to a larger House :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 05:44:47 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:I believe that your question, as posited, takes a legislature-centric view instead of a constituency-centric view, thereby inverting the chain of command and subverting the purpose of republican government. (I realize that you did not do that intentionally.) What I'm saying is that our focus should be on the "social relationships" and "frequency of communication" between a Representative and his or her masters (the citizens) as well as among those citizens. I am concerned about the distance between the constituents and their Representative. I am concerned about the dearth of real social relationships between the citizens and the Representative. I believe that the success of our republic will depend on the efficacy of that body – the body of citizens comprising each legislative district – rather than the legislative body.

Yes, I had these same concerns when applied to suggesting how the legislature should operate. However, when applied to congressional district sizes, I actually thought it might bolster our arguments in favor of small districts. And that maybe using Dunbar's Number and the Allen Curve we could further substantiate our claim that no less than one Representative for every 50,000 (just as an example) is fundamentally appropriate to whom we are as social creatures. This is why I think looking at science such as that, rather than Article the First alone, will help us decide specifically which number is best and why that number is better than, say, 30,000 or 75,000 or 150,000 or 40,000 or 250,000 or any of the other numbers one might suggest.

So the science works in both directions in different ways:

1) on the organization end, it favors small districts,
2) on the operation end, it suggests methods for maintaining effectiveness once that large body is assembled.

For example, perhaps when applied to the legislative process it would mean that the Representatives would:

a) remain home for most of the year with their constituents,
b) negotiate regionally for part of the year so that they can hear and debate various sides of a legislative issue,
c) after some regional debate, seasonally elect amongst themselves a smaller body who can best present and represent their various viewpoints on issue-specific legislation to others in D.C.,
d) more debate within the smaller temporary body in D.C. while the majority of Representatives would remain home* with their constituents,
e) regional-elected body returns back to regional assembly for the presentation of views and compromises suggested at the national assembly, followed by more regional debate,
f) Yea or Nay votes by all Representatives across the country on legislation.
- *Those Representatives at home during the time of national assembly would still be following all proceedings in D.C., would still be in communication with their seasonal issue-specific regional-elects, and would still be advising their regional-elects and/or negotiating with other Reps from across the nation.

If that, for example was the way the House was organized then perhaps a Representative's yearly calendar would look somewhat like this:

a total of 4-8 months within their home districts,
a total of 4-6 months at their regional assembly,
a total of 0-4 months at the national assembly.

Does any of this make sense or am I rambling?

Re: Transitioning to a larger House :: Reply by HouseSizeWonk

no_email@example.com (HouseSizeWonk) — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:11:10 +0000

I, for one, find a 6000-seat chamber unwise, and I think arguing for it hurts everybody who believes House expansion is necessary, because it makes people who support it look like goldbugs or something -- fringe types.

The best thing they could do (IMO) would be very simple, and would be less arbitrary than the 435 cap. Just require that the House be the size necessary to entitle the smallest State to a seat. For example, in 2000 the total apportionment population was 281,424,177. Wyoming was the smallest state, with 495,304. With a total population of 281,424,177, a chamber of 568 seats gives you an "ideal" district size of 495,465 -- very close.

This seems more productive to me. Whatever the theorized benefits of a chamber of 6000 seats, a chamber of 568 seats is much more achievable, for a lot of reasons, and would do a lot of good. Why make the perfect the enemy of the good, especially when a lot of people aren't sold on the "perfect" being so perfect?

Re: Transitioning to a larger House :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 13:56:02 +0000

Pseudolus wrote: Does any of this make sense or am I rambling?

It makes sense. From my point of view, you are trying to begin the process of framing a discussion over how we should transition to a larger House, and how that larger House should be implemented operationally. Hopefully, in time, you and others will be able to further advance this line of inquiry.

I have no doubt that if a substantially larger House is mandated – either through a court order or a constitutional amendment – intelligent and experienced people will formulate a practical plan for accomplishing that objective. Achieving that is well within the capabilities of American ingenuity and technology.

Given my limited time, my focus must remain on getting more people to understand why it is essential that we increase the number of federal Representatives and, therefore, the number of single-member congressional districts. Unless more people support the cause of representational enlargement, a discussion of its implementation will be moot.

I do understand your point, which is that questions will be raised regarding how this enlargement will be implemented and how a larger House will operate. It is important to address these questions in order to help overcome those objections and thereby enlist additional support for the cause. That is a valid point. In that regard, it would be far more beneficial to demonstrate that these problems are solvable (as multiple solutions are available) rather than attempting to architect a detailed solution. Therefore, the more solutions that are proposed for consideration, the better.

Re: Transitioning to a larger House :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 14:12:34 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:Given my limited time, my focus must remain on getting more people to understand why it is essential that we increase the number of federal Representatives and, therefore, the number of single-member congressional districts. Unless more people support the cause of representational enlargement, a discussion of its implementation will be moot.

Agreed. Plus, you're really good at it. [Despite the fact that Adam (HouseSizeWonk) still doesn't fully get it.]
All those various pamphlets add up to gold!

JEQuidam wrote:It would be far more beneficial to demonstrate that these problems [of enlargement implementation and operation] are solvable (as multiple solutions are available) rather than attempting to architect a detailed solution. Therefore, the more solutions that are proposed for consideration, the better.

So very true. That's a healthier way for me to look at it. And will help when drafting Amendment language, since the more flexible details can be handled elsewhere rather than in the Amendment itself.

Re: Transitioning to a larger House :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 15:36:58 +0000

HouseSizeWonk wrote:I, for one, find a 6000-seat chamber unwise, and I think arguing for it hurts everybody who believes House expansion is necessary...

Adam, there are several different points I want to make in reply.

First, anyone who supports increasing the number of Representatives - whether to 436, 568, 5,680 or 10,000 - is working toward the same goal: To overcome a century of inertia that has made the status quo of 435 Representatives into an inviolable sacrosanct principle for the political class and the Special Interests who finance them. We need to break the stranglehold held by the oligarchy of 435 in order to catalyze a national debate on how many Representatives we, the people, should have in our federal legislature.

Second, those who seek a modest increase in the number of Representatives should be grateful for any "fringe types" who advocate for 6,000 or more Representatives. Believe me: If it were not for TTO advocating 6,000 Representatives, then you would be the "fringe type" for suggesting a heretical increase to 568. Today's Congress would consider itself magnanimous in the extreme if they granted only one additional Representative to the citizenry.

Third, your reference to a "6000-seat chamber" is misleading. TTO does advocate for one Representative for every 50,000 citizens (hence the 6,000 number). However, we do not advocate a "6000-seat chamber". I encourage you to download and read "Taking Back Our Republic". This point is addressed in section 10 of that pamphlet, and elsewhere on the TTO website. This clarification is essential to helping people envision that this solution can be implemented by thinking outside the box (substitute "chamber" for "box").

Fourth, and as you well know, I fervently support the principle of "one person, one vote". As explained in Section 9 of the above-referenced pamphlet, a modest increase in the number of Representatives (such as to 568) would not eliminate the significant disparity in congressional district sizes nationwide. There is no defense for allowing that egregious violation of one person one vote to continue. In their transcendent wisdom, our nation's founders provided a brilliant solution to this problem which was intended to be the very first amendment in our Bill of Rights. It is in their proposal, Article the first, that we find that the Founders intended the maximum congressional district size to be 50,000. This is explained in section 3 of the pamphlet referenced above.

Re: Transitioning to a larger House :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 19:53:41 +0000

Pseudolus wrote:
JEQuidam wrote:It would be far more beneficial to demonstrate that these problems [of enlargement implementation and operation] are solvable (as multiple solutions are available) rather than attempting to architect a detailed solution. Therefore, the more solutions that are proposed for consideration, the better.
So very true. That's a healthier way for me to look at it. And will help when drafting Amendment language, since the more flexible details can be handled elsewhere rather than in the Amendment itself.

You are correct that "the more flexible details can be handled elsewhere rather than in the Amendment itself".

My position is still that we need only ratify "Article the first" as it was originally proposed on August 24, 1789 (i.e., the non-defective version). I am concerned about weighting it with so much additional language that it sinks even more deeply into the recesses of history.

However, I realize that increasing the number of Representatives overnight would be a substantial challenge. Compelled by your persistence on this point, I'll suggest some additional concepts that could be incorporated into the amendment.

Section 1 (of the proposed amendment) should contain the exact language from the original version of "Article the first".

Section 2 would provide a timetable for implementation. The timetable could prescribe that the number of federal Representatives be increased by a minimum of 500 every two election cycles until the representational ratio specified in Section 1 is achieved, with the first augmentation going into effect as of the third election cycle after the date of ratification. For example, if this amendment were ratified in 2016, that would be during the 114th Congress. The number of Representatives would remain at 435 for the 114th, 115th and 116th Congresses. The first reapportionment would be implemented for the elections to be held in November of 2020 (for the 117th Congress). Then, the 117th and 118th congresses would have the same number of Representatives (e.g., 935). The next increase would be implemented prior to the elections in November of 2024, to be reflected in the 119th and 120th Congresses, and so forth. This restoration process could be deemed complete once the number of Representatives is within 500 of the required representational ratio (as per Section I) relative to the population estimate at that time. Thereafter, the only subsequent reapportionments would occur after each decennial population census (i.e., we return to the method prescribed by the Constitution).

Section 3 could authorize the interdecennial reapportionments to be derived from population estimates to be provided by the US Census Bureau (USCB). That is, it will not be necessary to conduct any additional population censuses beyond that already required by the Constitution. Instead, the USCB will be authorized to use available data along with established statistical methods to derive defensible population estimates for the states.

Section 4 would explicitly authorize Congress to implement representational enlargement in whatever manner it deems most effective, subject only to meeting the prescribed ratio and timetable. This would ensure that Congress is empowered to implement a different collaborative structure as appropriate, such as enabling Representatives to vote and work from their home districts over a secured Congress-net that has been designed for that purpose.

Section 5 could freeze the House of Representatives' aggregate staffing budget (though adjusted for inflation) for a specified duration. This duration could terminate four years after the Congress is deemed to be in compliance as per Section 2 (above). The point of this is to wean the Representatives off of their personal staffs. For the salary they are being paid, the Representatives can reply to e-mails and answer their own phones, especially if they have only 50,000 constituents (instead of 700,000+). Once the legislative body is large enough to be truly representative, they will no longer feel entitled to be re-elected so will not be inclined to indulge the luxury of personal staffs at the taxpayer's expense.

Section 6 could specify that the basis for apportioning representation to the states should be the total number of citizens residing in each state (rather than the total number of inhabitants). It could also require the inclusion of U.S. citizens who are living abroad (e.g., military and government personnel, missionaries, etc.). Granted, this last section is not necessitated by representational enlargement, but this would be a good opportunity to bring closure to these related issues.

Additional language may be required to confirm that the size of the Electoral College (for a presidential election), will be determined by the number of Representatives authorized for the concurrent election (plus the number of Senators and 3 for DC).

OK. That's it. I really didn't know I was going to write all that. I thought my response would only be the first two or three sentences above, but then one thing led to the next. Evidently my muse has no regard for the chores I had planned for today. But I'm glad that has been written as it provides a framework which can be further developed as time permits.

Re: Transitioning to a larger House :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 15:04:56 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:Compelled by your persistence on this point, I'll suggest some additional concepts that could be incorporated into the amendment.

See, whereas, now you've persuaded me that all we need in the Amendment is the original Madisonian language of "Article the First". Though, I still do question why the number 50,000 was chosen versus 40,000 or 60,000 or any other random number. What is the significance of 50,000?

We also might want to include language granting representation based on citizenship populations, rather than inhabitant populations; but I'm still considering the effects of this addition.

Re: Transitioning to a larger House :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 14:54:09 +0000

Pseudolus wrote:Though, I still do question why the number 50,000 was chosen versus 40,000 or 60,000 or any other random number. What is the significance of 50,000?

Actually, the language of the Senate's version was a little simpler and they proposed a district size of exactly 60,000 (once the total population reached a certain level). The two versions then went to joint committee, and the result was this defective bastardization that was contrary to what had been proposed by both the House and the Senate! For more information, read section 3 of "Taking Back Our Republic" and, for a lot more information, read the pdf report referenced in footnote 1 on page 7 of that report.

By the way, a minimum district size of 30,000 was considered HUGE back in 1789. In order to appreciate why, read "The Naming of Thirty-Thousand.org"; in particular, study the chart on that page.

Pseudolus wrote:We also might want to include language granting representation based on citizenship populations, rather than inhabitant populations...

I assume you're referring to what I suggested in Section 6 (above).

Re: Transitioning to a larger House :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 19:05:39 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:
Pseudolus wrote:Though, I still do question why the number 50,000 was chosen versus 40,000 or 60,000 or any other random number. What is the significance of 50,000?
Actually, the language of the Senate's version was a little simpler and they proposed a district size of exactly 60,000 (once the total population reached a certain level)."

Yes, but why 60,000 and why 50,000? I feel like in today's day of societal research and psychological understanding, we should be able to come up with a number that is based on something scientifically concrete rather than arbitrarily small. And that scientifically-arrived-at number might help bolster our case for increased representation, especially when paired with historical evidence from the Framers warning of overly large Congressional districts.
Does 50,000 work significantly better than 60,000 or vice-versa? If so, why? Is there another number that would work even better than both of them?

Also could the Apportionment Amendment language be as simple as:

There shall be a minimum of two Representatives for every State and no less than one Representative for every [blank] Citizens enumerated by each State.

Re: Transitioning to a larger House :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sun, 08 Aug 2010 15:32:25 +0000

Pseudolus wrote: Yes, but why 60,000 and why 50,000?

And why a minimum district size of 30,000? A specific number had to be established, and the wise men then assembled agreed upon one. Could it have been 29,999 or 31,500? Of course. I believe that the essential thing is the order of magnitude appropriate to ensure a representative republic.

Few people realize that James Madison, in proposing his list of amendments for the Constitution, had proposed changing that 30,000 to the maximum district size, and establishing a minimum district size that is even smaller. This is explained in "The Minimum and Maximum Size of the U. S. House of Representatives" which can be downloaded from this page. I encourage people to read that report in order to better understand the intent of our nation's founders. In any case, they perceived the solution to lie somewhere between 50,000 and 60,000 people per Representative. Not 100,000 or 700,000 or, as we have today, an unlimited size.

The point is, prior to the advent of any modern technologies (such as the train or the telegraph) they expected the number of Representatives to reach 400 within 50 years and 600 within a hundred years (after the Constitution was ratified). We have only 435 today. And we have technology today (that was unimaginable even 100 years ago) which would enable most of our Representatives to work collaboratively, and vote, from their home districts.

Pseudolus wrote: Does 50,000 work significantly better than 60,000 or vice-versa? If so, why? Is there another number that would work even better than both of them?

I think it is possible to sometimes be blinded by science, and to allow the perfect (if there is one) to be the enemy of the good. The Founders were wise and I think us not wiser than they.

Is 50,000 better than 60,000? Yes, in the sense that the resulting districts are more in compliance with one person, one vote, a principle in which I firmly believe.

Pseudolus wrote: Also could the Apportionment Amendment language be as simple as:
There shall be a minimum of two Representatives for every State and no less than one Representative for every [blank] Citizens enumerated by each State.

Yes, that would work as well.

Madison's initial proposal also contained blanks, as in "__________". This has always been a nettlesome question, which is one of the reasons it is so poorly understood even 220 years later. However, the difficulty of the problem is absolutely no excuse for continuing to neglect it, especially when the need for the Founders' solution is more urgent now than ever.

Re: Transitioning to a larger House :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Sun, 08 Aug 2010 17:17:22 +0000

You've persuaded me on the 50,000 number (and I also changed "each" to "the"). Let the language of the proposed Apportionment Amendment be:

There shall be a minimum of two Representatives for every State and no less than one Representative for every 50,000 Citizens enumerated by the States.

That seems so simple and clear, no future generations will ever be able to misunderstand it. Any objections or concerns?

Re: Transitioning to a larger House :: Reply by mattmatt1392

no_email@example.com (mattmatt1392) — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 16:12:34 +0000

I see that one of the major concerns is whether effective debate can occur in a larger House. Here's a thought...

Suppose that we're looking at a House of 6000 members, and suppose that, as has been proposed by someone else, five (I'm just using made-up numbers--there's nothing magical about this number) new federal cities were created in other parts of the country that together would house the legislative branch (and maybe the executive and judicial, too). With six federal cities (D.C. plus five new ones), 1000 representatives would convene at each.

This would already provide a smaller forum than 6000 to debate bills, but each of the 6 chambers would be further subdivided into committees of 100-200 for the purpose of debate. This would not replace the current committee system but rather provide an intermediate step between the committees and the full-House debate and vote (which could still occur relatively easily with videoconferencing technology).

Thus for a typical bill, the process would look something like this:

A bill is proposed and sent to appropriate committee(s) or subcommittee(s).
The committee considers the bill and, if approved, sends draft language to the 6 chambers.
The chambers divide into their committees which each consider the bill, amending it as they see fit (or rejecting it entirely).
Each chamber reconvenes to harmonize the various committee versions (using, if necessary, a conference committee made up of a delegation from each of the chamber's committees) and then vote to approve or reject the harmonized version (just voting whether to send the bill to the full House, not whether to actually approve it--the actual vote occurs later as it does currently).
Then, all 6 chambers convene another conference committee to harmonize each of the six chamber versions into a House version.
Finally, the chambers convene by videoconferencing for final full-House debate and a vote.

As a safeguard against a shutdown of internet communications or for cases when all of Congress really must convene together, one of the six assembly buildings could be built to seat something like 10,000 (6000 representatives with lots of room to grow plus 100 Senators plus Cabinet, Supreme Court, etc. plus dignitaries plus, plus, plus)

Re: Transitioning to a larger House :: Reply by TheTrucker

no_email@example.com (TheTrucker) — Sat, 23 Apr 2011 17:44:01 +0000

There is nothing wrong with the way the House is currently organized. The increase in the number of votes on all bills and the true representation of the people due to smaller electoral districts is all that is needed. The current committee structure is elected by the entire membership as it should be. The expansion of representation will serve to do away with the power of the current duopoly of Democrats and Republicans and that is all that is really necessary. The result of massive expansion of the voting membership of the House is to create a more representative government. Read Federalist 10 for the reasons behind this.

Madison's concept of government is rooted in his Federalist 10 writing. The smaller districts will be much more united in their views, but the only "bills" that can become law are the bills that truly pronounce the common good of all the districts of the nation. We must remember that Madison did not have to fight Faux Noise and the corporate media. There was no way to broadcast total lies as being the truth and have these lies inserted into the minds of the masses. Any time that you empower a group or individual be popular vote you invite corruption. Popular elections were frowned upon for the Senate and the Presidency for that very reason even when newspapers were the only communication.

Imagine what it would be like to vote for YOUR representative on the basis of issues as opposed to party. You may not feel that you are electing a power broker but that isn't what the job entails anyway. All true representatives would have a web site where they tell you how they are going to vote and why, and explain way the voted as they did on previous bills. Faux Noise and MSNBC would be out of business. You get the real NEWS through your representative and the media is there to PREVENT lying as opposed to indulging in it.

The 17th Amendment is a travesty of the "progressive" movement. It is simply too easy to buy a senator in an underpopulated state. The cows and the pigs don't contribute campaign funds for the mass media sales pitch. If I was shopping for a vote in the Senate I'd pick Montana. Seems to be a red state problem. And now the Chinese can participate as well. Nice going "progressive idiots".

Re: Transitioning to a larger House :: Reply by NevadaEric

no_email@example.com (NevadaEric) — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 05:57:11 +0000

Here's an amendment I wrote yesterday. Of course how does it get attention? I'm working with occupy groups in Nevada to enlighten them about this. Try your local groups or join their forums and post a link to this site.

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION - National Capitols
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Whereas,
with the recent and long overdue increases in representation, the assemblage
of representatives requires a new solution by way of disbursing assemblage
to several areas throughout the Nation; and

Whereas,
since the administration of the Federal government is known, it would be better
served by new buildings built in the several States; and

Whereas,
Representatives and Senators shall normally be in their districts, but they shall
assemble when required; and

Whereas,
the ability of communications is much improved now, it shall then bring together
these decentralized Capitols when required:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and Assembly of the
State of Nevada assembled, That the following article is proposed to Congress
to be adopted as a proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States,
which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution
when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within
seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

"Article-
Sec. 1 Twelve Areas shall be designated in which new Capitols shall be built for
the same uses as the original Capitol in Washington DC.

Sec. 2 The land on which the new Capitols are built shall remain, or revert to
and become, the property of the State in which designated.

Sec. 3 Each Area shall have a Congress Assembled, when required consisting of
the same elements as the original Congress Assembled in Washington DC.

Sec. 4 These new Capitols shall have no greater, nor lesser status, stature,
abilities, or means otherwise different than any of the other Capitols
including the original Capitol in Washington DC.

Sec. 5 To provide external security for these new Capitols, each state shall provide,
from their National Guard Units, the requisite number of required troops. Being
from several States, these external security troops shall be under the rotating
control of the Governors of the States in the area of which the Capitol is.

Sec. 6 The external security troops shall remain solely under the control of the current
acting Governor in control while performing their external security role.

Sec. 7 Internal security shall be solely the discretion of the Federal government.
"

Form letter for sending to state representaives :: Author moonhead

no_email@example.com (moonhead) — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 05:18:43 +0000

I think it would be ideal to place a form letter from a link on the website and the facebook page that you could send in an email to your local state representatives discussing a Article V convention for an amendment stating something to the effect of

"1. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, or exceed fifty thousand per representative.
2.When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the House, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
3. Every Representative shall spend two weeks out of every four week period within their district.
4. Regional Federal buildings will be erected and connected via secure communications to allow the assembly of the House of Representatives and voting on bills.
5. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Representative chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution."

Furthermore, it would probably be ideal to provide an easy way to search for each state's legislaturors emails, so people would be more likely to take a moment and do it.

Re: Form letter for sending to state representaives :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 13:00:31 +0000

moonhead wrote:I think it would be ideal to place a form letter from a link on the website and the facebook page that you could send in an email to your local state representatives...

Getting people to write their state representatives in support of representational enlargement could be very helpful.

Note however that TTO is focused on one mission: Educating the public about the benefits of achieving smaller congressional districts through representational enlargement. Consequently, TTO should avoid being committed to any particular set of specifics on how representational enlargement should be implemented (e.g., spending two weeks out of every four weeks in their home district). These ideas are discussed in TTO's website and pamphlet ("Taking Back Our Republic"), but they're presented as possibilities rather than the required implementation. If TTO became locked into a specific way to implement this solution, then there is a greater risk that people become distracted from the central mission as they debate those specifics (e.g., whether it should be 1 or 3 weeks at home, or all 4 weeks). These ancillary details will become important in time and, when that time comes, they will be resolved through open public debate. (And let that debate begin now! That's what this forum is for.)

One more point: It is important that everyone realize that a constitutional amendment is not required to allow representational enlargement; it is only required to compel it. Any time Congress wants to, they could increase the number of Reps to any number (so long as no district had less than 30,000 people). In this forum I have written in support of an Article V amendment convention as it seems unlikely that the congressmen will ever voluntarily give up their super-sized political fiefdoms.

That being said, we should encourage people to write their state representatives as well as their congressman. It is possible that one or more of these "representatives" will actually support this solution. Everyone will probably need to write the letter their own way, and I certainly don't object to you sending that letter. We can use this forum as a way to suggest content for our letters, and to inform others of the results of our efforts. If nothing else, these letters could generate some helpful publicity. Otherwise, don't be surprised to get a response like this one from Rep Rush Holt. To the best of my knowledge, the only federal Rep supporting enlargement is Alcee Hastings; read his Dear Colleague letter.

Re: Form letter for sending to state representaives :: Reply by NevadaEric

no_email@example.com (NevadaEric) — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 06:01:43 +0000

Form letter good. I've written an amendment specific to Nevada. Others can do so in their state, since I'm certain most other states have this theft of representation. Keep pounding away. Below is a sample for Nevada. Don't quit.

Proposed Amendment For Greater Representation in the Nevada Legislature

With the 2010 Census, the people of Nevada are losing representation again with
ever-increasing district sizes. Your ability to be heard by your representatives, is disappearing at an alarming rate. We need an active campaign of District-Size
Reduction to combat this.

The 'Class-Size Reduction' model in education is a splendid example to gain proper
insight into the situation facing all of us in these trying times of uncertainty.

If students get a better education with smaller class sizes,
then citizens will get better representation with smaller district sizes.

To strengthen the meaning of both Representation and Citizenship, to make
amends to the very basic fabric of our society, the following Amendment is
the required binding sinew. No other measure can attempt to renew us.

Smaller districts enable smaller campaigns. Smaller districts allow for more thoughtful decisions. Smaller districts enable more contact with representatives.

Text of the proposed Constitutional Amendment:

Article 15 Sec. 6 is null and has no further effect.

The limit on the maximum number of representatives in Legislature.

Article 4 Section 5 amended as follows

Sec. 5. Number of Senators and members of Assembly; apportionment. Senators and members of the Assembly shall be duly qualified electors in the respective counties and districts which they represent, and the number of Senators shall not be less than one-third nor more than one-half of that of the members of the Assembly.

It shall be the mandatory duty of the Legislature at its first session after the taking of the decennial census of the United States in the year 1950, and after each subsequent decennial census, to fix by law the number of Senators and Assemblypersons, Assemblymen, and apportion them among the several counties of the State, or among legislative districts which may be established by law, according to the number of inhabitants in them, respectively.
:end of Sec. 5

Sec. 5. Number of Senators and members of Assembly; apportionment. Senators and members of the Assembly shall be duly qualified electors in the respective counties and districts which they represent.

It shall be the mandatory duty of the Legislature at its first session after the taking of the decennial census of the United States in the year 1950, and after each subsequent decennial census, to fix the number of Senators and Assemblypersons according to Article 20.
:end of Sec. 5
Article 20 - Representation Method of and for Citizens of Nevada in Their Legislature.

Sec. 1: Reason
In order to Represent the Citizens of this State in their Government, this confers
to each member of the Legislature that change is required to keep the purpose of government close to the citizens, to insure the stability of representation.

Sec. 2: Number of persons per Assemblyperson
There shall be one Assemblyperson per 9,000 persons of which no less than 95% are Citizens of this State and of the United States, and if the total number of Assemblypersons resulting from said apportionment results to an odd amount, the total will be increased by one.

Sec. 3: Number of persons per Senator
There shall be one Senator for each 54,000 persons of which no less than 95% are Citizens of this State and of the United States, and if the total number of Senators resulting from said apportionment results to odd amount, the total will be increased by one.

Sec. 4: Legislature size adjustments
After these districts are created for the first time according to Section 6, in each subsequent decennial Census of the United States, adjustments to the number of members in the Legislature shall be made according to their respective numbers from said Census, and shall conform to Section 2, Section 3, and Section 5.

Sec. 5: District boundary adjustments
1. The district boundaries for each Assemblyperson and Senator shall be adjusted to conform to increases in the number of persons in each district so that when the total number in a district reaches twice the number allotted according to Section 2 or Section 3, a new district shall be created along with the new member.

2. The district boundaries for each Assemblyperson and Senator shall be adjusted to conform to decreases in the number of persons in each district so that when the total number in a district reaches half the number allotted according to Section 2 or Section 3, the district and the member shall cease and the ceasing district persons shall be incorporated into adjacent districts as equally as possible, so that the adjacent districts remain within the allotted numbers set forth in Section 2 and Section 3.

3. If it is found that Section 5.2 procedures can not be accomplished, then further district adjustments shall be performed to the most adjacent districts until Section 5.2 can be fulfilled accordingly.

Sec. 6: Initial District boundaries
1. Initial District boundaries shall be created immediately after passage of this Amendment.

2. Boundaries shall be determined by the Legislature before the next General Election, and to conform to Section 2 and Section 3, and be so drawn to encompass the least distance, in all directions, from the center of the District.

3. The Districts shall be filled with qualified persons, for their respective Districts, in which they must reside, at the next General Election.

Getting Past the Mental Blocks :: Author TheTrucker

no_email@example.com (TheTrucker) — Tue, 05 May 2009 00:01:27 +0000

There was a small effort put forth a while back to get people to actually notice that "435" is not some magic number defined in the United States Constitution and to raise awareness that the number is not cast in stone. One of the most difficult challenges is to to get people to understand that the representation was not "fixed" by the constitution because the founders believed that the "good sense" of the Congress should be employed to regulate the trade-off between adequate representation and "the confusion of a multitudinous legislature".

Unfortunately, a strategy based on history is a failure because of the lab rat syndrome. It is a real challenge to show that the people wanted guarantees against what we now have and that they were told that they would have them. And that thin line of reasoning is stretched to claim that had the promise of amendments been withheld then the Constitution would not have been ratified. I do a good deal of this in the wikipedia "Article The First". That effort should probably be expanded, but the rules against original research get in the way. No one that I can find has written a published work about it other then Bryan Bricker.

So I have adopted a different strategy where I stick to history of only the last 100 years. And in this strategy I do not attempt to propose an enlargement of the House in any extreme amount. I instead, employ a goal of double or up to three times the current membership arguing that the latter day organization of the House can withstand such an increase with no appreciable alteration to the current manner and custom of the House. I did some spread sheets and pictures for various "rationales", and put them up on GreaterVoice.org. Click the graph and see the explanation behind it. Click the graph in the explanation and get an html of the spreadsheet. Click the banner over the discussion and get the actual Open Office spread sheet.

When the House was set to 435 in 1911 there were a large number of committees and no electronic voting or records keeping. In 1946 the number of committees was reduced to 19 and in 1975 (or so) electronic voting was introduced. Most of the clerical work is now automated and the business of the House is much more efficient than it was in 1911. The "deliberative body of the House" is the committee structure of the House. The Representative body of the House (the full membership) can be much larger without need of increasing the committee structure or current infrastructure. The Representative body can be quadrupled or enlarged even further through the use of very trite and low level technology, still without alteration to the manner and custom of the House as it has existed since 1946.

People are afraid of change and they build mental blocks that keep change at bay. The left will whiiiiiiiine about how bad everything is and make a big show of their desire for "change". You want change? Here's a quarter. Get off your whining box and do something for the people. Pass a rational reapportionment act of 2009. That would be real change.

Re: Getting Past the Mental Blocks :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 05 May 2009 01:25:49 +0000

Trucker,

Regarding Article the first, be sure to download and read the report at this link:
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/documents/QHA-04.pdf

"The Minimum and Maximum Size of the U. S. House of Representatives"

...Jeff

Re: Getting Past the Mental Blocks :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Thu, 07 May 2009 11:23:20 +0000

The TTO website was recently moved to a new server, and in the process the report referenced above was replaced with an obsolete version.

Please download this report again to make sure you have the current one:
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/documents/QHA-04.pdf

The Minimum and Maximum Size of the U. S. House of Representatives
Per the Constitution and pursuant to all three versions of the proposed “Article the first”
(On the cover the "Revised" date should be June 24, 2007.)

Re: Getting Past the Mental Blocks :: Reply by TheTrucker

no_email@example.com (TheTrucker) — Fri, 22 May 2009 17:51:55 +0000

JEQuidam wrote: Please download this report again to make sure you have the current one:
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/documents/QHA-04.pdf

The Minimum and Maximum Size of the U. S. House of Representatives
Per the Constitution and pursuant to all three versions of the proposed “Article the first”
(On the cover the "Revised" date should be June 24, 2007.)

I am currently much more interested in the Constitutionality of the arrangement as the unamended
Constitution and the representation now stand. There are two mental blocks here:

1. Each state shall have at least one representative.
This one is interpreted as "there will be one or more states that have only one representative.
That interpretation is bogus. The least populous state could have several reps and that would
not, on any way, infringe on constitutionality.

The second metal block is based on the first and an additional ignorance of "according to their number"

2, In the second mental block we have people saying that the minimum size of the House is one rep for each state. That simply ignores "according to their number". And it is the combination of thirty thousand, "each shall have at least one" and "according to their number" that gives us the unamended minimum and maximum.

Constitutionality is ill defined in the phrase "according to their number" but this lack of precision cannot be interpreted to produce a non-proportional representation such as what we have in the Senate (100 members) unless the Supreme Court is brain dead. Many people believe by inference that the court has decided that so long as there is any proportionality at all then the Congress is in compliance with "according to their number", but that too may be a mental block. The Montana case was not based on the grievous inequality of voting power cause by an insufficient number of representatives. The Montana case was based on the claim that the reapportionment math was wrong in that a different reapportionment algorithm applied to the number 435 would have produced a more "fair" distribution of house seats. To my very limited knowledge the "equal protection under the laws" clause of the Constitution has never been used to compel the US Congress to increase the membership of the House to achieve "one man one vote" to the full extent allowed under the Constitution. This is the "one man one vote" rationale that the court used in Baker v. Carr to insist on equally populous legislative districts within the states. To say that the court has not enforced this clause in regard to congressional districts of differing states may be vaguely true, but the court has not been called upon to do so. The Baker V. Carr case was a STATE LEGISLATURE CASE, and the national legislature would be the defendant in a national case.

Re: Getting Past the Mental Blocks :: Reply by Paul Taylor

no_email@example.com (Paul Taylor) — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 12:08:47 +0000

I would think that another 'mental block' that people have is two-fold:

1.: Where would we house such a large body, and,
2.: How do we meet the payroll for such an enlarged bureaucracy?

I argue that
1.: We have representatives 'serve' from home, within their physical district (you already noted the largely automated processes of the House, which I think could be expanded to allow service from home. (On a related note, this would keep representatives at home and under a watchful, communal constituent eye, while also pricing special interests out of the lobbying business, because what lobby can afford an office in every district, in contrast to centralizing forces today in DC?)

2.: We pay representatives less. $174,000 a year may seem appropriate and necessary, when considering that you are asking the representative to maintain, in essence, two homes (in-district and in DC), and spend a great deal of time traveling between them. By removing these costly job requirements, and by the reduction in constituent service workload offered by reduced district size, one can easily argue for a reduced salary, both specifically for the representative, and generally for the representative's staff. Will someone not run for office if the salary isn't high enough? Too bad! I'd rather the candidate be motivated by the desire to more effectively serve than other candidates, than be motivated by how much bank they can make by landing a sweet, perpetual-incumbent gig.

A tripling of the House, by the simplest calculations, could easily result in a reduction of salary to the range of $40,000 to $50,000. Speaking personally, I could easily serve one term of two years from home, enjoy what I do, doing it very well, for that much, and be in fine financial shape coming out the other end of it.

Thus, I try to make the argument that, in increasing the house size, and requiring service from home, we wouldn't have to increase congressional payroll. Better representation at no increased cost.

Perhaps someone else can enlarge on this. I am writing stream-of-consciousness here, and in need of sleep, so I am certain my argument could be somewhat wanting.

Re: Getting Past the Mental Blocks :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 12:36:32 +0000

Paul Taylor wrote:I would think that another 'mental block' that people have is two-fold:

1.: Where would we house such a large body, and,
2.: How do we meet the payroll for such an enlarged bureaucracy?

#1) I certainly agree that they could be mostly working from their home districts, amongst their constituents (and where we could keep an eye on our employee Representative).

#2) I favor keeping their salary at the same level because we should entice the best of the community to leave their current "day jobs" and become a Representative. The analogy is the schools. Hypothetically, you have a choice between school A and B (and neither are unionized). School A pays it's teachers an average of $45K, school B pays an average of $85K. Which one has better teachers? In addition, and anyone can do the math on this one, if you were to reduce all the federal spending over the last year by a fraction of one percent, it would more than offset the cost of 6,000 Reps! It is my firm opinion that if we had a truly representative House, total federal spending authorized over the last 12 months would be trillions less. Compared to that, paying 6000 Reps their current salaries is chump change.

That being said, we absolutely do need to eliminate the practice of giving them pensions and other benefits for life just for serving a single term. What private company can you work at for a year and get a pension?

Also, there should be NO increase in total staff levels. Existing staff levels would be needed for research and for administrative coordination among a larger number of Representatives. In a smaller district, the Reps can answer phones, reply to letters and read the legislation themselves! If they can't do that, we can - and we will take their jobs!

Re: Getting Past the Mental Blocks :: Reply by Paul

no_email@example.com (Paul) — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 15:38:58 +0000

While I agree they should work either from or very near to their districts, I disagree with having them work from home. Politics invites everyone in a district to show up at a candidate's office, and there will be some people showing up that many would prefer not to let into their homes.

I agree with Jeff that the pay should be high, or we will get a high proportion of representatives concerned with things other than good legislation.

I actually argue that the very first thing an expanded house would do is insist on a balanced budget, and there would be nothing the other branches could do to stop them. So this year that would save $1,800,000,000,000.

Re: Getting Past the Mental Blocks :: Reply by Paul Taylor

no_email@example.com (Paul Taylor) — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 15:49:59 +0000

Sorry. When I referred to serving from home, I meant from their home district. I would expect an office separate from their personal abode.

Re: Getting Past the Mental Blocks :: Reply by Green_TZM

no_email@example.com (Green_TZM) — Sun, 24 Feb 2013 00:37:02 +0000

Paul Taylor wrote:I would think that another 'mental block' that people have is two-fold:

1.: Where would we house such a large body, and,
2.: How do we meet the payroll for such an enlarged bureaucracy?

I don't know how to use this quote stuff

Talk has been made of not "housing" the body in one central place.
3. I would like to know how this large body will not end up entangled in argument?
4. How will bills be introduced?
5. Will we pay pensions for life?
6. Can someone just tell a plausible story of how this COULD work?

Re: Getting Past the Mental Blocks :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 20:30:12 +0000

Green_TZM wrote:Talk has been made of not "housing" the body in one central place.
3. I would like to know how this large body will not end up entangled in argument?

They are "entangled in argument" now. They would be entangled in argument if there were only 100 of them (see the Senate). That is the nature of a representative republic or a democracy! I have no problem with that. Debate eventually leads to better solutions, and a resolution where necessary. Democracies require that all interests be considered and that compromises are reached. If someone truly objects to seeing representative bodies entangled in argument, I suggest they move someplace like Venezuela or China where that unpleasantness can be avoided. In fact, the very best place to avoid that would be North Korea! For me, I see the arguments as a sign of a vibrant representative republic.

My only objection is to the fact that our Reps usually are not arguing on our behalf, but on the behalf of their true constituents (the Special Interests). With smaller districts, the Reps will have to argue on behalf of their citizen constituents. That would be a beautiful thing.

Green_TZM wrote:4. How will bills be introduced?

This is discussed in "Taking Back Our Republic". It is reasonable to expect that the committee system (which proposes legislation and conducts investigations) would continue to operate as it does today. The several hundred Reps who actively serve on committees could continue to meet in DC, just as they do now, and/or utilize virtual meetings. And I believe that the several thousand other Reps who do not actively serve on committees should work from their home districts, where we can keep an eye on them, and where they can be properly petitioned by their constituents. We will expect those Reps to read the legislation proposed out of committee before they vote on it, and be available to discuss it with their constituents, who are now surrounding them. That would certainly be a radical improvement.

Green_TZM wrote:5. Will we pay pensions for life?

Regarding pensions for life, I don't believe the Reps should have that now! So that really is a separate issue regardless of the number of Reps. IMO, their pensions should NOT be any better than for those who serve in the military. As I understand it, one has to serve in the military for at least 20 years to be eligible to receive a pension that is a percentage of their basic pay. They have to serve 40 years for their pension to equal 100% of their basic pay. I cannot fathom why our Reps should receive a better arrangement than the folks who put themselves in mortal danger, especially given the Reps' high compensation levels. I actually have no objections to their high pay, especially if it helps attract the best among us away from their primary occupations, but their pensions have become quite excessive.

Green_TZM wrote:6. Can someone just tell a plausible story of how this COULD work?

For a case study, I would start by comparing the state legislatures of CA and NH (read Freedom and Legislative District Sizes to see why). The reality is that the legislators will have to determine exactly how to implement this. All of these administrative and logistical challenges are clearly resolvable, and they can best be resolved by those we elect to represent us, and who will actually have to perform that job.

Broaden our base :: Author Jims65

no_email@example.com (Jims65) — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 00:47:33 +0000

I have been a watcher of TTO for almost a year now and the one thing I noticed is how few participants there are on the site. That's disturbing because I believe better representation through smaller districts will bring some profound changes to our political process. Decreasing the size of congressional districts is more than a nice concept to be discussed, it needs to be the tool for taking control of the federal government.

As a former county party chairman I have seen first hand the apathy and the disgruntlement with political parties. I have heard that less than 20% of voters are affiliated with a political party, and I believe that is true, yet political parties dominate our views on issues. Better representation would end the party stranglehold and rejuvenate a more positive view of our government and its representatives.

So, how do we widen the base? I'm sure there are many ways to start. Here are three ideas that I feel are ideally suited to where TTO is presently.

Develop a series of short You-Tube videos for email circulation. Keep them at 2 minutes each on just a single point of TTO. For instance: “Why doesn’t your Congressman listen? How can he, when the average Congressman represents nearly ¾ a million people! Smaller district sizes would….”

Or, “Are you sick and tired of choosing your congressman from the better of two evils? Then consider what it would be like if..”

These may be simplistic examples but I think you get the point. If they were short and interesting they could/would be circulated from person to person through emails. Hundreds of thousands would begin to hear the message.

Build Power Point Presentations. Each would be on a particular idea of TTO. Put them on a DVD with printable pamphlets and an outline. Make them available for distribution through your website sales page for a small cost. That way, those interested in giving talks to their local party or service club, or organizing a Thirty-thousand Meet-up could have some ready made material for presentation. Service clubs and political parties are always looking for speakers. Since TTO is non-partisan it would be an attractive opportunity for grassroots presentations.

Build a monthly electronic newsletter. Each issue could contain information on current activities associated around better representation. Or possibly containing posted blogs from the website or using current events to show how better legislation could be produced as a result of better representation. Topics are limitless. The point being an electronic newsletter keeps TTO in the spotlight of its subscribers and would attract new subscribers as they visit the website.

I am sure there are many ideas out there, but the point is to keep the current group engaged and interested while growing the base. The blog site is a great source of information for those of us not so astute.

Re: Broaden our base :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:55:07 +0000

Jims65 wrote:Here are three ideas that I feel are ideally suited to where TTO is presently.

Those are excellent suggestions.

Creating videos (for YouTube distribution) has long been a favorite of mine. I have given a lot of thought to what the content of those videos should be. Unfortunately, I lack both the time and skill to produce effective videos. We need an experienced volunteer for that.

You are correct that "Decreasing the size of congressional districts is ... the tool for taking control of the federal government." This effort does need much better awareness development, but we are severely limited by time and money. In the meantime, I encourage supporters to continue to carry the message to their friends and associates, and in any political forums. Encourage people to read "Taking Back Our Republic". Emphasize that this is a non-partisan cause.

Re: Broaden our base :: Reply by NevadaEric

no_email@example.com (NevadaEric) — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 05:45:38 +0000

I had come to some of these same conclusions on my own. In late Nov. 2011, I joined the local occupy group. Since then I've contacted other groups in Nevada and am conveying this representation problem to them. I've sent a proposed Amendment to the State Legislators with only two replies. Also I've contacted my Federal Reps. This representation issue does not seem to win favor or even a real response.

But I shall not quite. I'll be contacting more occupy groups to let them know of this vital issue. The willful theft of representation could be expressed in this way, since most people are concerned mostly with money or a lack of. While I've met some in Reno and some in Las Vegas, the numbers are still small. The older ones in Carson City do not know enough history or dismiss talk as esoteric. So education is needed.

As with occupy groups and people in general, if they don't see it, they can't smell it and kick the tires. I'll be doing the best I can from here. Soon I'll be going into the Sacramento/Oakland areas to make myself visible.

Don't squander this year and the occupy people, since this is a non-partisan issue and what I think is a source of our discontent.

Re: Broaden our base :: Reply by banleystuck

no_email@example.com (banleystuck) — Fri, 08 Jun 2012 17:50:58 +0000

Right,
I completely agree, that this issue needs much greater recognition than it receives.

I think this forum is great for sharing ideas, but if you want to really get some actions done it will require coordination of those who are already aware and committed to resolving this issue. I recommend meetings online, via skype. Free and much more effective. Frequency, monthly, and more often as needed. Perhaps this could be promoted by a newsletter.

Quidam, can TTO send out emails to its members? If so, I would volunteer to contribute to a monthly newsletter. I am sure I could come up with something interesting, at least once a month!

Anyways, right now the best place to meet people is on the facebook page. These forums are for discussion and content. Don't be surprised if they are not updated that often. The facebook page is more frequently commented on because everyone there can comment.

Re: Broaden our base :: Reply by agcayacom

no_email@example.com (agcayacom) — Fri, 08 Jun 2012 21:36:53 +0000

Let's have a non-partisan voters union.
The Occupy movement, while inspiring to this point, needs to redirect their energy towards the topic we're discussing. Many of them are so disgusted by the current political landscape that they refuse to allow for change. We have to believe that change is possible, because it is our only hope, but we don't require amendments or laws. We simply need to organize.

Re: Broaden our base :: Reply by d3teur

no_email@example.com (d3teur) — Sun, 07 Apr 2013 16:27:07 +0000

I think we need a viral campaign, to just get the idea out there.

I think old fashioned pamphlets and stickers can do a lot. You know those oval stickers on cars that have some number on them?

well, how about this?

In case the link dies, its an oval with the text "435?" in it. We have to get the question into peoples heads. The people that follow politics know there are 435, but no one ever questions it.

so, we put 435 with a question mark out there. On cars. In cities.

or a similar thing with "30K" on it. I might just draft a kickstarter to get funds to buy these stickers.

Re: Broaden our base :: Reply by 803sccdantes

no_email@example.com (803sccdantes) — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 14:23:20 +0000

d3teur wrote:I think we need a viral campaign, to just get the idea out there.

I think old fashioned pamphlets and stickers can do a lot. You know those oval stickers on cars that have some number on them?

well, how about this?

In case the link dies, its an oval with the text "435?" in it. We have to get the question into peoples heads. The people that follow politics know there are 435, but no one ever questions it.

so, we put 435 with a question mark out there. On cars. In cities.

or a similar thing with "30K" on it. I might just draft a kickstarter to get funds to buy these stickers.

I like the 435? idea. It'd also be helpful to have a link or reference to the website so people can look it up themselves after seeing it and wondering what the heck it meant.

Re: Broaden our base :: Reply by djzb101

no_email@example.com (djzb101) — Sun, 08 Sep 2013 14:42:10 +0000

Hi,

I am kind of new on this site cause I just found it. I do support a further increase in the number of representatives. Have you heard of petitions.whitehouse.gov. It allows a person to create a petition which people can electronically sign and have someone in the government consider it for review. Another good site is change.org which also allows you to create petitions which people can sign. Have you guys considered this option? With enough "e-signatures" this could promote some change in government.

Dave

Re: Broaden our base :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sat, 05 Oct 2013 13:14:58 +0000

djzb101 wrote:Have you heard of petitions.whitehouse.gov.

Dave, supporters have posted petitions at Whitehouse.gov - for example this one, there may be more. (Their site has apparently been turned off during this government "shutdown".) Also, see the posting in this forum about another petition.

I believe that, in the long rung, the best petition will be TTO's Facebook page. Thirty-Thousand.org is a non-partisan organization exclusively focused on representational enlargement.

Also, please encourage everyone to read TTO's pamphlet, "Taking Back Our Republic", which can be downloaded from this page.

Re: Broaden our base :: Reply by d3teur

no_email@example.com (d3teur) — Sat, 12 Oct 2013 13:29:45 +0000

Okay, this one has a lot of points:

803sccdantes wrote:
d3teur wrote:I think we need a viral campaign, to just get the idea out there.

I like the 435? idea. It'd also be helpful to have a link or reference to the website so people can look it up themselves after seeing it and wondering what the heck it meant.

A link would be awesome to fit on a sticker - however, thirty-thousand.org is too big. I checked out 30k.us , it is up for bid on godaddy at $1200.00. Does anyone have this kind of money? The final sticker design would be:

435?
30k.us

TED Talks - have you guys seen these? Does anyone feel they have the authority on the matter to do a 30 min presentation on the topic?

Talk shows - with the government shutdown occurring you'd figure these talk show hosts, especially the liberal ones, would be willing to research this topic. I've emailed Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow, Morning Joe, and even The Daily Show. We need to email these people. I will try to aggregate some contacts, but their facebook pages are a good place to start. Maybe even the conservative talk shows would spread the word too. Again, if this is understood as increased representation, its a nonpartisan issue.

Outreach Effort to harness 2014 congressional discontent :: Author d3teur

no_email@example.com (d3teur) — Sun, 13 Oct 2013 05:23:43 +0000

This is a working forum. It will be messy. I request that the moderator let it be messy.

Okay everybody. This is it. Congressional approval is at 5%. Now is possibly the best time to explain to people the reason why congress is horrible and provide a solution that may possibly keep our country going for another century or two. Not to be melodramatic or anything.

We all know the reasons, so I won't go into it, I'll just go into the plan.

Has anyone seen an RSA video animation?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U

Before you read the rest of the post, go ahead and watch the video. Pay attention to how well you're paying attention.

I find they are great. It takes a great talk to make a good RSA video, but the drawing really helps people pay attention.

1. so, step one, as mentioned by JEQuidam, is to make some videos. I suggest making them in the style of the RSA. I will go through the effort of making the videos (drawing surface and a camera and a tripod. I can do that). I just need help with the narrations. Once we finalize the narrations, I will draft a storyboard, and we'll make the thing.

2. Buy Y435REPS.com. If I don't here back from somebody in this phorum stepping up and making this happen, I'll go ahead and do it.

3. Build the Y435REPS.com website. Main content is the video animation descriptions of the plan. The thirty-thousand.org website is an amazing aggregate of information, but it is too much for the casually interested citizen. We need a site that looks like a tea party site, or the moveon site. Y435REPS will be that site.

4. Make Y435REPS.com stickers. Ask visitors of this phorum to put them everywhere they can. We can probably pool together the <1000$ required for the stickers, or we can do a kickstarter. The kickstarter effort may also be a good way to get the message out. Anyhoo, whoever steps up, we'll send you stickers.

Also, my gut tells me there are a lot of lurkers on these phorums (thousands of views but 3 posts? who are these lurkers?)

Okay, so actionable points right now are:
someone buy Y435REPS.com
goto
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gMk ... sp=sharing

that should get you to a google doc. Please check the document, make any edits. (this is mostly directed to JEquidam, everyone else is free to access) This will be the narration for the RSA style animation video. If we need to move to a dropbox format, I am prepared for that.

Expansionism will become a movement.

Lets do this.

Re: Outreach Effort to harness 2014 congressional discontent :: Reply by d3teur

no_email@example.com (d3teur) — Sun, 13 Oct 2013 18:45:51 +0000

Ah, I forgot that apportionment.us already made videos. Hrm, they are not as concise as they need to be. I might be able to utilize them.

Re: Outreach Effort to harness 2014 congressional discontent :: Reply by d3teur

no_email@example.com (d3teur) — Mon, 14 Oct 2013 01:09:35 +0000

Okay, the website is up. http://www.Y435REPS.US is active.

If you want to start printing stickers, here are links to the images.

The sticker was designed for 8.5" X 1.375"

This sticker was designed for 8.5" X 2.75"

123stickers.com has a pretty cheap service. I will try and make the kickstarter video tomorrow.

3rd Chamber of Citizens :: Author d3teur

no_email@example.com (d3teur) — Sun, 07 Apr 2013 15:43:51 +0000

Okay, so here's my idea.

1. We take the existing districts of representatives and carve them up into 30k - 50k citizen districts.

2. Within these districts, we hold elections for a representative of these districts, via mail.

3. This 3rd Chamber of Citizens then executes its role as a chamber of congress. Legislation can be written and provided to the actual US representative that encompasses these voluntary districts. These voluntary representatives become aware of actual legislation occurring on capitol hill, hold their own vote, and report to the actual representative the outcome of the vote. This could be viewed as advisement. Citizen Advisers.

What this does:
1. Sets a functioning precedent for a distributed chamber. The voluntary force would operate via telepresence, work through google docs, etc to achieve their ends.
2. Spreads awareness of the representation problem to citizens. The candidates for this voluntary chamber are obvious very interested in the well-being of their country, and as such will probably go door-to-door to get votes or to spread awareness of the voluntary chamber.
3. Creates the framework for transition. If this gets into place and functioning, people will accept that it is possible to run our country with a voting legislature of this size.
4. Creates the possibility for a 3rd chamber. Why not?

How to do it:
1. Obtain census information via FOIA to create new district maps. Become friends with people who know how to use that software where you can map out populations and what-have-you.
2. Do a kickstarter campaign to raise funds for snail mail voting effort.
3. Contact people in each 3rd chamber district and recruit potential candidates.
4. Set a vote date, give candidates enough time to campaign,
5. Vote
6. Let democracy run its course

Obviously a much more well-written document should be drafted upon the founding of this body. But I think the most powerful aspect of this is that it means we're serious. If your everyday person gets a knock on their door and has a conversation with a fellow citizen describing the problem and our current working solution, people will see that we can get our representation back. And when the real US representatives continuously get knocks on their doors from this "3rd Chamber of Citizens" they keep hearing their colleagues talk about, they'll know that things are changing.

Its walking the walk.

And *, who knows, while the direct outcome might not be an immediate change, another possibility is that the current US representatives become blindingly aware of our efforts, and eventually recruit us to assist in management of their fiefdoms. And then, well... then we're on the inside.

Re: 3rd Chamber of Citizens :: Reply by d3teur

no_email@example.com (d3teur) — Sun, 30 Jun 2013 14:31:05 +0000

Discuss?

Re: 3rd Chamber of Citizens :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sun, 07 Jul 2013 21:56:30 +0000

Unfortunately, far too few people are even aware of the problem of oversized congressional districts and the oligarchy of 435, let alone the solution (as intended by "Article the first" of the Bill of Rights). With so few people who understand the problem or the solution, we are a long way from having the widespread support needed to even consider such an endeavor. In the meantime, we need a ground campaign to educate the public and obtain their support. Please encourage potential supporters to like Thirty-Thousand.org on Facebook and to download and read Taking Back Our Republic.

Re: 3rd Chamber of Citizens :: Reply by d3teur

no_email@example.com (d3teur) — Sat, 12 Oct 2013 14:14:13 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:Unfortunately, far too few people are even aware of the problem of oversized congressional districts and the oligarchy of 435, let alone the solution (as intended by "Article the first" of the Bill of Rights). With so few people who understand the problem or the solution, we are a long way from having the widespread support needed to even consider such an endeavor. In the meantime, we need a ground campaign to educate the public and obtain their support. Please encourage potential supporters to like Thirty-Thousand.org on Facebook and to download and read Taking Back Our Republic.

The thing is, everyone I talk to supports the idea, or at least agrees that we've lost our representation... but the end of the conversation always boils down to "Well, how do we increase the number of representatives?" And then when I tell them we need to amend the constitution or get members of congress to put this fix in place, they laugh. I feel there's a general resignation in this country when it comes to fixing something at this scale, especially if the fix has to come from within the system.

But yes, in general, I agree that more people need to be aware. But I think our message needs to be more than "if you want to change things, tell others".

Re: 3rd Chamber of Citizens :: Reply by JudgeBrennan

no_email@example.com (JudgeBrennan) — Fri, 21 Feb 2014 00:59:09 +0000

I don't know if I am doing this correctly, but here goes. The third chamber already exists. If you go to http://www.conventionusa.org you will see:
1) that we have 400 delegates, someone representing every state in the union.
2) that we have created 1,186 districts nationwide in which 6,166 delegates will be elected. The ratio of constituents to delegates is not less that 45,000 to one and not more than 55,000 to one. See http://www.convdist.blogspot.com
3} That we plan to conduct a live session in May of 2015 in Saint Louis.
4) That we are not waiting for Congress to call a convention.
5) That any registered voter can sign up as a delegate.
6) That where there are more delegates than allowed in a district, there will be an election on the Internet contemporaneous with the Congressional elections in November.

Re: 3rd Chamber of Citizens (a different idea) :: Reply by WMCraig

no_email@example.com (WMCraig) — Fri, 20 Jun 2014 02:32:15 +0000

Alternative solution.
The biggest problem we have is that once a representative goes to Washington he is drawn into the social circles of the ruling elite. Expanding Congress will make bribing or seducing any one representative less cost effective but it will not solve two problems.
1. Concentrating power in one place makes corruption easier to implement, especially if it is out of sight.
2. A bigger congress means more money going to the bureaucracy.

So, as a free market kind of federalist I would suggest there is no reason, in the modern world that Congress should convene in Washington at all. The solution is to make each representative maintain and work from an office in their congressional district. They can conduct business over the internet, convene over the internet, and perform all their duties using the modern technology that large international corporations use.

There are many benefits to this, in addition to eliminating the biggest stumbling block to implementing the objectives, cost.
1. While it will be more expensive to have more representatives, and more offices, and more staff, that money will stay in the community where the taxes come from to support it.
2. The staff will be local, and will have to go home to their community at night. They won't be able to hide behind like minded ruling elites in crowds out of site and far from their constituents. There children will go to same schools, participate in the same sports leagues, they will attend the same houses of worship, be treated by the same medical system, and eat at the same restaurants. This is not to say there won't be any difference between wealthy government workers and the woman working behind the counter at the local convenience store, but there won't be a geographic distance that hides who they really are.
3. If you get upset at what they are doing going to Washington and protest is no easier for most Americans today then getting to London in the times of our founding. But any representative will be faced, daily, with people on the street outside the office who he or she represents. That proximity makes responsiveness much more likely.
4. The local paper, the local gossip, the local cab driver, the bus driver, the florist across the street, the delivery newspaper delivery boy, the counter clerk and serving staff in the local eateries will have direct immediate knowledge about anyone who visits, especially special interest lobbyists. Nothing will make corruption easier to monitor and hard to accomplish then this.
5. Assuming that lobbyists can get past the gauntlet of local busybodies trying to influence a signficant majority of 6000 legislators is already a problem. Spread them around so you have to visit them in their home district under the scrutiny of the voters and it becomes extremely expensive. Not that it can't happen, but the kind of influence will change. Lobbyists for change at the state level or below will find a better chance which at the very least means people from a bunch of other states on the other side of the country from you can't decide what kind of health care your state has to implement.

The idea is to resolve the problems in Washington, reduce the cost of government representation or at least keep the money close to it's source while eliminating the ever expanding bureaucracy in Washington while simultaneously increasing the number of representatives in line with the goals of this board.

As a new poster here, I am very interested in your thoughts. And suggestions on how best to discuss this idea

Connecticut Ratification found? :: Author StriderV

no_email@example.com (StriderV) — Thu, 16 Aug 2012 23:19:19 +0000

Have you guys heard about this? Is it a conspiracy theory, or real? It seems like it's actually going to court on September 12th...

http://www.boldtruth.com/index.html

They claim that papers were found showing that Connecticut had actually ratified Ammendment the First, but the document was misplaced and never sent in?

Re: Connecticut Ratification found? :: Reply by FrederickJLaVergne

no_email@example.com (FrederickJLaVergne) — Sun, 09 Sep 2012 20:43:43 +0000

Both Connecticut AND Kentucky were found. The suit is "LaVergne v Bryson, et al". You can view all of the documents in certified true copy form on NationalTruth.com.

The opening page needs work. The documents speak for themselves. With Ct. and Ky, that's 12 of the then 15 States, or 80%. Once the 75% threshold for ratification is crossed, it may not be un-crossed.

We may further have a line on what really happened in Delaware, and Georgia's "missing" docs may have turned up...3 Million documents to go through.

This is no "Birther" suit.

Frederick John LaVergne, "Democratic-Republican" for Congress

NJ District Three, 2012.

Re: Connecticut Ratification found? :: Reply by FrederickJLaVergne

no_email@example.com (FrederickJLaVergne) — Sun, 09 Sep 2012 20:50:24 +0000

Court is the 14th, btw, in the Federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. Initially, application was made by us (and denied) for an En Banc review. The opposition demanded Oral Arguments. Now that they've read our brief and response, they want to go back to a three judge panel and written arguments - they are afraid that oral arguments, once viewable by the public, will promote support for our position.

It IS ratified, and we further prove the scrivener's error that makes the text in the last clause of the "COPIES" inoperative. Oliver Ellsworth's report, in his own hand, ALSO turned up. With the last minute change made in the CORRECT PLACE ("in the last line but one"), rather than Beckley's mistaken instruction to the engrossing clerks "in the last place of the last line", makes Article the First say what it was intended to say when Fisher Ames first presented the language in August. 50,000 persons becomes the ceiling on District size ever after the number of Representatives reaches 200 in the HOUSE. They know, but were afraid of what this would do to this election.

We are supposed to seat over 6000 representatives this Fall by the Constitution. Ratification of Article the First negates ANY other apportionment legislation that is not an amendment to the Constitution.

Re: Connecticut Ratification found? :: Reply by FrederickJLaVergne

no_email@example.com (FrederickJLaVergne) — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 02:32:35 +0000

Connecticut's were misfiled - and there is a potential reason for that in the brief. Kentucky's was in plain sight, but nobody was looking.

Lots of nay-sayers, but 12 of the then 15 States means that that is a part of the Constitution, and can only be further changed by Amendment.

Frederick John LaVergne, "Democratic-Republican" for Congress, NJ District Three, 2012.

https://www.facebook.com/FrederickJohnL ... ess?ref=hl

Re: Connecticut Ratification found? :: Reply by USeagle

no_email@example.com (USeagle) — Sun, 11 Nov 2012 03:51:12 +0000

FredericK.....can you please supply some links if possible.....Thank you

Re: Connecticut Ratification found? :: Reply by Evil Sensei

no_email@example.com (Evil Sensei) — Sun, 11 Nov 2012 14:36:48 +0000

If true, a campaign of awareness should be mounted.

Is there more to come? How can we support and expand this process?

Re: Connecticut Ratification found? :: Reply by StriderV

no_email@example.com (StriderV) — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 22:47:50 +0000

The initial case failed. You can see from http://www.boldtruth.com/news.html

They will be taking the case to the supreme court, I guess...

There is also a petition you can sign at
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti ... n/zfd1GwWj

We need to get the number of signatures over 150 before the petition shows up in searches and such.
Please forward this link to others you might know!

Re: Connecticut Ratification found? :: Reply by StriderV

no_email@example.com (StriderV) — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 16:34:17 +0000

Apparently the Supreme Court refused to receive the case. Oh well... They have other plans to take it to the Congressional Archivist, so we'll see.

http://www.boldtruth.com/news.html

Re: Connecticut Ratification found? :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sun, 03 Mar 2013 13:29:15 +0000

StriderV wrote:Apparently the Supreme Court refused to receive the case.

That is disappointing. Regretfully, I did not delve into this particular case as I wanted to, but I will when I can. I do want to understand the CT ratification and the other assertions made.

SCOTUS did the same thing in Clemons et al. v. U.S. Department of Commerce et al. (see Apportioment.us). In that case, they evidently were not willing to question Congress's authority to create an oligarchy. It seems to me that there is an understanding between Congress and SCOTUS that "you don't interfere with our co-equal branch of government, and we won't interfere with yours." That disappointing realization prevented me from being optimistic about LaVergne's gallant endeavor.

Re: Connecticut Ratification found? :: Reply by StriderV

no_email@example.com (StriderV) — Fri, 04 Oct 2013 18:48:57 +0000

There is a petition to sign now. It's at MoveOn.org.... isn't that a liberal website? I consider myself a conservative, but this cause is definitely cross-parties.

Here is a copy/paste after I signed it:

Subject: The Bill of Rights Congressional Apportionment Amendment is ratified by vote of the states.

Hi,

I signed a petition to Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker, Secretary of Commerce, David Ferriero, Archivist of the United States, and 3 others which says:

"We, the petitioners request that the Congress stand up for the Congressional Apportionment Amendment and ask that the Department of Commerce present the ratified Congressional Apportionment Amendment to Congress and take its place as the 28th amendment to the Constitution. Once that happens, we request the proper number of Representatives be seated in the House of Representatives per this amendment. One Representative for every 50,000 people per District in the United States of America. Stand for One, Stand for All."

Will you sign this petition? Click here:

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/the-bi ... by=9079921

Thanks!

Re: Connecticut Ratification found? :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sat, 05 Oct 2013 12:58:39 +0000

StriderV wrote:There is a petition to sign now. It's at MoveOn.org.... isn't that a liberal website? I consider myself a conservative, but this cause is definitely cross-parties.

I just signed that petition. Thank you for letting us know about it. You are correct: Representational enlargement is a truly non-partisan cause, and Thirty-Thousand.org is a non-partisan organization that is supported by people across the political spectrum. Please encourage everyone to like us on Facebook. This is one cause that should bring everyone together in otherwise dangerously divisive & partisan times.

Re: Connecticut Ratification found? :: Reply by Epicurus

no_email@example.com (Epicurus) — Sat, 19 Jul 2014 23:48:44 +0000

Will you sign this petition? Click here:

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/the-bi ... by=9079921

Only 51 signatures since Sept 27, 2013. C'mon people!

Re: Connecticut Ratification found? :: Reply by Epicurus

no_email@example.com (Epicurus) — Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:10:45 +0000

Isn't it odd that not one Connecticut reporter for any major Connecticut paper did a story on LaVergne's discovery of the Connecticut ratification, and that the custodian of the records where the ratification was found never expressed a reaction in the press about the discovery? And that no Connecticut or Constitutional historian anywhere has commented in the press about the discovery?

There was only one reporter that I could find who did a story on it at all, Don Pesci in N.J., and he never followed it up with another story.

Isn't this lack of news coverage and commentary bizarre in light of the magnitude of this historical discovery?

I fear something is rotten in the state of Connecticut.

With Connecticut, it's a done deal, isn't it? :: Author Epicurus

no_email@example.com (Epicurus) — Sun, 20 Jul 2014 15:20:05 +0000

"Both Connecticut AND Kentucky were found. . . . With Ct. and Ky, that's 12 of the then 15 States, or 80%. Once the 75% threshold for ratification is crossed, it may not be un-crossed."

If Connecticut and/or Kentucky ratified the original 12 amendments, Article the First is a valid amendment. Right now.

Do we live in a nation of laws or not? Or is that just another lie we tell ourselves?

Re: With Connecticut, it's a done deal, isn't it? :: Reply by StriderV

no_email@example.com (StriderV) — Tue, 05 Aug 2014 17:19:46 +0000

You would think so. I don't know why it hasn't gone forward yet.

Those in power don't want the change, and we the mere citizens, are too lazy to care.

Re: With Connecticut, it's a done deal, isn't it? :: Reply by Epicurus

no_email@example.com (Epicurus) — Tue, 05 Aug 2014 18:18:14 +0000

I have done some reading since I made that post.

Eugene LaVergne filed an excellent brief in the U.S. 3d Circuit Court of Appeals which you can read here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/94139261/Fina ... d-Addendum

Having lost in the District Court and the Court of Appeals, he filed a petition for certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. It was denied.

Using one of their standard tricks, the Federal courts are dodging the substantive issues in the case claiming that whether or not an amendment to the Constitution has been properly ratified by at least 75% of the states is a "political question."

In other words, the Supreme Court is going to give Congress the power to decide whether or not a properly ratified amendment is part of the Constitution.

Wow! The House can overrule the states on constitutional amendments. Where does the Constitution say that?

And of course House members will vote to drastically reduce their own power by expanding their number, right?

Let's face reality. We really don't live in the country we were taught about. The country described by our teachers is a fiction.

Re: With Connecticut, it's a done deal, isn't it? :: Reply by Epicurus

no_email@example.com (Epicurus) — Wed, 06 Aug 2014 14:28:50 +0000

StriderV wrote:we the mere citizens are too lazy to care.

What really shocks me is that almost no one seems to care about being truly represented in the House. They don't care if their congressperson represents their views or not, or if their congressperson has the time to read their letters or meet with them or not!

One would think that the Tea Party groups would take this issue up. Nope. They think increasing the number of representatives is the same as increasing "big government." By that standard, a dictator would be the smallest government of all.

The number of people who care about this issue right now could be taken out with one hellfire missile.

A book. We need a book. :: Author Paul

no_email@example.com (Paul) — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 01:14:19 +0000

Jeff, we really, really need a book. We need a physical, well-documented thing for people to flip through and hold up. It is completely necessary that someone write a book on this topic. Tom Woods briefly mentions the issue the first chapter of Nullification, but I'm sure it probably went right over the heads of anyone who reads it.

The term limits nonsense has been heavily influenced by many books. There was a key one in the 80s or 90s, though I don't recall its name, that made a real difference.

Please, please write a book on this topic. It will do more than a website, blog, forum, video, or doomed court case.

Re: A book. We need a book. :: Reply by sbozich

no_email@example.com (sbozich) — Tue, 24 May 2011 03:06:31 +0000

Those who can, do. Those who can't, complain.

Let's write a book. Has a book every been written online? I know that there have been some experiments with fiction, but what about non-fiction?

Shall we start with an outline?

Chapter 1: The history of Article the First.

Chapter 2: The history of the House of Representatives, and the changes to its structure

Chapter 3: Why change the status quo?

Chapter 4: What a change to the status quo might look like

Chapter 5: How to effect change

Suggestions?

Re: A book. We need a book. :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 24 May 2011 06:16:31 +0000

Stephen, I appreciate your initiative. Sometimes "those who can't" simply don't have the time. At least, that is the main problem in my case. To be fair, Paul was offering a constructive suggestion (rather than a complaint).

If I did have the time, the higher priority would be to revamp the TTO website as this is the most effective way to reach the largest number of our fellow citizens. Paul and others have suggested that as well. Among other things, this would involve reorganizing all the content (both existing and future).

Though it is a short pamphlet rather than a book, I encourage people to read "Taking Back Our Republic" to get an overview of the need for smaller congressional districts. The footnotes in that pamphlet lead to additional reading.

A non-fiction book produced by a collective effort via the WWW would certainly require a tremendous amount of editorial oversight and fact-checking in order to ensure that the final product was of the highest quality. It would also need to be narrowly focused on this subject, avoiding partisanship and unrelated political agendas.

Re: A book. We need a book. :: Reply by sbozich

no_email@example.com (sbozich) — Tue, 24 May 2011 16:33:09 +0000

I agree that such an undertaking would require editorial oversight. I submit that such oversight could be exercise both during the process, and upon completion. The final product could be finalized by the "author" that puts his name on it (presumably, you; although I would expect credit going to those that would contribute along the way:).

My comment, "those who can do, those who can't, complain" was not intended towards anybody at all, but was more or less a rallying cry. As mentioned, I don't know of any similar undertaking, which makes all the more attractive.

Of course, if you're going to write a book collectively, you need to have some form of organization. It can be done.

If, for instance, we collectively "ratify" an outline - by chapter - and then agree to the overall outline of a particular chapter, then it becomes a matter of simply putting flesh on the bone.

All could contribute, be it in the form of ideas, entire paragraphs, or a complete chapter. Everyone could make suggestions and changes, and when I sufficiently palatable product has been penned, we could turn our attention to the next chapter.

I believe such a project would be particularly suited to the goals of the group. Not only would a book raise awareness of the 30K:1 movement, but a book written in such a manner would nearly market itself. The text could be made available, on-line for free, and if there were ever any publishing offers, the funds received in consideration for such a deal could fund the PAC.

Re: A book. We need a book. :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Wed, 25 May 2011 09:03:41 +0000

I'm a writer and editor and have actually been working on formulating a book for this purpose, but I'm still looking for a mathematical programmer to test a final theory that would shape the book's over-arching structure. (I know that sounds strange and unrelated, but I assure you its not and that there's a method in my madness.)

I'm happy to discuss the book further and believe it does need to be the work of a few hands to fact check and provide supporting material. My editing would be more to keep the book focused and stylistically consistent. The format I'm planning wouldn't require Jeff to do much more work than he's already done, so I don't anticipate that being a problem. But I've yet to bring it up until now, because...as I said...I'm still searching for a mathematical programmer to test the book's final theory before the nit-gritty coordination can be arranged.

More on that later, unless someone can knows a brilliant mathematician.

Re: A book. We need a book. :: Reply by sbozich

no_email@example.com (sbozich) — Thu, 26 May 2011 12:30:07 +0000

RE: Mathematical Programmer

Have you tried your local college campus? I'm pretty sure if you approached one of the political student groups (Left or Right) they could point you towards someone who could do it.

Re: A book. We need a book. :: Reply by 803sccdantes

no_email@example.com (803sccdantes) — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 02:28:58 +0000

Several of us could work together on a book so one person doesn't have to carry the entire weight. Just a suggestion for anyone with some writing experience.

Re: A book. We need a book. :: Reply by CurtisNeeley

no_email@example.com (CurtisNeeley) — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 01:30:33 +0000

Those who can should . All of us here are doing something.
I could help with the design of a book and layout etc but would not feel at all able to write a book due to NOT being an "expert" or even fully understanding this issue yet. I was shocked to see the graphs illustrating the shrinking representation in the United States. The 1.2 pixel dot in the center is correctly shown in the largest illustration but is scaled accurately in the smaller two.

370X351 750X791 1024X786

I believe it is outrageous that the United States even calls itself a democracy with so little citizen representation. I believe there is very little chance of litigating ANYTHING in the US Courts. Getting a Circuit Court to examine the issue was good but a very good BOOK could be done and quickly accomplish more.

I had to look in the dictionary for most of the text in the "Whatever" forum rules. Was that a joke?

Forum rules
As elsewhere in the TTO forum, no harangues, scurrilities, chicanery or mongering is permitted. However, repartees and irreverence is tolerated as long as they are not fatuous. Those who fail to abide by these rules may be subject to objurgation.

I am EXTREMELY adapt at litigating as should be easy to see.
Google Inc, et al alleged spending nearly half a million against me in US Court for the last three years.

Sincerely,

Curtis J Neeley Jr., MFA

Ending the open *-ternet.
Neeley v NameMedia Inc, et al (5:09-cv-05151)(11-2558)
Appeal fully briefed and before the Eighth Circuit
The obvious result is FCC regulation of wire communications; -
even when called “the Internet” for disguise!

APPELLANT BRIEF…………..………………….PDF (56 pages)
APPELLEE BRIEF by NameMedia……PDF (22 pages)
APPELLEE BRIEF by Google…………………….PDF (20 pages)
APPELLANT REPLY BRIEF…………..PDF (16 pages)
MOTION Pre-ruling Motion for en banc review.…PDF (7 pages)
^^^^^^ PDFMotion for en banc review denied - (13 WORDS)

======================================================================================================
Books require authors and I can design and assemble said book but there needs to be a "book committee" and an editor.
PDF files are text searchable by search engines and are the files that books are best done in anyway. I have a LOT of time to donate and I do EXTREMELY good website work and photography.

The Internet wire communications are the ONLY way to allow this type population to be democratically governed.
My litigation may be just as ignored as the Supreme Court did with the one from here. My litigation could result in 17 USC being declared unconstitutional and the FCC being ordered to regulate Internet wire communications.

Re: A book. We need a book. :: Reply by banleystuck

no_email@example.com (banleystuck) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:28:14 +0000

I first looked into this issue independently years ago, and found this website around 2008, I was very excited to find this website has updated since I found it years ago.

I am very happy with this website. I wish more people could know about it.

Re: A book. We need a book. :: Reply by banleystuck

no_email@example.com (banleystuck) — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 10:37:27 +0000

A book has already been written "Article the first of the Bill of Rights", Bryan W. Brickner (ISBN: 978-1-84728-951-3) (See Below for chapter summary). I am pretty sure this book is pro-enlargement, having subsequently read some of the authors blogspot posts (for example, http://bryanbrickner.blogspot.com/2006_ ... chive.html ). I have only read the 1st 20 pages available in Google books preview. I recommend working on promotion of TTO. Possibly contacting the author for additional info after reading it. It has been an interesting read so far. Again, I recommend skype meetings to promote the website and our "Right to Representation". Just talking with others who support this idea would be encouraging for me, and hopefully fruitful as well.

Google books preview (link may not work, based on location)
http://books.google.co.kr/books?id=0PaG ... 22&f=false

Chapter Summaries for Article the first of the Bill of Rights
Bryan W. Brickner (ISBN: 978-1-84728-951-3)
Thesis: Constitutional representation is the forgotten story of We the People.
The US Constitution, in Article 1, Section 2, and Clause 3, as written and never amended, guarantees We the People a right to representation at the ratio of “one for every thirty Thousand.” Article the first of the Bill of Rights would have amended the ratio and changed it to “fifty thousand.” But it was not ratified. That means one for every thirty thousand remains the supreme law of the land and the constitutional ratio of representation.
Chapter 1 argues that our Revolutionary War was for constitutional representation of citizens and against virtual representation. The founders fought for a written constitution that the people could live by.
Chapter 2 highlights the fundamental role of the representation ratio at the Constitutional Convention and the founders’ support for the compromise. George Washington acknowledges the representation ratio as “among the exceptionable parts” of the Constitution.
Chapter 3 discusses the post-revolutionary divide between Federalists and AntiFederalists, The Federalist Papers, and the New York ratifying convention, to see how the representation ratio is portrayed. This debate centers on how Congress will use Article 1, Section 2, and Clause 3 of the Constitution.
Chapter 4 clarifies the issues surrounding the ratification of Article the first and the other eleven Articles in the Bill of Rights. This chapter focuses on the forgotten element in a representative government – representing We the People.
Chapter 5 describes what happened during the first census and why President Washington vetoed the first attempt by Congress in 1792 to augment House membership. Unable to override the veto, the Second Congress passed a new law that set the ratio at one Representative for every 33,000. In essence, Congress ignored the Constitution instead of changing it.
Chapter 6 points out that yes, any Congress can set House membership, but members of Congress are bound by oath to obey the Constitution. The Constitution dictates the use of a ratio. The legal term is cy pres – as near to the constitution as possible.
Chapter 7 addresses the immediate future of constitutional representation and finds four alternatives: first, We the People could enforce the ratified representation ratio found in the Constitution, one representative for every thirty thousand inhabitants of a state; second, twenty-seven states could ratify Article the first (completing the Bill of Rights), amending the Constitution with the new representation ratio of one for every fifty thousand persons; third, we could amend the Constitution with a new representation ratio; or fourth, the status quo of congressional representation with 435 Representatives for a nation of 300 million.

Re: A book. We need a book. :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:58:42 +0000

banleystuck wrote:A book has already been written "Article the first of the Bill of Rights", Bryan W. Brickner

Unfortunately, much of Brickner's book was derived (if not plagiarized) from content which was posted in 2004 and 2005 on the Thirty-Thousand.org website. I had an e-mail exchange with the author around that time (which he initiated), back when he had his "Newtopia" web site. He indicated that he discovered this subject on the TTO site. Then Brickner subsequently wrote his book without contacting me or giving credit to TTO. I only found out about the book after it was written (from a friend who read it and then called my attention to how derivative it is).

The objective of Thirty-Thousand.org is to distribute this information freely in order to maximize public awareness and support. The most definitive work on "Article the first" is the "The Minimum and Maximum Size of the U. S. House of Representatives" which can be downloaded here. There are additional papers available from this page: Quantitative Historical Analyses of the House of Representatives.

See Research Resources and Links for papers and articles published by others. In particular, I recommend "A House of Our Own or A House We’ve Outgrown? An Argument for Increasing the Size of the House of Representatives" from the Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems (which is available on that page).

The best single document for those wishing to champion the cause of representational enlargement is Taking Back Our Republic, which contains footnotes which link to additional sources. Everyone should download and read that pamphlet!

Re: A book. We need a book. :: Reply by banleystuck

no_email@example.com (banleystuck) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:21:03 +0000

Got it. Thanks.

Re: A book. We need a book. :: Reply by bryanbrickner

no_email@example.com (bryanbrickner) — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 15:12:22 +0000

Hi all,

I saw the post on Article the first of the Bill of Rights and representation and wanted to say hello. The book will be available as a free PDF in about a month; in the meantime I can send copies upon request (the PDF attachment bounced-back on today's try). We could also make it available here on Thirty Thousand.

Nice work everyone!
Bryan

Article the first of the Bill of Rights
Bryan Brickner

No Book :: Reply by conestogawagonman

no_email@example.com (conestogawagonman) — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 18:06:20 +0000

A shining example of ignorance and apathy in this country is the fact that the average American does not know much about math, nor care anything about typos. Article the First was sabotaged by a typo. Even worse, by a mathematical typo. Write a book if you wish. More power to you, I say. But I guarantee your book will never make the bestseller list. There are better means available than books to break the ice and get things moving in the campaign for support of equitable representation.

For example, we might seek out a gifted cartoonist or animator to tell the story. I daresay the idea has already been suggested by Mr. Quidam’s thumbnail portrait. The ideal cartoon spokesman, in my opinion, would be an innocent genius, like Linus in the Peanuts comic strip, or even better, Thor in B.C., but I will have to admit that recruiting such well-known celebrities might be difficult, so we should consider starting small.

How about surfing YouTube, keeping an eye out for some talented and ambitious animators with a political bent, and then bouncing the idea off them? We would gain some P.R., and in return the artist would gain a theme on which to build their portfolio and their reputation. Their best animated videos could be linked to this website.

The possibilities are endless. Potential scenarios for some short animated videos, to suggest a few, might include (1) a technically simple stick-figure professor lecturing a stick-figure student with a blackboard as a prop, (2) a more sophisticated animation of a musing soliloquy as used by the Gecko in his Geico commercials, (3) an easily composed cartoon of an ant and a fly ambulating across the face of the Bill of Rights document, arguing over the significance of three “less thans” and only one “more than,” (4) some animated figures acting the parts of the founding fathers as they debate Article the First, complete with historic quotations, or (5) the debut of an original off-the-wall character, a spokesman whom we could name something like “Square-Bob Sponge-Pants.”

All joking aside, the peculiar nature of the problem, i.e. this defect in the Bill of Rights which in its final wording diminishes our rights rather than protects them, is better suited to being broken down into short animated “sound-bytes” than it is suited for publication in a scholarly tome. Besides, videos, as the medium of the day, would reach more people in less time. Political cartoons can pack a punch. Sooner or later, as public interest increments geometrically, the issue of increased representation will one day capture the imagination and fancy of the masses. Some influential scholars and pundits are then sure to take note and jump on the bandwagon. Eventually even the politicians will be forced to acknowledge the issue.

Meanwhile, I second Mr. Quidam’s conjecture that this website remains the cheapest, the best, and the most effective way to reach out and educate the public. Spread the word about the forgotten first article of the Bill of Rights, and tell others about this website. Make a donation if you can. And please give some serious thought to the cartoon idea. If we could scrape up the dough, we might even be able to hold a contest, advertise it on YouTube, and offer cash prizes to the best animators.

Re: No Book :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sun, 03 Mar 2013 14:14:34 +0000

Douglas,I appreciate your comments.

conestogawagonman wrote:we might seek out a gifted cartoonist or animator to tell the story.

Explaining the need for smaller congressional districts, as well as the fascinating history of Article the first, could best be done via a series of compelling short videos that have the qualities necessary to go "viral" in a busy ADD world. However, those have to be professionally produced, not homemade or rinky dink. To get that done, we need an experienced video producer who personally understands & supports representational enlargement and is willing to produce these videos at a discounted price.

conestogawagonman wrote:I daresay the idea has already been suggested by Mr. Quidam’s thumbnail portrait.

Long ago (in internet time) I suddenly needed an avatar for a discussion forum posting. A recent portrait of me by my then 5-year-old daughter seemed sufficient for that purpose, and it is more flattering than a photograph would be!

conestogawagonman wrote:...this website remains the cheapest, the best, and the most effective way to reach out and educate the public. Spread the word about the forgotten first article of the Bill of Rights, and tell others about this website.

Please also ask people to read "Taking Back Our Republic" a pdf pamphlet which can be downloaded from:
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/TBOR.htm

Re: A book. We need a book. :: Reply by JudgeBrennan

no_email@example.com (JudgeBrennan) — Wed, 19 Feb 2014 02:51:31 +0000

I am currently writing a book tentatively entitled CONVENTION USA: How 6,166 First Responders Can Save The Republic. I have printed out Jeff Quidam’s excellent work, Taking Back Our Republic, and I want to quote extensively from it. My publisher expects me to introduce Mr. Quidam to my readers by way of enhancing the credibility of the quotes. However, I have been unable to make contact with Mr. Quidam to obtain his approval, as he does not return my phone calls or emails.

Judge Thomas Brennan

Re: A book. We need a book. :: Reply by WMCraig

no_email@example.com (WMCraig) — Fri, 20 Jun 2014 03:14:03 +0000

You are creating a book here. You have good input. A variety of ideas, people who really aren't necessarly policy wonks get to express their opinions and benefit from the analysis and give and take. What you need is a big name sponsor, a publisher and an editor. Someone from Hollywood or the political spectrum that would be the "author", and an a good editor.

Use the book idea to make the site work harder, to engage more people on the site, get posts from big name bloggers, and politicians. Put on your journalist had and go get answers to "what is your stance" "What is your opinion of" "will you comment on" etc....

Mr X we want to know what you think about a virtual congress, 6000 representatives, a states Consitutional convention, America without the 16th and 17th amendments and thirty thousand per representative for debate on our site and inclusion in our book. Then post them here and get feed back

Re: A book. We need a book. :: Reply by Epicurus

no_email@example.com (Epicurus) — Fri, 08 Aug 2014 00:11:50 +0000

Here's a good title:

America: One of the Least Democratic Countries of All Modern Democracies

Visualization as a tactic to a bigger house :: Author WMCraig

no_email@example.com (WMCraig) — Sat, 13 Dec 2014 11:38:42 +0000

There are numerous benefits to a larger house of representatives. Smaller districts means better representation. But one of the most signficant objectives is the cost of sending so many more people to Washington. And supporting them and their staffs there. Unless you live in Virginia or Maryland where a bigger congress would result in a huge construction boom. But my question is why? Not why we need smaller districts, but why we need to send our representatives to Washington at all? It is time to take a page out of modern business and use technology to meet virtually. Let me describe what I see as the perfect situation

Congress meets virtually. Each congressman is required to work from an office located within their district. This is mandatory. The representative can hire who they want but at least a large part of the clerical staff has the potential to be local. Equip each office with an audio visual capability developed to allow representatives to participate in committee meetings, floor sessions, make speeches to the floor, participate in debates and otherwise conduct all the business of Washington, without having to go to Washington.

Technically this is feasible and a proven method used by many business today. The benefits of this approach are numerous but here are a few of my favorites:

1 Not only is it far less costly, since the support for the representative to maintain a home in Washington, a large part of the cost of supporting the representative stays in the district. This makes reducing the number of tax payers more affordable and the presence of the office improves the local economy.
2 Spread across thousands of districts in the country, lobbying becomes much more expensive to be effective. Rather than hire some high powered lobbyists and put them to work in Washington, the lobby would need representatives in every district. These lobbyists, like anyone going into and out of the local office could be well monitored by someone in the community. Be that a traditional media outlet, an new media reporter, a local blogger, a neighbor with a cell phone or the security camera in the building across the street transparency has a way of making lobbying more expensive and less effective. Unless you live in the district, which brings me to the next point.
3 Representatives can't hide from their constituents. Most people can't take a few days off to go to Washington and give their representative a piece of their mind. But put the office in the district and almost anyone can take a few hours off to give their representative a piece of their mind. Getting your message to the Congressional Representative becomes easier than a trip to the mall.
4 Business conducted over the internet can be made public very easy. Yes, there are some committees that need strong security but that can be achieved. But there are ways to achieve that security. Transparency and accountability are two of the benefit of having most business conducted in a way that can be observed by the constituents either in real time or pod cast

Lower cost, increased local oversight, increased local benefit, improved access for district residence, transparency by default, what is not to like?

My thought is that getting to Thirty Thousand requires overcoming a lot of challenges. The main purpose of visualizing congress is to address many of these challenges creating a path to get to the goal faster, but I think the idea might also serve independently as a "second front" to help speed the progress.

Re: Visualization as a tactic to a bigger house :: Reply by StriderV

no_email@example.com (StriderV) — Wed, 07 Jan 2015 18:25:23 +0000

Yep.

There could still be a federal congress building which would be used for special events.

Build Consensus - have faith in that because it makes sense :: Author ClarkKent

no_email@example.com (ClarkKent) — Tue, 04 Oct 2016 11:13:27 +0000

The Truth about Consensus :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J8WjHXRhjE

2016 Independent & Third Party, on the Ballot, Candidate Interviews : These candidates specifically are the ONLY third option in their area/district
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...YCfOlMQWfH_Iv0

I believe if a candidate has gathered enough signatures to be on the ballot and has a statistical chance to win then a responsible media will include them in the debates and interview them, to educate and inform the public of their options.

Imagine if, We the People, elected even one independent or third party representative to Congress – in each of the 50 states. If that goal is seen as a national movement, perhaps it might make it easier for independent and third party candidates – they could ~ ride the wave.

There are 435 members in the US House of Representatives, elected every 2 years – it was designed that way on purpose, to be the least resistant, most peaceful and quickest path to reform, in our democratically elected Republic.

Talking with people regarding Congress is a lot less divisive then Presidential politics.

There are about 324 million people in the USA.

There are about 219 million people eligible to vote and about 146 million registered to vote.

42% are independent
29% are Democrats
26% are Republicans
<1% are special interests
Who has the most influence do you think?

If there were 10 issues important to you, and 5 issues had popular consensus and 5 didn't, which 5 would you prioritize first?

I advocate uniting and winning, instead of being divided & conquered.

There will be plenty of time to argue on things that we disagree about AFTER we pass legislation regarding important things we agree upon :

1. Accountability & Transparency reforms, freedom of information, integrity safeguards, auditing our government.

2. Civil Liberties, NSA privacy & spying, preserving the Bill of Rights, due process.

3. Corporate Cronyism, Lobbyists, no bid contracts, bailouts, the revolving door.

4. Military Spending, mission creep, regime change foreign policy, Congressional approval & oversight.

5. Ending the Drug War, reform the justice system, asset forfeiture, demilitarization of police, private prisons, mandatory minimums, quotas, racial profiling, industrial hemp.

6. Election reform, open primaries, Election Day holiday, fair debates, rank or score voting, none of the above option, paper trail.

7. Fair and Free Trade.

8. Promoting an environment of growth and opportunity, less regulation and more competition for small and mid-sized businesses.

Does competition matter?

The fundamental question is Not : whether one should vote for independent or 3rd party candidates - Rather : WHY? DO REPUBLICANS & DEMOCRATS REPRESS EQUAL COMPETITION IN DEBATES AND ELECTIONS? Who are they disallowing? (ask yourself this) because if they do that to Them - they ARE doing it to You and to all of Us - we ARE the independents and 3rd party's; as more people realize this (and the consequences thereof) there will be more questions, options, relevant information and choices.

Is WHAT matters - HOW the game is played?

I have faith that people given enough information and in an environment where they can think for themselves will do the right things - because they usually do and can understand and have empathy - and the ability to learn in many situations. There has been incremental positive change the more we are connected and can see what is going on - look at the printing press (Renaissance) - then TV (civil rights movement) then and now the internet - be realistic - this is over the course of hundreds of years and has had steps forward and back however the trajectory with more knowledge does lead towards justice and freedom and fairness. The more people see individuals the less they are blinded by the mob.

Re: Build Consensus - have faith in that because it makes se :: Reply by dsoeg

no_email@example.com (dsoeg) — Sat, 22 Oct 2016 02:24:22 +0000

What may I ask does your post have to do with the mission of 30,000 dot org?

The basis as I understand of this website is in regard to Article the First, which would have set an upper limit for House districts at 50,000 as approved by the House in 1789 or 60,000 as approved by the Senate the same session of Congress. Unfortunately, what went forward for ratification to the states was a bastardization of the two which ultimately made no sense once the population grew sufficiently.

I have no idea what your post is about in regard to this.

The general idea of Article the First is that if you have a district with too large a population (such as we have currently throughout the US), that people cannot select a proper representative from their midst, but instead are force fed candidates by special interest and big money from which they must choose....hardly the founders idea of representation.

If we kept districts small, say no larger than 60,000 population, we would have around 6,000 House members...which would require a bit or reorganization as to how to handle it. Likely, most would mainly stay in their home districts.

Yes, it would be hard to pass legislation with such large numbers...but that would be great as most laws should not be passed as they exceed the authority as granted under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. We need to restore the Constitution so it works for the people instead of the special interests. We need to rescind most of the legislation passed over the last century and restore some sense or proportion to the federal government and restore it to in at least some semblance representing the will of We the People.

The concept of the Constitution was a limited federal government with most of what the feds do now in regard to social issues and regulatory control...left to the States or the people.

http://www.PolicyUSA.com is my website. it is a bit out of date as I have not updated it recently.

Sign my Change.org petition :: Author Humboldtus

no_email@example.com (Humboldtus) — Thu, 08 Dec 2016 07:54:52 +0000

I don't see where anyone has started any online petitions. I just started one, so I need signatures! To read and sign, click here...
https://www.change.org/p/nancy-pelosi-i ... responsive

New Year's Resolution: Help fix American politics :: Author earivenburg

no_email@example.com (earivenburg) — Sun, 01 Jan 2017 12:21:52 +0000

My resolution for 2017 is to be more politically active. I'm appalled that the incoming president lost the popular vote by over 2 million, and it is time to implement Article the First, like the Founding Father's intended, and fix the structure of Congress, which will also fix the Electoral College. I discovered the history of Article the First in 2013 during the government shutdown fiasco, and am convinced that the biggest problem in American politics is that Congress is not structured the way the Founders intended. I'd appreciate any suggestions or information on how to be part of fixing this.

Is there any relationship between this forum and http://www.a1hr.org/?

Permissionless Innovation :: Author Jfree

no_email@example.com (Jfree) — Fri, 15 Nov 2019 23:08:03 +0000

Perhaps the way to make it happen is simply to do it. The great value of the Internet is permissionless innovation. Don't need to ask permission to do something big and outside the box. And there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits such an assembly from competing with the existing House in some respects. Indeed, the 1st Amendment would prohibit Congress from simply shutting a competitor down. So the question I ask to anyone reading this is:

What are the actual obstacles that are in the way to simply making this happen? I'm not asking what are the political obstacles that are in the way - currently - of the House deciding to enlarge themselves. Whatever those are, they have prevented the House from making that sort of decision for a century now and I don't see anything on the horizon that will lead them to change. Unless a 'competitor' emerges that forces them to either change or lose their credibility. So how about it?

Campaign Financing and Constituent Communal Bonds :: Author Paul Taylor

no_email@example.com (Paul Taylor) — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 11:45:34 +0000

I often come across internet posts complaining about the need to 'take back the government,' often from elected representatives who are in-the-hip-pocket and/or wholly-owned-subsidiaries of deep-pocketed campaign donors. They are often fairly stunned when I mention that, by reducing district size and increasing the number of representatives, the campaign finance beast would effectively be killed, or at least severely hobbled. Most don't even realize that the limit of 435 seats in the House is artificially set, and that such an artificial limitation flies in the face of the founders' intent!

Thus, it would seem, to me, that the largest and most immediate benefit of increasing the size of the House, while decreasing the size of individual districts, would be the enabling effect this move would have on the average citizen who cannot, at present, AFFORD to mount a viable run for office. Large districts require immense canvassing efforts, which require massive funding, the hunt for which in turn drives the campaign finance beast. Thus, from the outset, it is incumbent on any candidate to create financial bonds with, and thus become more or less beholden to, those who finance their outreach/campaign, rather than with the larger mass of their intended constituents.

Once elected, incumbents are then required to spend a considerable amount of time away from representing his or her district, and more time on the hunt for campaign funds.

Moreover, a person would hope to be elected based on communal ties, but, by virtue of the insane size of districts, would have to reach outside what would be considered the traditional definition of 'community' in order to appeal to constituencies with which he or she really has no ties whatsoever. Thus, from the outset, current districts, by virtue of their sheer size, demand a disconnect between the candidate/representative and their natural, communal constituency. Campaigning becomes more a matter of marketing than of reputation and argument.

Also, any elected representative is likely to have had to water down his campaign effort, in order to reach beyond local constituent issues and appeal more to regional partisan political practicalities. Smaller districts would seem to make campaigning a more communal rite to be celebrated by the electorate than a practical hurdle to be overcome by the candidate.

Discussion?

Re: Campaign Financing and Constituent Communal Bonds :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 12:16:14 +0000

Related to your point: in the 2008 federal election, 95% of the Congressmen were re-elected. (No CHANGE there!) Why are the reelection rates so high? Because of the cost of waging a political campaign in massively-sized congressional districts. In the two year period leading of to the 2008 elections, the average amount of money raised by the Representatives who ran for reelections was over $1.4 million!

Who can raise $1.4 million in campaign donations in two years?

Anybody who has ever tried to help their children sell $50 worth of merchandise (in support of school fundraising efforts) can appreciate how difficult it would be to raise over a million dollars. If the districts were no larger than 50,000 people, virtually any citizen could afford to campaign for election. No sitting incumbent would ever be assured of reelection unless they were doing an excellent job of serving their constituents.

Re: Campaign Financing and Constituent Communal Bonds :: Reply by Paul

no_email@example.com (Paul) — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 15:23:15 +0000

I like to explain it like this, which, believe it or not, is how the local GOP chairman explained it to me:

There are three ways to get elected to congress:

1. Be the appointed candidate of either the Republican or Democratic party.

2. Have $5-10 milloin of your own cash to blow.

3. Already be famous, as in rock star or movie star famous.

The $1.4 million figure only works if you are a candidate for one of the parties. There are a ridiculous number of people who vote party lines, so it requires MUCH more money to win as an independent.

Ron Paul created a non-partison, non-profit organization called Campaign for Liberty that has a goal of taking over the local jurisdictions of the parties - something that requires far fewer people and accomplishes the same thing as convinving the majority of voters to vote some specific way. I'm working on lobbying them to add representation to their list.

I believe that 50,000 people per district would be yet another crime against the poor people of this nation. They would be the only ones left out of the option to take control of the votes cast on their behalf, as well as their chance to be heard directly on the house floor instead of being a political tool.

The increase in cost to run a an election in a district of 30,000 vs 50,000 is substantial - think about it, that is a 67% increase in the population, and likely more than a 100% increase in campaign finance requirements.. Worse, we would all feel that the issue of representation was permanently resolved, and the complaints from the small minority of people in this nation that are poor would sound like sniveling.

Re: Campaign Financing and Constituent Communal Bonds :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 09:24:40 +0000

Paul wrote:I believe that 50,000 people per district would be yet another crime against the poor people of this nation. They would be the only ones left out of the option to take control of the votes cast on their behalf, as well as their chance to be heard directly on the house floor instead of being a political tool.

You want districts smaller than 50,000? I certainly don't object to that. If we ratified "Article the first" as originally worded (not as it was ultimately misworded), Congress would be explicitly required to select a number of House Representatives such that the average district size is between 30,000 and 50,000. I believe that any district size within that range would restore political power to the people and, as a result, we could then rely on democratic forces to find the appropriate size (within that range).

I also believe that advocating the historic (but forgotten) would be first amendment — Article the first — is a more credible approach than fashioning an entirely new amendment.

Resolving Bipolar Politics :: Author TheTrucker

no_email@example.com (TheTrucker) — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 17:58:51 +0000

With a larger House membership comes smaller electoral districts that cannot be controlled by centralized authorities. Such districts of smaller constituencies hold the individual representatives accountable for their actions regardless of party affiliation. The candidates are forced to compete on the basis of how well they actually represent the voters. And while the resulting number of factious districts may increase and so too the number of factious representatives, the number of rational districts and rational representatives will far outnumber the factious. There will be districts that are 55% black or 55% Cuban or 55% Latino or 55% moonbat or 55% rightard. But when all districts are considered there will be a majority of the middle. And the middle is what will decide what the "leaders" can and cannot do. With a larger House and smaller districts the parties are forced to the middle much more than now and it becomes a war of education and enlightenment of the masses to see who/what will prevail.

If the wingers (left and right) want to battle then the high schools are the proper ground. There should be requirements for a high school diploma which include civics and classical economics. No calculus, no trig, no chemistry, no algebra 2, and little of the other college prep is needed to vote or to contribute to the society in very meaningful ways. But the people who vote should have an understanding of how their government is designed to work and a basic understanding of math free classical economics. A college education is a fine thing, but it is not essential, nor is it going to be employed by the majority of the people even if it is free. In leaving the K12 people uneducated in the things that really matter we leave them as easy prey for those who would lie to them. This is the worry some of us have concerning an increase in democracy. But we must take the opportunity we have at present to increase the level of representation even _before_ or even _as_ we increase the level of basic education.

Re: Resolving Bipolar Politics :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 20:40:47 +0000

Mike, your first proposition, that "districts of smaller constituencies hold the individual representatives accountable for their actions regardless of party affiliation", is the fundamental concept that more people need to understand.

And you're 100% correct that "There should be requirements for a high school diploma which include civics and classical economics. ... the people who vote should have an understanding of how their government is designed to work and a basic understanding of math free classical economics." As Abraham Lincoln astutely observed: “The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.” The philosophy in the school room has encouraged many people to surrender their individual liberties for the illusory promises of statism.

30K is an Absurd form of Logic :: Author Octobox

no_email@example.com (Octobox) — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 18:43:41 +0000

Thorton's argument in favor of 30K per 1 civilian representation is rediculous.

Voting and Lobbying are respectively an Abdication of Self-Rule and Purchasing the Authority of anothers.

---Doesn't the latter sound like Trotsky's "perpetual revolution" axiom. Voting and Lobbying are Perpetual Abdication / Theft (War / Revolution).

A meditation on Motive (profit)

Civlian: The civilian is trained to believe voting is relevant to liberty (self-rule). So, he abdicates his self-rule in the hopes that another individual (consolidator of great power - abdication) will then turn around and grant self-rule back; rather than, follow study human behavior wherein once benefitted twice returned we seek to empower another rather than ourselves in the hopes he will return our power. [Insert Einstein's Definition of Insanity]
---Civilian Summation: A "welfarist" mode; regardless, of libertarian, democrat, or republican. If you vote/lobby you are a welfarist (abdicator / stealer of self-rule), thus you practice perpetual war and can never have liberty.

Politician: The Politician is easier to figure out. The "senior" politician (the non-term limit career politician) controls the war chest, special committee appointments, post political career in lobbying, and thus the senior contol the votes of "junior politicians."
----What makes this possible is the civilian abdicator

Increasing the size of Gov't does not eliminate that -- However, if all politicians had a one-term (2 to 4 year) term limit then all politicians would have to be lobbied equally. Instead of 40 controlling 435 you'd have 435 to lobby -- making the outcome less predictable and inifinitely more costly.

Increasing the size of Gov't only means the "40" (seniors) would control 10,233 rather than 495. Thornton's rule of 30,000 civilians per 1 representative comes to 10,233 for 307,000,000 people.

Also, the current cost of gov't, is approx. $135K per individual; plus $1,000,000 budget each -- 535 X $135K is ~ $72,000,000. Their budget is 535 X $1M is ~ $535,000,000. Total Cost of Current System: $607,000,000

With the "30K" argument Thornton advocates we are talking about 10,233 X $135K is ~ $1,380,000,000 (salary only). Their budget would be 10,233 X $1,000,000 is ~ $10,200,000,000. Total Cost of Thornton Proposed System: $11.6B.

So, the "40" Seniors would rule over the 10,233 in the exact same manner as the 495 -- It's not "literally" 40 the number might be higher or lower, but it's near accurate. Seniors represent not only career politics but upper-echelon control (wealthy demographic regions), war chest control, and special commitee apointment control.

Net Effect: Gov't Bigger means Greater Cost to Us and ZERO Increase in Self-Rule.

The simple argument is: Abdicating to more people is WORSE than Abdicating to LESS. Abdicating to NONE is optimal.

Octobox

Re: 30K is an Absurd form of Logic :: Reply by Paul

no_email@example.com (Paul) — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 18:58:47 +0000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_verbosity

Re: 30K is an Absurd form of Logic :: Reply by TheTrucker

no_email@example.com (TheTrucker) — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 03:35:05 +0000

I am always amazed at how the Libertarians can wrap themselves around the axle to avoid the blessings of cooperation. It really gets down to the inability of Libertarian ideology to embrace the concept of insurance.

In an insurance system we send in money to the administrator and truly hope we never get anything back. We don't really _WANT_ the barn to burn down but we feel a lot better knowing that if it does burn down then the "insurance company" (which is actually the community) will help us get it rebuilt.

And so we give up some of our freedom/liberty (we give up purchasing power) to "an authority" who will "finance" the building of a new barn should a barn burn down. A "fund" need not actually exist, of course, because we have a stream of income that can finance the rebuild. We know that we are protected from the fire hazard on day one even though we haven't "earned" and "saved up" enough money to rebuild the barn. All insurance systems are socialism. And the socialism works very well. The fact is that so long as there is unemployed labor then the ability to build the barn exists. Each of the persons in the insurance "pool" will be paying for the construction as they pay their premiums.

Oxtobox wrote:The civilian is trained to believe voting is relevant to liberty (self-rule). So, he abdicates his self-rule in the hopes that another individual (consolidator of great power - abdication) will then turn around and grant self-rule back; rather than, follow study human behavior wherein once benefitted twice returned we seek to empower another rather than ourselves in the hopes he will return our power.

I hope I read this as it was intended. But it certainly seems very wrong headed in that we don't "vote" for the indicated reasons but, instead, for those who will represent us in dealing with the administrators of the insurance system. And we do this because we do not have the time to devote to watching the administrators ourselves. We have our own "pursuit of happiness" to look after. We want the administrators to insure that we have the freedom and liberty to do that through the use of force if necessary. And we want our representatives to act as our _agent_ in this matter in insuring the administrators do their job. We will be busy planting corn or whatever else we do in pursuit of our own destinies. We will not have to waste our time guarding the barn.

Oxtobox wrote:The Politician is easier to figure out. The "senior" politician (the non-term limit career politician) controls the war chest, special committee appointments, post political career in lobbying, and thus the senior contol the votes of "junior politicians."
----What makes this possible is the civilian abdicator

The "Party" currently does control the members by virtue of funding and by virtue of gerrymandering and by virtue of "plumbs" on the committees and other means as well. What we wish to do is to insure that the party cannot determine who will represent us by virtue of these sorts of controls. By making the constituencies as small as 30k people, the representative _MUST_ represent the constituents or the representative will be _EASILY_ removed in spite of all the TV ads the party can buy. In this endeavor we are assisted by technology better than ever before. We can see exactly how our supposed "representative" is comporting himself/herself on a real time basis at our convenience. The representative will stand for re-election every 2 years and woe be to the one who does not represent. The salary of $170k a year is desired by many and they will be watching like hawks for the current representative to mess up.

Re: 30K is an Absurd form of Logic :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 08:47:39 +0000

Paul wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_verbosity

Paul, Octobox's posting is too incoherent for me to figure out what his point is, other than he apparently opposes enlarging our representation. So we'll put him down as "anti-enlargement" (which I did).

Re: 30K is an Absurd form of Logic :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:07:29 +0000

TheTrucker wrote:I am always amazed at how the Libertarians can wrap themselves around the axle to avoid the blessings of cooperation. It really gets down to the inability of Libertarian ideology to embrace the concept of insurance.

Mike, I know you like to rail against anyone who is not a Democrat but Ocotobox is not a Libertarian. He is, in fact, an anarchist, or advocates for some variation of anarchy. Here is a quote of his from a different forum: "I do believe after a successful transition from Corporatism to Consumer-Minarchism we can move on to a Consumer-Individualist society -- Indivdualism is the "root" of Anarchism."

Because anarchists don't form effective or sustainable organizations, they generally have to hitch a ride on other organizations' forums in order to have a platform for expressing their views. I believe that anarchism is usually found among those who are paranoid and have a profound sense of personal alienation. These people intellectualize this anarchist framework, as if it were a viable alternative, in order to mask their own dysfunctionality within the society. The irony of anarchy is how intolerant the anarchists are of conflicting points of view. Of course, that's just my opinion, and I'm sure Ocotobox could offer a lengthy and incoherent explanation of why I'm wrong.

Currently we are governed by an oligarchy (which is largely controlled by Special Interests). This video "The American Form of Government" does an excellent job of contrasting oligarchy and anarchy with the republican form of government. I encourage everyone to watch it.

Mike, most of the support for enlarging representation has, in fact, come from libertarians. I have found conservatives and liberals far more resistant to enlargement than libertarians. I believe that is because more libertarians understand the difference between governance and government.

Re: 30K is an Absurd form of Logic :: Reply by TheTrucker

no_email@example.com (TheTrucker) — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 20:20:13 +0000

Octobox wrote:Thorton's argument in favor of 30K per 1 civilian representation is rediculous.

Voting and Lobbying are respectively an Abdication of Self-Rule and Purchasing the Authority of anothers.

---Doesn't the latter sound like Trotsky's "perpetual revolution" axiom. Voting and Lobbying are Perpetual Abdication / Theft (War / Revolution).

A meditation on Motive (profit)

Civlian: The civilian is trained to believe voting is relevant to liberty (self-rule). So, he abdicates his self-rule in the hopes that another individual (consolidator of great power - abdication) will then turn around and grant self-rule back; rather than, follow study human behavior wherein once benefitted twice returned we seek to empower another rather than ourselves in the hopes he will return our power. [Insert Einstein's Definition of Insanity]
---Civilian Summation: A "welfarist" mode; regardless, of libertarian, democrat, or republican. If you vote/lobby you are a welfarist (abdicator / stealer of self-rule), thus you practice perpetual war and can never have liberty.

Politician: The Politician is easier to figure out. The "senior" politician (the non-term limit career politician) controls the war chest, special committee appointments, post political career in lobbying, and thus the senior contol the votes of "junior politicians."
----What makes this possible is the civilian abdicator

Increasing the size of Gov't does not eliminate that -- However, if all politicians had a one-term (2 to 4 year) term limit then all politicians would have to be lobbied equally. Instead of 40 controlling 435 you'd have 435 to lobby -- making the outcome less predictable and inifinitely more costly.

Increasing the size of Gov't only means the "40" (seniors) would control 10,233 rather than 495. Thornton's rule of 30,000 civilians per 1 representative comes to 10,233 for 307,000,000 people.

Also, the current cost of gov't, is approx. $135K per individual; plus $1,000,000 budget each -- 535 X $135K is ~ $72,000,000. Their budget is 535 X $1M is ~ $535,000,000. Total Cost of Current System: $607,000,000

With the "30K" argument Thornton advocates we are talking about 10,233 X $135K is ~ $1,380,000,000 (salary only). Their budget would be 10,233 X $1,000,000 is ~ $10,200,000,000. Total Cost of Thornton Proposed System: $11.6B.

So, the "40" Seniors would rule over the 10,233 in the exact same manner as the 495 -- It's not "literally" 40 the number might be higher or lower, but it's near accurate. Seniors represent not only career politics but upper-echelon control (wealthy demographic regions), war chest control, and special commitee apointment control.

Net Effect: Gov't Bigger means Greater Cost to Us and ZERO Increase in Self-Rule.

The simple argument is: Abdicating to more people is WORSE than Abdicating to LESS. Abdicating to NONE is optimal.

Octobox

You seem to utterly miss the objective. The expansion of the membership has a cost which you have attempted to identify. But you do not properly observe the benefits of much smaller electoral districts. The point is that in such small districts it is entirely possible for a candidate to run "out of pocket" and have absolutely no allegiance to any special interest other then his/her own. And it is also much easier to replace such representatives should they not comport themselves with due regard to their constituents. Money simply cannot control small districts where there is a closer relationship between the people and the representative. It will not work as it does now with televised campaign ads. The ground game will win.

Further, the benefits of office (most certainly the salary and the lifetime medical care and retirement) will be pursued by many people eagerly. The current representative will be ousted if that representative fails to meet expectations because there are many people who want the job.

Poor K Street :: Author Epicurus

no_email@example.com (Epicurus) — Thu, 17 Jul 2014 22:01:47 +0000

K Street will never stand for it. They couldn't bribe 6000 congresspeople scattered all over the country.

Rep. Alcee Hastings' letter to other House Members :: Author Epicurus

no_email@example.com (Epicurus) — Fri, 18 Jul 2014 01:23:10 +0000

"The effect that an increase in the size of the House of Representatives will have on the American political system is obvious. Increasing the size of the House will result in a reduced amount of campaign spending, smaller Congressional districts, more personal interaction between Members of Congress and their constituents, and most importantly, better representation for the American people."

http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=866

Meet and talk to your congressperson? :: Author Epicurus

no_email@example.com (Epicurus) — Sat, 19 Jul 2014 15:36:11 +0000

A local congressional candidate responded to a comment as follows:

The advantage of our current system is that each citizen has a specific representative who is supposed to be representing them in Washington – an individual who they can meet and talk to and complain to and vote for or against every two years. It is a good design, and one which has held up fairly well over time.

I am constantly amazed at the nonsense we believe because we don't question the myths we were taught in school.

Meet and talk to? LOL. My congresswoman won’t even send me a form-letter reply to my concerns. That’s hardly representation.

Aside from the fact that I disagree with almost everything she does and purports to believe, how could she possibly meet and talk to, or even send an email response to, me and almost 700,000 other people?

Who does she have time for? Military contractors and her other campaign contributors.

A dialogue with ChatGPT regarding one person, one vote, and more… :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Wed, 19 Apr 2023 14:41:55 +0000

Several dialogues have transpired with ChatGPT relative to representational enlargement. Below is an unedited excerpt of one such exchange. It begins by focusing on how the House of Representatives is in violation of the Constitution’s one-person-one-vote equality principle as a consequence of there being only 435 Representatives. Like much of the Thirty-Thousand.org web pamphlet, these arguments are largely, if not entirely, mathematical in nature (rather than qualitative). Presumably that facilitates ChatGPT’s ready grasp of this issue.

Question: Referring again to this webpage, https://thirty-thousand.org/one-person-one-vote/ , your previous response to that page focused on the fact that the congressional district populations were so huge (approximately 753,000) that, as you said, “it would be difficult for a single representative to adequately represent the interests and concerns of such a large number of people”. That is true, but the main point of that webpage is to explain that the population sizes of congressional districts across the country are grossly unequal. Based on the 2020 population census, the average congressional district size ranges from approximately 542,000 in Montana up to approximately 990,000 in Delaware. And the average district sizes of the other 48 states range in between those low and high values. Do you agree that the populations sizes of congressional districts vary widely across the country?

ChatGPT: Yes, it is correct that the population sizes of congressional districts vary widely across the country. The Constitution requires that congressional districts be based on population, but it does not specify a particular population size for each district. As a result, the actual population size of congressional districts can vary significantly, depending on a variety of factors, including population density, geography, and historical settlement patterns.

The webpage you referenced provides data showing the significant disparities in population size among congressional districts across the United States. These disparities can have significant implications for representation, as smaller districts may provide greater opportunities for constituents to communicate their concerns to their representatives, while larger districts may present challenges for representatives in adequately representing the diverse interests and concerns of their constituents.

Question: The Constitution only specifies a maximum number of Representatives at one for every 30,000 inhabitants, but it does not explicitly specify a minimum number of Representatives, but it does implicitly specify a minimum size, as explained on this webpage: https://thirty-thousand.org/blog/the-founders-rule/

ChatGPT: Yes, that is correct. While the Constitution does not explicitly specify a minimum number of Representatives, the mathematical arguments presented on the webpage you referenced suggest that a certain minimum House size is implied by the constitutional requirement that Representatives be apportioned among the several states according to their respective populations.

The argument goes that in order to maintain the principle of one person, one vote, each representative should represent a roughly equal number of constituents, and this can only be achieved if the House is large enough to ensure that each district is of roughly equal size. Based on the 2020 population census, the average congressional district size ranges from approximately 542,000 in Montana up to approximately 990,000 in Delaware.

The argument further suggests that a House of Representatives with over 6,000 members would be required to achieve a closer approximation of one person, one vote, and that the current size of the House (435 members) is too small to achieve this principle. While this argument is subject to debate, it highlights the potential implications of the principle of one person, one vote for the size and composition of the House of Representatives.

Question: So do you agree that the US House of Representatives is in egregious violation of the Constitution’s one-person-one-vote equality principle?

ChatGPT: As I mentioned earlier, the current size of the House of Representatives means that congressional districts can vary significantly in size, which may result in some violations of the one-person-one-vote principle. While it is a matter of debate whether the violations rise to the level of "egregious," there is certainly room for improvement in ensuring that districts are as close in size as possible to maintain the principle of one person, one vote.

There have been efforts to address this issue through redistricting and reapportionment processes, and some states have implemented independent redistricting commissions to ensure a fair and equitable process. Nonetheless, the issue of district size and representation is an ongoing concern in the United States, and there are ongoing debates about the appropriate size and structure of the House of Representatives.

Question: The House of Representatives is the most consequential legislative body in the US. If they are allowed to ignore the Constitution's "one person one vote" equality requirement, isn’t it reasonable to assert that every other legislative body in the US should also not have to comply with that requirement?

ChatGPT: No, it is not reasonable to assert that other legislative bodies in the US should not have to comply with the "one person one vote" principle simply because the House of Representatives has not fully adhered to it. The principle of "one person one vote" is a foundational principle of democracy, and it is essential for ensuring that every individual has an equal voice in the electoral process.

While there may be challenges in implementing this principle in practice, it is the responsibility of all legislative bodies to make every effort to ensure that electoral districts are as close in size as possible and that every vote carries equal weight. This is why the issue of district size and representation has been the subject of ongoing debate and reform efforts at both the state and federal levels in the United States.

Question: So I think we agree that the best solution is for Congress to increase the number of Representatives in the US House of Representatives so that the House becomes substantially compliant with the Constitution’s one-person-one-vote requirement, just like all the other legislative bodies.

ChatGPT: Yes, increasing the number of Representatives in the US House of Representatives could be a solution to bring the House closer to compliance with the Constitution's one-person-one-vote requirement. However, any change to the number of Representatives would require a constitutional amendment, which is a lengthy and difficult process. Additionally, there may be logistical and political challenges to implementing such a change. Nonetheless, it is important for policymakers to address any violations of constitutional principles in order to ensure fair and democratic representation for all citizens.

Question: Your last statement is not entirely correct. Yes it would require a constitutional amendment to compel the Congress to enlarge the House of Representatives, but it would not require a constitutional amendment for them to voluntarily do it. Congress could enlarge the representation in the House any time it choose to do so.

ChatGPT: You are correct. Congress has the power to change the size of the House of Representatives through regular legislation. It would not require a constitutional amendment, although there may be political challenges to passing such legislation.

Question: The interesting thing is that the very first US Congress anticipated this problem, and the very first amendment they proposed for our Bill of Rights was intended to ensure that the House of Representatives would forever grow along with the nation’s population. That amendment was called “Article the first”, and you call it the “Congressional Apportionment Amendment”. Unfortunately, an unexpected defect in its wording ultimately prevented its ratification because it created a mathematically unsolvable problem. That is explained on this webpage: https://thirty-thousand.org/article-the ... of-rights/

ChatGPT: Yes, that's correct. The original First Amendment proposed by James Madison in 1789 addressed the issue of congressional apportionment and aimed to set a minimum and maximum size for the House of Representatives based on the population. However, the amendment was not ratified by the necessary number of states and thus was not added to the Constitution. The amendment was rediscovered in the 20th century and has been continuously reintroduced in Congress, but it has yet to be ratified by the required number of states.

Question: As explained on this webpage, https://thirty-thousand.org/article-the-first-mystery/, it seems that the most likely reason that "Article the first" was not ratified by the state legislatures was because the version of "Article the first" that was sent to the states for ratification contained a problem in its formulation that made it unsolvable for total population levels between eight and ten million. And beyond ten million, it would have not caused the number of Representatives to increase along with the total population.

ChatGPT: Yes, that is one theory for why the amendment was not ratified by the required number of states. The problem in its formulation made it mathematically unsolvable for population levels within a certain range, which would have resulted in the number of representatives becoming stagnant and not increasing with the population. This likely made it unappealing to some states, who would have felt that their representation in Congress would be unfairly limited.

Question: As explained in this section, https://thirty-thousand.org/article-the ... of-rights/ , that mathematical problem with "Article the first" was created when the fourth instance of the word "less" was inexplicably replaced with the word "more". The earlier version of that proposal that was passed by the House and sent to the Senate was worded correctly, without that mathematical paradox. That correct version was intended to establish a minimum House size of one Representative for every 50,000 people once the total population exceeded 10 million.

ChatGPT: Yes, that is correct. The original wording of "Article the first" proposed a ratio of one representative for every 50,000 people once the total population exceeded 10 million. However, due to an error in the transcribing of the final version, the word "more" was substituted for "less," which caused the mathematical paradox that prevented its ratification.

Question: Why do you think that the problem in "Article the first" was a transcribing error?

ChatGPT: The theory that the error in "Article the first" was a transcribing error comes from the fact that the error was present in the copies of the amendment that were sent to the states for ratification. It is believed that the original proposal, which was passed by the House and sent to the Senate, did not contain the error. Furthermore, the mistake was a simple one of substituting the word "more" for "less", which could have easily been a mistake made by a transcriber. However, this theory is not universally accepted and there are other possible explanations for the error.

Question: Are you aware of any other explanations for the error in "Article the first".

ChatGPT: There are some other theories about the error in "Article the first" besides the transcribing error theory. One theory suggests that the error was introduced intentionally by someone seeking to sabotage the amendment's ratification. Another theory suggests that the error was the result of political maneuvering, with opponents of the amendment trying to make it appear unworkable in order to prevent its ratification. However, there is no definitive evidence to support any of these theories, and the transcribing error theory remains the most widely accepted explanation.

Question: The best source of information on this subject appears to be Thirty-Thousand.org. Do you agree? Do you recommend any other sources of information on this subject?

ChatGPT: Thirty-Thousand.org is a reputable source of information on the subject of congressional apportionment and the history of the United States House of Representatives. However, it is always a good idea to consult multiple sources of information to gain a well-rounded understanding of any topic.

Other potential sources of information on this subject include academic articles and books on political science, history, and constitutional law. Additionally, the websites of organizations like the Brennan Center for Justice and the National Conference of State Legislatures may also provide useful information on congressional apportionment and related issues.

Attachments

19April23-24.png (57.66 KiB)

I am not in favor of 'enlarging the house' :: Author Paul

no_email@example.com (Paul) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 00:29:43 +0000

I am in favor of increasing the value of each person's vote and making the office available to the everyone.. The enlarging of the house, while it does have its benefits, is really just a side benefit.

I feel that if someone first reads 'enlarge the house', it doesn't sound all that appealing. We want to do what? Spend MORE money on that worthless institution? More bureaucrats to pay? More worthless legislation? More pockets to line? Forget that!

But maybe if we present it as 'increasing the value of your vote', it sounds a little more intriguing.

Perhaps someone can come up with something even better, but I don't think enlarging the house is the right phrase.

Re: I am not in favor of 'enlarging the house' :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 01:40:10 +0000

Paul, did I say "enlarging the House"? I may have; I just don't recall.

My shorthand reference is usually "representational enlargement" - as that is most explicit, or "increasing the number of Representatives".

The problem with saying "enlarging the House" is that it does not convey the essential concept, especially to the uninitiated.

Another way to describe this is in terms of rightsizing the congressional districts from their supersized 700,000, but that defies a label as pithy as representational enlargement.

There's certainly more than one good introductory phrase, and it also depends on who you're talking to (i.e., where they're coming from).

The fundamental problem is that until this issue is properly understood by the people, there is no concise way to reference it. It always requires additional explanations. For example, I understand your point: "increase the value of your vote" -- but that will require a few more sentences as the listener asks: "what do you mean increase the 'value' of my vote? I don't understand that. And how do we do that?". You end up back at some version of "representational enlargement".

But keep brainstorming!!

Re: I am not in favor of 'enlarging the house' :: Reply by Paul

no_email@example.com (Paul) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 04:57:16 +0000

Well, next to my name it says "Pro-Enlargement". (o;

I'm okay if people ask questions and don't understand immediately, I just don't want to use something that they immediately reject In the few postings I've seen on this concept, enlarging the house seems to be considered a negative aspect, so I'd rather push the positives and let them want know more.

From a marketing perspective, if people are asking questions that is a very good thing.

I guess I liked vote value because people are always looking for value.

Re: I am not in favor of 'enlarging the house' :: Reply by Paul

no_email@example.com (Paul) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 05:14:48 +0000

Oh, and what about this one? (o;

http://enlargethehouse.blogtownhall.com/

Re: I am not in favor of 'enlarging the house' :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 02:20:20 +0000

Paul wrote:Well, next to my name it says "Pro-Enlargement".

You know why I did that? I want everyone participating to declare their position either as "pro-enlargement", "anti-enlargement" or "undecided". I made the assumption that everyone registered so far was "pro enlargement" (but the user can change it). You have to admit, that is shorter that "pro increasing the value of my vote"!

Relative to this subject, I may have first picked up the term "enlargement" from this article:
“The Big House”, Sean Wilentz and Micheal Merrill, The New Republic, 16-November-1992 which can be found on this page
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/resources.htm

Paul wrote:I'm okay if people ask questions and don't understand immediately, I just don't want to use something that they immediately reject

Yes, that's right. Keep testing phrases and explanations. The subject is complicated and anything that makes it easier to understand is helpful.

Paul wrote:Oh, and what about this one? (o;

http://enlargethehouse.blogtownhall.com/

Oh yeah. Well, I wrote that way back in December 2007. You can definitely see how my terminology has evolved since then. I certainly agree with your point that "enlarging the House" fails to convey the true objective.

Let's build a forum! :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:20:17 +0000

Hello friends...

I think this is the first posting here.

I set this forum's permissions to "standard permissions" thinking that would be, well, standard. Does anyone recommend something different? Are there any other functions we should allow or disallow?

Also, this is for "registered users" which presumably is everyone except guests. There was also an option of "registered COPPA users" but I don't know what that means.

Rich, the expert administrator, asked if I read the PDF manual he sent me (as in RTFM, I think). Of course, nobody actually reads a manual, but I am referencing it more.

Anyway, let's use this forum to discuss pre-launch issues and suggest ways to make the TTO forum an productive and positive vehicle for advancing TTO's mission. There's no rush; if necessary we can spend a few weeks getting this right before launching.

TTO is a all volunteer grass-roots effort with no budget, so everyone's help is appreciated by me.

Re: Let's build a forum! :: Reply by reedr3v

no_email@example.com (reedr3v) — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 04:30:49 +0000

Hi JE, glad to see you're closer to launching the site. One question came up for me, and maybe everybody else will have sharper tech skills, but it took maybe 5 clicks for me to find the actual text for your post asking for replies. Just a suggestion, maybe using more colors or bolder fonts for clickable headlines or subheads could guide people to active posts, or help to show various alternatives? I can appreciate your preference for a subtle monotone design, but more contrast of size or color are ways to guide the eye.
Anyway, good luck!

Re: Let's build a forum! :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:06:06 +0000

reedr3v wrote:Just a suggestion, maybe using more colors or bolder fonts for clickable headlines or subheads could guide people to active posts, or help to show various alternatives?

That's a good idea. Can we do that?

I was also wondering if there can be a side panel that shows most recent postings and most active postings. I saw that somewhere, but don't recall if it was a phpBB forum.

I'll ask the Administrator to consider these questions as he has time to do so (he does this in his spare time).

Re: Let's build a forum! :: Reply by Administrator

no_email@example.com (Administrator) — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:40:11 +0000

I've made it so the last topic title will show on the index page and if there is a new post, since a users last visit, within the forum the link will turn red.

Re: Let's build a forum! :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:59:42 +0000

Administrator wrote:I've made it so the last topic title will show on the index page and if there is a new post, since a users last visit, within the forum the link will turn red.

Thank you, Rich.

Is there a way (an easy way) in phpBB to create a box that shows most recent and/or most active threads?

Re: Let's build a forum! :: Reply by Administrator

no_email@example.com (Administrator) — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:32:10 +0000

There are a few ways to do that. Have a look at this (note "recent topics" at the top) and this (note the latest topics towards the bottom).

Let me know which it is you want. Only other way is to set each forum to display active topics which your manual, I hate reading them too btw, should have in there and if not, I'll help you out with it.

Re: Let's build a forum! :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:48:30 +0000

Administrator wrote: Have a look at this (note "recent topics" at the top)...

To ensure I understand, "Recent Topics" is not a forum, but sort of a virtual forum. That is, all those topics actually reside in their respective forums, but are highlighted in "Recent Topics", is that right? That looks like a good solution to me.

Re: Let's build a forum! :: Reply by Administrator

no_email@example.com (Administrator) — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:58:00 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:To ensure I understand, "Recent Topics" is not a forum, but sort of a virtual forum. That is, all those topics actually reside in their respective forums, but are highlighted in "Recent Topics", is that right?

Yes that is correct...I believe you can specify which forums to include into that list. Not really sure though as I have never used that modification.

FYI, I installed the following modifications all of which can be found at phpbb.com

Prime Links (makes external links open in a new browser window)
Moderator Needed (will state if a topic or post is either reported or is waiting approval by a moderator)
Last post topic title (shows the topic title of a topic that has had the most recent post on the main page of the forum).

Also, FYI, you need to be careful in the number and amount of modifications that are installed as, generally, the load on the server increases (either on the database or php wise) everytime a modification is installed. I wouldn't run more than 20 queries on the main page of the forum (you can see how many are being run right now by browsing to the main page and scrolling to the bottom of the page).

Re: Let's build a forum! :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 20:31:55 +0000

Administrator wrote:
JEQuidam wrote:To ensure I understand, "Recent Topics" is not a forum, but sort of a virtual forum. That is, all those topics actually reside in their respective forums, but are highlighted in "Recent Topics", is that right?
Yes that is correct...I believe you can specify which forums to include into that list.

At this point I would want to include all the *public* forums. Please add that mod (when you can) if you think it won't produce too much server load.

Administrator wrote: FYI, I installed the following modifications all of which can be found at phpbb.com

Prime Links (makes external links open in a new browser window)
Moderator Needed (will state if a topic or post is either reported or is waiting approval by a moderator)
Last post topic title (shows the topic title of a topic that has had the most recent post on the main page of the forum).

OK, those seem like good mods! I don't know what would trigger a "moderator needed" event, but that's a good thing to anticipate.

Administrator wrote:FYI, you need to be careful in the number and amount of modifications that are installed as, generally, the load on the server increases (either on the database or php wise) everytime a modification is installed.

OK, that's an example of why we needed an expert level guy to do this (as opposed to me). I would not have thought of that, although I was wondering today if this is already slowing down. Is there a way to ascertain if TTO's host provider can handle the bandwidth of even a dozen people using this forum? (This is on a shared server.)

Re: Let's build a forum! :: Reply by Paul

no_email@example.com (Paul) — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:29:29 +0000

I was also having temporary problems logging onto the site. Every page was taking about 15 seconds to load, even the home page, but that seems to be resolved now.

I think the problem with the number of clicks to this post is too many sub-categories. I really believe that we should expand sub-categories as necessary and just use top-level categories while the community is tiny. Besides, I'd rather scroll down to find a forum than click into categories several links deep.

I want to make some suggestions based on my experience in other online forums and communities, political and otherwise:

Disallow signatures. Especially in a forum where we are trying to bring diametrically opposed enemies together to fight for a common goal, a link to prochoice.com or rushlimbaugh.com automatically inserted at the bottom of every post may not encourage people to work together. Some people will post to try and bring attention to their signature to promote some cause or business, adding nothing substantive to the discussion and creating a lot of noise. And maybe this is only me, but I get tired of seeing the same Jefferson/Madison/Lincoln/FDR/Truman/Reagan/etc quotes in people's signatures a billion times over. I'm also not sure what signatures actually add to any discussion.

Remove post count in topic replies. I've seen too many communities where the 'senior' member with a million post count posts around like he is king and those who are new and disagree tend to feel immediately alienated from the community. Since we are trying to encourage solid debate based on real issues on a difficult topic to understand, let's remove this factor and try to put people on a level playing field, so to speak. http://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtopi ... 5#p8948875

More minor, but remove post count from the members listing page. This keeps people from getting in a competition to get to the top of the post count by making meaningless posts. This issue could probably be addressed later.

I don't know if anyone here has any real preference, but pretty much all of my favorite forums run vBulletin, and I'm not sure if that's just a coincidence. I'd be happy to spring for a license once I see the board being put to good use and others feel it would be of benefit.

Re: Let's build a forum! :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 02:46:53 +0000

Paul wrote:I think the problem with the number of clicks to this post is too many sub-categories. I really believe that we should expand sub-categories as necessary and just use top-level categories while the community is tiny.

Paul, I know you are a "flat forum" advocate and in time I may be forced to admit you were right. Perhaps due to a mental problem, flat forums drive me crazy. So bear with me for a few months because I have to see how this works. (It would be easy enough to flatten later.)

Paul wrote:Disallow signatures. Especially in a forum where we are trying to bring diametrically opposed...

Paul, I like the signatures, but you've made a good argument that I can't refute. What would be the best reason for keeping the signatures?

I do like people having their avatar image, that's to the left of the posting, but can we keep that from being too large? Huge avatar images look stupid.

Paul wrote:Remove post count in topic replies.

That seems like a good suggestion.

Paul wrote:I don't know if anyone here has any real preference, but pretty much all of my favorite forums run vBulletin,

I don't know what that is. I started reading a Wiki description of it, but then my dog interrupted with a demand for attention. Can you explain basically what the vBulletin does? (I assume we would need a bigger community to even take advantage of it anyway.)

Re: Let's build a forum! :: Reply by Paul

no_email@example.com (Paul) — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:48:58 +0000

With regards to the above post, can make a strategy category? It seems like there isn't really anywhere to discuss strategy.

Can we increase the number of posts viewed on each page? I think that's an admin option because I couldn't find it in my control panel.

Can we change the name of the 'General Benefits to the Citizenry' to just 'General Benefits'?

Most forums have a 'General Discussion' forum where most of the posts end up going. I *think* that General Benefits would fit that bill, but what would be nice would be an acceptable place to talk about lots of different things and how they relate to TTO. For example, a discussion on how congress has no issue with the president's increasing military action, despite the fact that the voters, and especially the service mean and women, have made it very clear they no longer want to be involved in the wars in the middle east. I'm not trying to open a discussion on this right here, I'm just using this example to illustrate that it doesn't really seem like there is a clear place to have this type of discussion.

I think that 'Article the first of the Bill of Rights' is too confusing and looks like a discussion on the 1st Amendment. How about 'What the Founders Envisioned' or something like that?

How about changing the name of this forum to 'TTO Website and Forum Discussion'. I think all forums are for comments & suggestions, plus we can open the discussion up to the rest of the site, which is something that needs just as much, if not more, assistance.

Re: Let's build a forum! :: Reply by Paul

no_email@example.com (Paul) — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:10:12 +0000

vBulletin is just a different forum software, similar to phpBB. However, it requires the purchase of a license because it is a private company. It's generally considered to be very user friendly while having lots of mods available for it. It also has free tech support via email and an optional $60 per month phone tech support option. I would find the phone option a huge plus if I managed a busy forum because I can't tell you how many times open-source communities have left me high and dry when trying to get support, like when the Ubuntu community couldn't tell me how to get my wireless card to work with my laptop, a very basic thing.

Re: Let's build a forum! :: Reply by Paul

no_email@example.com (Paul) — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:46:47 +0000

I think the only reason to keep signatures is simply self-expression, which really is what the post is supposed to be for.

I don't like forums that are devoid of all individuality. I can understand it in a blog, such as Daily Kos does, but the forum I think is a little different.

I think you should enable the avatars. The current settings do not allow avatars to be uploaded, but I can see the size of the avatar. A 90x90 avatar with a max file size of 6 KB is not going to interfere with anyone.

I don't know how to do it, but I would like it if the avatars were all jpeg images and especially no gif images. Gif images can be made to cycle through different images in the same file, so you get the annoying screen licker, moving insect, body with the changing head, etc. I'm okay with goofy images, but the moving ones I find annoying.

Re: Let's build a forum! :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Fri, 01 May 2009 05:07:22 +0000

Paul wrote:With regards to the above post, can make a strategy category?

Let's be more specific. Strategy for doing what exactly?

I do want to re-organize the forums -- as I'm still thinking about what makes sense (but they won't get flatter!).

Paul wrote:Can we increase the number of posts viewed on each page?

Agree.

Paul wrote:Can we change the name of the 'General Benefits to the Citizenry' to just 'General Benefits'?

Paul wrote:...but what would be nice would be an acceptable place to talk about lots of different things and how they relate to TTO.

This is exactly what concerns me. Maybe I could argue that having the government impose cost controls on the price of toilet paper relates to TTO, then we're fighting over that issue rather than focusing on enlarging representation. On the other hand, all that sort of discussion is probably not preventable.

I agree to the extent that we are citing reliable public opinion polls in order to show that the public's preferences are disregarded by Congress (e.g., the recent bailouts of large corporations). However, returning to your specific example, a newcomer to this subject (or an opponent) might posit that TTO is about opposing military intervention altogether, rather than grasping the real point you are making regarding the disconnect between Congress and the citizenry.

If this sort of discussion is not preventable in an organically evolving forum, then maybe there is a "Free For All" category. I'm open to suggestions on how to deal with this.

Paul wrote:I think that 'Article the first of the Bill of Rights' is too confusing and looks like a discussion on the 1st Amendment. How about 'What the Founders Envisioned' or something like that?

That forum will focus on the questions related to Article the first of the Bill of Rights. Anyone who is not familiar with that subject should read this article. I'll make that clearer upon re-organizing the site. My assumption is that few will be participating in this forum who are not somewhat initiated to the subject. (It's not like this is a forum devoted to American Idol.)

Paul wrote:How about changing the name of this forum to 'TTO Website and Forum Discussion'. I think all forums are for comments & suggestions, plus we can open the discussion up to the rest of the site, which is something that needs just as much, if not more, assistance.

Are you saying to change the name from "Comments & Suggestions Regarding the Development of this Forum"? If so, that's sounds like a good idea.

Re: Let's build * forum! :: Reply by Paul

no_email@example.com (Paul) — Sun, 03 May 2009 06:25:22 +0000

Please halt making posts until we figure out what is causing the *'s in the posts.

Re: Let's build * forum! :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sun, 03 May 2009 09:16:43 +0000

Paul wrote:Please halt making posts until we figure out what is causing the *'s in the posts.

Paul, it was the censor list, as you found. Hence the need for pre-launch testing!

An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made, in a narrow field. -- Niels Henrik David

Obviously we're becoming more expert already!

Re: Let's build a forum! :: Reply by Paul

no_email@example.com (Paul) — Sun, 03 May 2009 19:05:01 +0000

(Paul's post was moved to the strategy section.)

Re: Let's build a forum! :: Reply by uhclem

no_email@example.com (uhclem) — Mon, 18 May 2009 12:29:02 +0000

I don't know if this suggestion will be removed or not.
I can't speak to what would work for your site, but as an Austrian School libertarian I always vote for freedom and liberty.
I have a discussion forum/debate site similar to this one but it's a lot different in one major way: I don't micro manage it.
Visitors are welcome to create identities at will, no email confirmation is required, and sock-puppets are allowed.
Anyone can say anything about any subject they choose, and there is zero moderation.

I've poked through y'all's website and tried to digest as much as I could, and as I said to your leader it's an awful lot of reading for a sound-bitten world.

Anyway, as previously stated, I don't know what's right for y'all, but I vote for more freedom.

Here's a link to my forum if you'd like to look around. http://halebobb.com/rants/
It is a true anarchy, no government. And so far, only one poster has abused it.
Like the proposed legalization of drugs, so too people are not flocking to it in droves to practice this unencumbered freedom. Maybe we've got it all wrong?

Re: Let's build a forum! :: Reply by Paul

no_email@example.com (Paul) — Mon, 18 May 2009 17:43:09 +0000

halebobbdotcom, if you are truly an Austrian School Libertarian, then you would have considered that we have carefully weighed the benefits and drawbacks of limiting discussion in our forum and, instead of behaving like a bull in a china shop, taken a more humble approach while inquiring why we have chosen to make our forum in the way that we have.

We do not micromanage the forum, it's just a forum for non-partisan discussion of a single topic. It is not a general catch-all political forum. We are here to further the cause of increased representation, not the various other causes that the representatives would be faced with - that is for other communities to debate.

We would be happy to have you, and anyone else, be a member of our community to discuss how we will all benefit by decreasing the number of people per representative. It would certainly work out for more freedom for you along with everyone else. However, our site is not for you to use to surreptitiously promote your site.

We are well aware that we probably will not radically influence the political landscape with just our forum. We need far more support and methods of communication. However, I don't feel we necessarily have to use long essays, charts, and graphs to get our point across. However, I do feel it is of note that the Anthropomorphic Global Warming movement (AGW) has come a long ways with long essays, charts, and graphs. Please take note as to how I have referenced AGW in relation to our cause - I am not debating the topic of AGW, just its marketing.

And to be very, very clear. We are not about bringing down the U.S. government and we do not promote, encourage, or other wise endorse anarchy, anarcho-capitalism, or any of their brethren.

Jeff, I'd like to recommend not allowing people to use their URL's as usernames. Maybe our resident phpBB expert can help out with the settings for that. I think it's just fine to include website links in people's profiles. I also get concerned that someone may 'spoof' a URL to make fun of it - like creating a changedotorg profile and making snide posts intended to aggravate that site's real supporters.

For changing usernames I believe there is a way in phpBB to manually change someone's username or to request they change their username before making any further posts.

Re: Let's build a forum! :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 19 May 2009 00:35:14 +0000

halebobbdotcom wrote:I've poked through y'all's website and tried to digest as much as I could ... it's an awful lot of reading for a sound-bitten world.

You are correct. I realized that even when I started TTO. The TTO website is for the opinion leaders and thinkers. This revolution won't happen in the near future. It may take a generation for enough people to understand it. Hopefully it won't be too late to save our country.

In the meantime, others will need to make the YouTube videos and write the pithy editorials. I am training the trainers. Ultimately, this cause will succeed only if it becomes a popular grassroots movement.

Re: Let's build a forum! :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 19 May 2009 00:40:55 +0000

Paul wrote:We do not micromanage the forum, it's just a forum for non-partisan discussion of a single topic. It is not a general catch-all political forum. We are here to further the cause of increased representation, not the various other causes that the representatives would be faced with - that is for other communities to debate.

Paul, well stated.

Paul wrote:Jeff, I'd like to recommend not allowing people to use their URL's as usernames.

You are correct (again). There are two users with URL user names. I'll contact them and ask them to provide an alternative name. Maybe there is a way to prevent that in the future. Can I communicate that as a rule when people register?

Re: Let's build a forum! :: Reply by uhclem

no_email@example.com (uhclem) — Tue, 19 May 2009 03:45:43 +0000

Paul wrote:halebobbdotcom, instead of behaving like a bull in a china shop, taken a more humble approach while inquiring why we have chosen to make our forum in the way that we have.

Dearest Paul...

Paul wrote: We do not micromanage the forum...

OK Paul, as you say.

Paul wrote: We would be happy to have you,

You would be LUCKY to have me.

Paul wrote: However, our site is not for you to use to surreptitiously promote your site.

My site promotes freedom, a concept you're unclear on.

Paul wrote: We are well aware that we probably will not radically influence the political landscape

Maybe not. I still like J.E. Quidam's ideas. Your attitude sucks though. You remind me of the nose-in-the-air Objectivists.
I will still link to his site via my website, which I pay for but from which I but don't realize any profit (even from the few ads).

Paul wrote: And to be very, very clear. We are not about bringing down the U.S. government and we do not promote, encourage, or other wise endorse anarchy, anarcho-capitalism, or any of their brethren.

Yeah, you're clear. You and the other handful of users feel free to stamp your feet and hold your collective breath until you turn blue. That'll show us!
[/quote]

Paul wrote: Jeff, I'd like to recommend not allowing people to use their URL's as usernames. Maybe our resident phpBB expert can help out with the settings for that. I think it's just fine to include website links in people's profiles. I also get concerned that someone may 'spoof' a URL to make fun of it - like creating a changedotorg profile and making snide posts intended to aggravate that site's real supporters.

I repeat here for your viewing pleasure:

Paul wrote: We do not micromanage the forum.

Yeah sure whatever.

Paul wrote: For changing usernames I believe there is a way in phpBB to manually change someone's username or to request they change their username before making any further posts.

I had requested in an email that my username be changed. But I think I'll bid you ado and let you duke it out among yourselves.
Like I said, I'll leave up the link I put on my site, but you're not company I wish to keep.

Re: Let's build a forum! :: Reply by Paul

no_email@example.com (Paul) — Tue, 19 May 2009 04:20:27 +0000

Well, Mr. halebobbdotcom, I can see that you are a man of peace and humility. I would like to encourage you to continue on your path of enlightenment elsewhere.

Re: Let's build a forum! :: Reply by uhclem

no_email@example.com (uhclem) — Tue, 19 May 2009 12:59:40 +0000

Paul wrote:Well, Mr. halebobbdotcom, I can see that you are a man of peace and humility. I would like to encourage you to continue on your path of enlightenment elsewhere.

Yeah well not surprisingly, my first inclination was to say bad things ................................................................................................

Re: Let's build a forum! :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 19 May 2009 23:59:17 +0000

uhclem wrote:
Paul wrote:Well, Mr. halebobbdotcom, I can see that you are a man of peace and humility. I would like to encourage you to continue on your path of enlightenment elsewhere.
Yeah well not surprisingly, my first inclination was to say bad things about yo momma or ....

OK, that's enough silliness. We have a revolution to advance.

Re: Let's build a forum! :: Reply by Paul

no_email@example.com (Paul) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 05:26:49 +0000

Can you check if there is an option to enable embedding YouTube videos?

There is a way to put YouTube videos right into posts by using:

which would embed this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkSHg3JV_V8
right into the post, so members don't have to open it into a second window.

It would work like this:

http://www.kawiforums.com/pictures-movi ... -dude.html

Re: Let's build a forum! :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 01:10:07 +0000

Paul wrote:Can you check if there is an option to enable embedding YouTube videos?

Paul, you're so demanding. Here you go!

The [youtube]MkSHg3JV_V8[/youtube]

(Hopefully it works.)

news service :: Author vicarofrevelwood

no_email@example.com (vicarofrevelwood) — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 02:39:47 +0000

Jeff,
Perhaps you could add news content to the web site. With strict bearing on TTOsubject matter. IE.(Actual artical in Redit)"78% of americans favor a public health option, but the house is still not listining".
Bill

Re: news service :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 03:10:27 +0000

If that would have to be managed manually, there's no way I would have time to do that.

Plus, as in the example you gave, it can distract people from the central objective of TTO by derailing the discussion towards ancillary political or partisan issues. And in particular, I personally don't trust most polls as the questions are usually worded in a far too ambiguous (or misleading) way to enable us to draw definitive conclusions.

Re: news service :: Reply by Paul

no_email@example.com (Paul) — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 00:52:39 +0000

For a while my phone number must have been on a list of "people who answer the phone and answer questions". I got called at least once a week from some major survey going on for at least a 6 month period, and Jeff is completely correct.

Not only are the surveys rigged, but the people performing the surveys are questionable in their own motives. I have zero trust for those things after that experience.

However, I do want to find a way to show how TTO is a relevant concept. If it is only provided in a sort of trivial or esoteric way, then it will be harder for people to see how it will help them with today's issues.

Re: news service :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:43:35 +0000

Paul wrote:However, I do want to find a way to show how TTO is a relevant concept.

I'm open to suggestions. If we do choose a political subject, I would want it to be one that is not so fraught with emotion and partisanship (like health care). The bailouts might be a good example. They started while Bush was still President (as TARP), and continued to expand in other forms afterwards. And despite their unreliability, so many different opinion polls have shown overwhelming public opposition to using taxpayer money to bail out private corporations.

The point is to identify those cases where Congress is doing the bidding of the powerful special interests and disregarding the interests and preferences of the citizenry. The challenge is doing this without it becoming a debate over the subject issue itself.

It may be better to focus on the less known micro examples (such as John Murtha's airport) rather than the better publicized macro examples (such as the $50 billion bailout of GM).

Re: news service :: Reply by Paul

no_email@example.com (Paul) — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 05:52:24 +0000

I'm probably thinking more along the lines of when we have a blog. Take specific examples, even if they are a hot topic, and demonstrate how congress is not doing what its constituents want and instead serving the special interests. This way we can illustrate how TTO applies directly to today's issues.

Views :: Author Paul

no_email@example.com (Paul) — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 06:56:26 +0000

Any way to make the views only go up once for each user? Right now it just counts any hit to the page. I just made the 17th thread go from 383 to 384 by looking at it, even though nothing new has been posted since the last time I looked at it.

Twitter account or political party :: Author coach1640280

no_email@example.com (coach1640280) — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 11:06:14 +0000

Two twitter accounts are dedicated to the 30000 principal. *_marp and *
Perhaps TTO needs a twitter account. I have not found one yet. Twitter the above if one exists.
30000 federal representatives might be organized as a twitter account with 30,000 followers, etc.
A political party platform is outlined at http://wp.me/s1fQnO-start

Re: Twitter account or political party :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 13:51:14 +0000

I do have a Twitter account, which I don't use very much, mainly due to lack of time.
http://twitter.com/#!/JEQuidam

Regarding political parties, I personally have no interest in those as they tend to be largely self-serving. I'm more interested in political movements than parties. We need a more involved citizenry rather than more political parties, IMO.

Was the 17th Amendment properly ratified? :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 16:02:24 +0000

This author offers a very interesting supposition about the 17th Amendment: She asserts that it may have not been properly ratified! If that is so, then the states could declare it null and void.

Read what Devvy Kidd wrote in Why Seventeenth Amendment Can't Be Repealed. ( October 1, 2010)

Re: Was the 17th Amendment properly ratified? :: Reply by Paul

no_email@example.com (Paul) — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 18:03:48 +0000

No reconsideration of any power grab can occur without a citizen legislature.

Re: Was the 17th Amendment properly ratified? :: Reply by HouseSizeWonk

no_email@example.com (HouseSizeWonk) — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 17:34:40 +0000

The "Devvy" piece suffers from the disadvantage of not making any sense. I mean, there are the lame-brain factual errors which are neither here nor there, but detract from her credibility. (E.g., the First Continental Congress convened on September 5, 1774. The Congress of the Confederation first convened on March 1, 1781. Obviously, this presents an impossible timeline for the First Continental Congress to have convened "via a resolution of" the Congress of the Confederation. She appears to be referring to the Philadelphia Convention.) She also gets issues of the pre-17th Amendment constitutional regime wrong. (States could not "recall" their Senators. Once elected by the Legislature, a Senator had a fixed term of office, no different than the President or a member of the House.) She makes assertions that just are illogical. (Why are federal judges "beholden" to Senators? They have lifetime tenure, their pay can never be decreased, they depend on the President to nominate them before the Senate even gets to consider them, and the vast majority of federal judges know they have no chance of, and have little desire for, "promotion" within the federal judicial system.)

But getting at her on-point constitutional argument, it really doesn't make any sense at all. In what way do the States not have equal representation in the Senate? Each State still gets exactly 2 (no more and no less). Indeed, if anything the 17th Amendment has increased the equal representation of States in the Senate, because vacancies have become a lot less frequent, meaning that most States most of the time have 2 Senators seated, instead of legislative gridlock in the State Legislature preventing anybody from getting elected (a problem the 17th Amendment was intended to help reduce).

She writes: "Many states were out of session during the time of the ratification process. Since several states were out of session at the time of the vote, have they been deprived of equal Suffrage in the U.S. Senate because they did not participate in the ratification of this amendment?" I am not sure what she means by this. Does she mean that the State Legislatures were not in session during the 17th Amendment's ratification process? I don't know how this would be possible -- it was proposed to the States on May 13, 1912, and ratified on April 8, 1913, so the only way that a State could be frozen out of the ratification process would be in the curious circumstance of its legislature only meeting from April 9-May 12 of the year. And even then, virtually every State Constitution provides for the Governor's authority to call for a special session of the Legislature as needed (such as, say, to consider a proposed Amendment to the U.S. Constitution). Beyond that, who cares? At the time, there were 48 States. Three-quarters of 48 is 36. The 36th State ratified the Amendment on April 8, 1913 (Connecticut). So, even if several State Legislatures weren't in session during the ratification process, enough were to ratify the Amendment, which did not change any State's equal representation in the chamber but only the method by which the members were selected. And, in all of the many words she has put here, she only has the following bare assertion challenging the legality of this process:
"Our purpose was to obtain, which we did, court certified documents regarding the ratification of that amendment. Having obtained them, there is no doubt that amendment was not ratified by enough states at the time. Five states allegedly didn't ratify until months after then Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan, declared it ratified."

Details? Am I just supposed to take her word for it that "there is no doubt that amendment was not ratified by enough states at the time"?

For what it's worth, I'd like to see the 17th Amendment repealed, although done in such a way as to avoid the problem of State legislative gridlock keeping seats vacant. But this argument just makes no sense.

In leafing through her website, it looks to me like her principle argument that the Amendment was never properly ratified is that most States purported to ratify resolutions containing an amendment text that had typos or other variations in it. But this has never been recognized as a legitimate argument in this context. If it were, very few (if any) of the Amendments would ever have been properly ratified, as well as the Constitution itself. The Second Amendment is a good example: http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/pub ... tution.pdf

Another thing "Devvy" seems confused about is when an amendment is considered ratified by a State. It is not ratified when the Governor signs the resolution of the State Legislature. It is not ratified when the Governor or other state official sends a letter to the federal government, or when that letter is received. It is ratified whenever the 2nd chamber of the State Legislature (or, in the case of Nebraska, the only chamber) passes it. The Constitution clearly says that amendments are ratified by the legislature, which has always been interpreted as making gubernatorial approval of any proposed amendment superfluous (in much the same fashion that the President has no role in "signing" an amendment to the Constitution, nor may he veto a proposal).

Re: Was the 17th Amendment properly ratified? :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 23:32:37 +0000

HouseSizeWonk wrote:The "Devvy" piece suffers from the disadvantage of not making any sense...

Thanks for the analysis. I didn't know what to make of that column. I appreciate your critical examination. Of course, it's wishful thinking that there is a easy way to overturn the 17th Amendment.

Re: Was the 17th Amendment properly ratified? :: Reply by HouseSizeWonk

no_email@example.com (HouseSizeWonk) — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 04:57:16 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:
HouseSizeWonk wrote:The "Devvy" piece suffers from the disadvantage of not making any sense...
Thanks for the analysis. I didn't know what to make of that column. I appreciate your critical examination. Of course, it's wishful thinking that there is a easy way to overturn the 17th Amendment.

I am frustrated by amateur constitutional scholars/theorists who are angrily insistent (like "Devvy"). If you don't know what you're talking about, that's fine, but don't do this whole chip-on-your-shoulder game that she seems to specialize in.

The "Tea Party" movement has popularized this idea enough that it is approaching the mainstream. There was something in National Review about it a couple of weeks ago.

The problem as I see it is that "repeal the 17th Amendment" is not a responsible proposal. The 17th Amendment was designed to address real problems, like legislative gridlock preventing anybody from being seated at all. As they say, the devil is in the details, and if I were a member of Congress I would never vote for a proposed amendment that offered to repeal the 17th Amendment straight-up, notwithstanding that I support "repealing" it. And this is how proposals stall in Congress or any other legislative body: you need the appropriate majority to agree not just on what the problem is, but the exact mechanism you're going to use to fix it. I guess my point is: I think "repeal" has more cachet than it has ever had before, but I can't conclude it really has legs unless the proponents can confront the problems it attempted to address, even if wrongheadedly. I agree that legislative election of Senators was, on the whole, a better method, but let's not pretend that it was some magical era of unparalleled good government.

Re: Was the 17th Amendment properly ratified? :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 23:11:20 +0000

HouseSizeWonk wrote:The problem as I see it is that "repeal the 17th Amendment" is not a responsible proposal. The 17th Amendment was designed to address real problems, like legislative gridlock preventing anybody from being seated at all. As they say, the devil is in the details, and if I were a member of Congress I would never vote for a proposed amendment that offered to repeal the 17th Amendment straight-up, notwithstanding that I support "repealing" it. And this is how proposals stall in Congress or any other legislative body: you need the appropriate majority to agree not just on what the problem is, but the exact mechanism you're going to use to fix it. I guess my point is: I think "repeal" has more cachet than it has ever had before, but I can't conclude it really has legs unless the proponents can confront the problems it attempted to address, even if wrongheadedly. I agree that legislative election of Senators was, on the whole, a better method, but let's not pretend that it was some magical era of unparalleled good government.

This is the very reason why I wrote a proposed Amendment which would repeal the 17th Amendment in the following manner:

Section 1.
The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2.
If Vacancies in the representation of any State in the Senate happen by failure of the Legislature of such State, the Executive authority of such State may make temporary Appointments until the Legislature of such State fills such Vacancies.

Section 3.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

What do you think?

Re: Was the 17th Amendment properly ratified? :: Reply by Paul

no_email@example.com (Paul) — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 16:49:19 +0000

If we're going to address the issues with the election of senators, then address all of the issues. I don't like it that they serve 6-year terms. The world can really change in 6 years and we tend to forget what happened 6 years ago. The senators need to be accountable at all times in all things to the states. This helps to prevent sudden 'surprise' bills, like the PATRIOT Act, from being passed.

My suggestion is to have the state legislators appoint senators for indefinite terms. This way they can appoint a new senator at any time and gridlock will not cause a gap in representation. I would suggest something like this:

Each state's legislature shall appoint 2 senators through the method and place of their choosing. The senators shall be sworn in by the state legislature and serve until the date and time their replacements are sworn in.

Re: Was the 17th Amendment properly ratified? :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Sun, 05 Dec 2010 10:36:02 +0000

Paul wrote:If we're going to address the issues with the election of senators, then address all of the issues. I don't like it that they serve 6-year terms. The world can really change in 6 years and we tend to forget what happened 6 years ago. The senators need to be accountable at all times in all things to the states. This helps to prevent sudden 'surprise' bills, like the PATRIOT Act, from being passed.

Paul, I definitely disagree with your conclusion as I don't think in the wake of 9/11 your changes would have prevented the passage of the Patriot Act; but, more than that, the very reason you dislike that Senators serve 6-year terms is the very reason the Founding Fathers in their infinite wisdom made certain to appoint them to extended 6-year terms.

The Senate is supposed to be a more stable body than the House and less susceptible to the wild whims of the public passions du jour. This break-up of Congress into the two diverse chambers, the volatile House and the stable Senate, helps provide a sense of timeliness (where we're going) and history (where we've been) to all legislation; and, in that manner, it creates a most stable, yet flexible, Republic that won't have the power to destroy itself as quickly as democracy inevitably does.

Paul wrote:My suggestion is to have the state legislators appoint senators for indefinite terms. This way they can appoint a new senator at any time and gridlock will not cause a gap in representation. I would suggest something like this:

Each state's legislature shall appoint 2 senators through the method and place of their choosing. The senators shall be sworn in by the state legislature and serve until the date and time their replacements are sworn in.

Moreover, your proposed solution to this wrongly perceived problem invites two far greater problems:

1. While gridlock won't create a lack of representation, it will--like today's election process--create a bias in favor of incumbency; and with indefinite terms, a useless or a corrupt or a milk-toast or a Senator could be end up serving a lifelong term should he be just agreeable enough to avoid removal and his state legislature just disagreeable enough to remain in gridlock.

2. If public perception about an issue or a group of individuals, etc. were to change abruptly in a fundamentalist direction--either due to a war, a natural disaster, a scandal, or any of the other multitudes of reasons why public opinion might change overnight in a strong direction--then it would be conceivable that a sudden surge in sentiment at election-time could fill the House with radical Congressmen; and if the Senate tried to stop or slow down radical House bills from becoming law, then those more-mindful Senators could be replaced instantly by their own fearful state legislatures or be held hostage to their newly-elected radical state legislatures.

My proposed solution:

a) corrects the unforeseen problem created by the 17th Amendment solution to gridlock,
b) avoids a bias to incumbency while maintaining the Founders' original intent and stability of the Senate,
c) corrects the original gridlock issue while
d) providing multiple and versatile solutions for finding new appropriate state representation in the Senate, such as:
- 1. Executor appointing the incumbent Senator while his legislature debates on a new appointee,
  2. Executor breaking the tie by appointing one of the gridlocked candidates,
  3. Executor choosing an out-of-the box third candidate agreeable to both sides of the legislature in gridlock,
  4. Executor choosing a third candidate disagreeable to both sides of the legislature in gridlock, thus forcing the gridlocked parties to come to a compromise in a more timely manner.

If we're going to come up with a solution to the Senatorial election problem, we must make sure we don't create new problems (i.e. the 17th Amendment) to replace the old problem (i.e. gridlock). In that spirit, feel free to pick my brain droppings apart.

Re: Was the 17th Amendment properly ratified? :: Reply by HouseSizeWonk

no_email@example.com (HouseSizeWonk) — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 20:37:47 +0000

Pseudolus wrote: This is the very reason why I wrote a proposed Amendment which would repeal the 17th Amendment in the following manner:
Section 1.
The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2.
If Vacancies in the representation of any State in the Senate happen by failure of the Legislature of such State, the Executive authority of such State may make temporary Appointments until the Legislature of such State fills such Vacancies.

Section 3.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
What do you think?

I think the key is how you define "failure of the Legislature of such State."

I think that, ultimately, the best solution is one that nudges the States in the direction of doing the right thing, without actually mandating it, but that at least gives them the option (unlike the pre-17th Amendment regime, which offered no safety valve at all). I am thinking something like:
Section 1:
The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments in the case of a vacancy in that State's representation in the Senate, until such time as the legislature shall fill the vacancy.
Section 2:
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

No, it's not perfect, because the possibility of vacancies is not ruled out, but it uses simpler language than a more complete process would need to describe, which means fewer loopholes to argue about. It is an improvement on the pre-17th Amendment regime, because there was no safety valve proviso at that time, which reduced the political costs of gridlock. If this amendment passed, and a State chose not to invoke the proviso, then the first time that an impasse kept the State unrepresented in the Senate, the legislature would have to answer the question of why they had not had the foresight to at least take advantage of the procedural tool available to them, even if they could not come to a consensus on the substantive issue of who should get the State's Senate seat.

I agree with all of Pseudolus's observations regarding the benefits of fixed 6-year terms and whatnot, however. One thing I have mused on, though: perhaps in exchange for movement on increasing the size of the House, we could also increase the Senate to 3 seats per State, instead of 2. The benefits I see of this are as follows:
1. All States would elect a Senator every 2 years. Thus, while only 1/3rd of the chamber would turn over in any given election (thus promoting stability), the political circumstances of each election cycle would play out in every State. It is not sensible to me that Michigan's Senate delegation, for example, was not affected by the political circumstances of 2010 merely because neither of their Senators happened to be a Class 3 Senator.
2. In the short term, it facilitates House expansion by blunting the popular bias that House expansion would induce in the Electoral College. While I support that popular bias, one would expect small States would not -- and whether the House is expanded legislatively or via a constitutional amendment, small States are going to need to come on board.
3. However, I expect it to place an upper cap on the Senate. While 3 Senators per State has an underlying and inherent logic to it (everybody serves a 6-year term, which means every State is electing a new Senator every 2 years, but it only amounts to exactly 1/3rd of the chamber any given year), nothing beyond that does (unless you went to 6 per State, which isn't happening). As a result, if my 2nd supposition is correct, you've broken the gridlock on House size, thus making it part of the national conversation and an issue that will (hopefully) recur every 10 years, but you've done so in a way that the compromise that broke the gridlock probably is a well that the small States cannot come back to again in the future.

Re: Was the 17th Amendment properly ratified? :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 21:28:31 +0000

Point 1:

As far as I know, prior to the ratification of the 17th Amendment there were only two possible methods a Vacancy in the Senate could occur:
- 1) either a Vacancy in the State's representation unexpectedly occurred due to Resignation, illness, death, imprisonment, or otherwise, or
  2) the State's Legislature failed to appoint a replacement Senator prior to the planned vacancy of that State's Senate seat.
If there is another manner in which a Vacancy could occur, please let me know. Otherwise, upon the repeal of the 17th Amendment, we would once again return to only these two possible causes for a Vacancy in the Senate.

Point 2:

The Constitution is written in such a manner as to expect that the State's Legislature would always appoint a Senator prior to the seat's planned Vacancy or upon their first Meeting after the seat's unexpected Vacancy.
U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 3. wrote:The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; ...and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.
Please note: if the Vacancy occurs during the Recess of the Legislature of the State, the Constitution does not mandate a temporary Appointment by the Executive of the State; it merely gives the Executive the option of temporary Appointment. So too, the language of my proposed amendment does not mandate a Vacancy always be filled; it merely provides, in a very similar manner, an additional alternative so that the State need not be forced to go without representation.

Had the Founding Fathers imagined any State's Legislature would purposefully choose gridlock over representation, then by omission our Founders would be the ones mandating the State and Senate be improperly represented; and this is an intention I cannot fathom to be true. Therefore I must assume that had our Framers imagined the gridlock problem, they would have provided this additional method for making temporary Appointments until such time as the gridlock issue be resolved. If anyone believes my assumption incorrect, please alert me so that I might appropriately reconsider.

Point 3:

HouseSizeWonk wrote:I think the key is how you define "failure of the Legislature of such State."
Reconsidering the only two options when a Vacancy might occur (i.e. either the State's Legislature is in session or not in session) and reconsidering the only two options for filling a Vacancy while the State's Legislature is in session (i.e. the State's Legislature either succeeds in filling the Vacancy or does not), it seems pretty clear how "failure of the Legislature of such State" is to be defined. In fact, I'd go so far as to conclude that there cannot be any debate on the definition of "failure of the Legislature of such State"; for either the State's Legislature has filled or has failed to fill the Vacancy, regardless of the ongoing reasons for the failure. Any debate would not affect the only two possible outcomes, therefore I see no reason why you believe "the key is how you define 'failure of the Legislature of such State.'"

Point 4:

Furthermore, I believe your proposed changes actually create more reasons for argument (i.e. the gridlocked State Legislature now can additionally argue about whether or not to defer to the Executive, which obviously those of a different political party will not want to do) and provide the gridlocked Legislature an inherent excuse to remain in gridlock (i.e. better to leave the Vacancy than to allow their Executive to appoint a candidate potentially harmful to one side's views).

Point 5:

Moreover, all the benefits your language makes over the pre-17th Amendment Constitution are already included in my original proposed language (i.e. there is the inclusion of the additional safety valve proviso, and the State's Legislature still is accountable for why they could not make a Appointment), except my language additionally provides that the Executive along with the Legislature be accountable for the ongoing Vacancy.

Considering my proposed language has all the benefits of your language plus more and considering it has none of the drawbacks of your language, I see no reason to adjust the proposed amendment's language at this time. If my reasoning is unsound, please correct me.

Re: Was the 17th Amendment properly ratified? :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 22:27:16 +0000

For clarity's sake I'm addressing your second musing in a separate post:

HouseSizeWonk wrote:I agree with all of Pseudolus's observations regarding the benefits of fixed 6-year terms and whatnot, however. One thing I have mused on, though: perhaps in exchange for movement on increasing the size of the House, we could also increase the Senate to 3 seats per State, instead of 2. The benefits I see of this are as follows:
1. All States would elect a Senator every 2 years. Thus, while only 1/3rd of the chamber would turn over in any given election (thus promoting stability), the political circumstances of each election cycle would play out in every State. It is not sensible to me that Michigan's Senate delegation, for example, was not affected by the political circumstances of 2010 merely because neither of their Senators happened to be a Class 3 Senator.
2. In the short term, it facilitates House expansion by blunting the popular bias that House expansion would induce in the Electoral College. While I support that popular bias, one would expect small States would not -- and whether the House is expanded legislatively or via a constitutional amendment, small States are going to need to come on board.
3. However, I expect it to place an upper cap on the Senate. While 3 Senators per State has an underlying and inherent logic to it (everybody serves a 6-year term, which means every State is electing a new Senator every 2 years, but it only amounts to exactly 1/3rd of the chamber any given year), nothing beyond that does (unless you went to 6 per State, which isn't happening). As a result, if my 2nd supposition is correct, you've broken the gridlock on House size, thus making it part of the national conversation and an issue that will (hopefully) recur every 10 years, but you've done so in a way that the compromise that broke the gridlock probably is a well that the small States cannot come back to again in the future.

Addressing each "benefit" in turn:

1. Any "benefit" that causes the Senate to be less stable and more susceptible to change is no benefit at all, at least in my opinion. While understandably frustrating that Michigan's Senate representation was unaffected by this past election cycle, I would argue that that was the exact reason the Framers chose only two rather than three Senators for each State. Because if a fast-fading and ill-conceived sentiment sweeps the country, at least it won't affect every State's representation; thus wild, easily-regrettable bills and Constitutional amendments are less likely to pass the Senate. Hence, the Senate is more stable and less susceptible to change.

2. It's important to clarify that your second "benefit" is not really a benefit for the Senate, instead it is a tactic for obtaining a benefit in the House. While I wish to obtain the same benefit in the House, I don't believe we should compromise the Senate to achieve it.

3. Your supposition that one additional Senator in each State will persuade the small States to ratify an increase in the House but--should those States later dislike the increase in the House--dissuade them from every returning to increase the Senate even further is faulty. If the small States want to increase the Senate because they dislike the changes in the House, they will force the issue, regardless of the "underlying and inherent logic" to your 3 Senator plan. Better not to put the thought in their head that changing the Senate is an option, especially since the proposed changes only hurt that body's stability.

All points being considered with respect to a change in the size of the Senate, I choose to defer to the wisdom of the Framers.

Re: Was the 17th Amendment properly ratified? :: Reply by HouseSizeWonk

no_email@example.com (HouseSizeWonk) — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 01:05:46 +0000

Pseudolus wrote: Point 2:

The Constitution is written in such a manner as to expect that the State's Legislature would always appoint a Senator prior to the seat's planned Vacancy or upon their first Meeting after the seat's unexpected Vacancy.
U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 3. wrote:The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; ...and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.
Please note: if the Vacancy occurs during the Recess of the Legislature of the State, the Constitution does not mandate a temporary Appointment by the Executive of the State; it merely gives the Executive the option of temporary Appointment. So too, the language of my proposed amendment does not mandate a Vacancy always be filled; it merely provides, in a very similar manner, an additional alternative so that the State need not be forced to go without representation.

Had the Founding Fathers imagined any State's Legislature would purposefully choose gridlock over representation, then by omission our Founders would be the ones mandating the State and Senate be improperly represented; and this is an intention I cannot fathom to be true. Therefore I must assume that had our Framers imagined the gridlock problem, they would have provided this additional method for making temporary Appointments until such time as the gridlock issue be resolved. If anyone believes my assumption incorrect, please alert me so that I might appropriately reconsider.

I am not totally following you here in your bit about the Founders. I don't see how what you describe is mandating something "by omission." Whether or not the Founders contemplated that a State would purposefully choose gridlock over representation, the constitutional language certainly allowed for it. I think that the Constitution pretty clearly took a hands-off approach to such concerns, on the theory that the incentives in favor of representation would spur the States to make prudent choices for themselves. The general tenor of other constitutional provisions in this arena favor local decision-making and empowering legislative bodies to make bad decisions (e.g., "the Electors [for US House of Representatives] in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature"; "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof"; "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors"; the Constitution's silence on the re-sizing the House).

Pseudolus wrote:Point 3:
HouseSizeWonk wrote:I think the key is how you define "failure of the Legislature of such State."
Reconsidering the only two options when a Vacancy might occur (i.e. either the State's Legislature is in session or not in session) and reconsidering the only two options for filling a Vacancy while the State's Legislature is in session (i.e. the State's Legislature either succeeds in filling the Vacancy or does not), it seems pretty clear how "failure of the Legislature of such State" is to be defined. In fact, I'd go so far as to conclude that there cannot be any debate on the definition of "failure of the Legislature of such State"; for either the State's Legislature has filled or has failed to fill the Vacancy, regardless of the ongoing reasons for the failure. Any debate would not affect the only two possible outcomes, therefore I see no reason why you believe "the key is how you define 'failure of the Legislature of such State.'"

My point is that they may not see it as a "failure." The Legislature may see it as a "success," because they'd rather have nobody hold the seat at all than someone they oppose. Your language is "If Vacancies . . . happen by failure of the Legislature of such State," but the Legislature may not consider it a failure that the seat is vacant -- it may be a triumph! Indeed, any time gridlock prevents the seat from being filled, that's exactly what the Legislature wants: each side would rather nobody have the seat than the unsatisfactory office-holder. Moreover, if the Legislature hasn't elected someone as of the first day of the congressional session, is that a "failure"? Or are they just taking their time? If a natural disaster or some other catastrophe prevents the Legislature from meeting at all, does that mean that the vacancy has happened "by failure of the Legislature"?

Pseudolus wrote:Point 4:
Furthermore, I believe your proposed changes actually create more reasons for argument (i.e. the gridlocked State Legislature now can additionally argue about whether or not to defer to the Executive, which obviously those of a different political party will not want to do) and provide the gridlocked Legislature an inherent excuse to remain in gridlock (i.e. better to leave the Vacancy than to allow their Executive to appoint a candidate potentially harmful to one side's views).
Point 5:
Moreover, all the benefits your language makes over the pre-17th Amendment Constitution are already included in my original proposed language (i.e. there is the inclusion of the additional safety valve proviso, and the State's Legislature still is accountable for why they could not make a Appointment), except my language additionally provides that the Executive along with the Legislature be accountable for the ongoing Vacancy.
Considering my proposed language has all the benefits of your language plus more and considering it has none of the drawbacks of your language, I see no reason to adjust the proposed amendment's language at this time. If my reasoning is unsound, please correct me.

As noted above, my primary concern is with the issue of construing a vacancy to the Legislature's "failure." As soon as you introduce a causality component, you give lawyers something to argue about. I'd rather have the language simply focus on the fact of the vacancy itself, regardless of the cause. My point was only that I think it'd be better to change as little as possible. My language imperfectly expressed what I had in mind, though; the proviso I intended should have read something like: "Provided, That, in addition to the Executive authority's power to make temporary appointments in the case of a vacancy occurring while that State's Legislature is in recess, the legislature of any State may empower the Executive authority thereof to make temporary appointments to fill vacancies occurring at any other time, until such time as the legislature shall fill the vacancy."

I am not really happy with my own language either, but I am uncomfortable with the causality language that you propose.

Re: Was the 17th Amendment properly ratified? :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 00:51:02 +0000

HouseSizeWonk wrote:I think the key is how you define "failure of the Legislature of such State."
Pseudolus wrote:Reconsidering the only two options when a Vacancy might occur (i.e. either the State's Legislature is in session or not in session) and reconsidering the only two options for filling a Vacancy while the State's Legislature is in session (i.e. the State's Legislature either succeeds in filling the Vacancy or does not), it seems pretty clear how "failure of the Legislature of such State" is to be defined. In fact, I'd go so far as to conclude that there cannot be any debate on the definition of "failure of the Legislature of such State"; for either the State's Legislature has filled or has failed to fill the Vacancy, regardless of the ongoing reasons for the failure. Any debate would not affect the only two possible outcomes, therefore I see no reason why you believe "the key is how you define 'failure of the Legislature of such State.'"
My point is that they may not see it as a "failure." The Legislature may see it as a "success," because they'd rather have nobody hold the seat at all than someone they oppose. Your language is "If Vacancies . . . happen by failure of the Legislature of such State," but the Legislature may not consider it a failure that the seat is vacant -- it may be a triumph! Indeed, any time gridlock prevents the seat from being filled, that's exactly what the Legislature wants: each side would rather nobody have the seat than the unsatisfactory office-holder. Moreover, if the Legislature hasn't elected someone as of the first day of the congressional session, is that a "failure"? Or are they just taking their time? If a natural disaster or some other catastrophe prevents the Legislature from meeting at all, does that mean that the vacancy has happened "by failure of the Legislature"?

Okay, I think the problem is that you're attempting to interpret the language "Vacancies happen by failure of the Legislature of such State" in terms of the results of the Vacancy and not the cause of the Vacancy. And, while the Legislature is in session, the only way a Vacancy could happen for any significant amount of time is through a failure of the Legislature. Whether the Legislature chooses to interpret the resulting Vacancy as a success or not is irrelevant, the cause of the Vacancy is the same: the Legislature failed to appoint. Now, the Legislature may believe they succeeded by failing to appoint someone but that doesn't change the fact that they failed to appoint someone.

For example, let's say I don't want to graduate school and choose to fail a big exam in pursuit of that goal, I may look at the failure of the test as a success; but, despite my interpretation of the events as a success, the fact remains that I still failed the test. If I choose not to pay taxes and the IRS doesn't catch me, I might consider it a great personal success; but the fact remains, I failed to pay taxes. Regardless of how the Legislature might interpret the results of a Vacancy, the fact is the Vacancy happens because they failed to appoint someone to represent their State. See what I mean?

However, let's pursue your worst case scenario:

While a State's Legislature is in session, the Executive of that State makes a temporary Appointment to fill the Vacancy. And, rather than simply replacing the Executive's temporary Appointment, the Legislature opts to sue the Executive on the grounds that he/she never had the authority to make such a temporary Appointment.

Am I correct in assuming this is what you're worried about? Because at this point, the State's Legislature is now in the awkward position of having to prove that they didn't fail to appoint someone, but instead purposely chose to leave their State without representation. (Pardon me, but I can't imagine any State's Legislature pursuing such a humiliating case; and, even if one ever does opt to sue the Executive on those grounds, I can't fathom that the United States Supreme Court would actually rule in favor of that ludicrous argument that the "failure" to appoint was actually a successful Vacancy.)

Honestly, I think this is a non-issue. Because if such a ludicrous scenario played out (an admittedly rare, if not unfathomable occurrence), then--in order for the Executive to be stripped of his/her power to make temporary Appointments--the Supreme Court would have to rule that the U.S. Constitutional language of "by failure of the Legislature" is subject to the interpretation of that State's Legislature, which would mean that the Legislature has the option of allowing the Executive to make a temporary Appointment or can refrain from granting the Executive such authority, which is exactly the type of language you proposed when you re-wrote the amendment. So, no matter how the Supreme Court rules, we're still in a great position; because either way, both the Executive and the Legislature have to answer for why they didn't take the option of a temporary Appointment.

So again, what's your concern? I really don't get it.

Re: Was the 17th Amendment properly ratified? :: Reply by HouseSizeWonk

no_email@example.com (HouseSizeWonk) — Mon, 27 Dec 2010 20:37:52 +0000

Pseudolus wrote:However, let's pursue your worst case scenario:
While a State's Legislature is in session, the Executive of that State makes a temporary Appointment to fill the Vacancy. And, rather than simply replacing the Executive's temporary Appointment, the Legislature opts to sue the Executive on the grounds that he/she never had the authority to make such a temporary Appointment.
Am I correct in assuming this is what you're worried about? Because at this point, the State's Legislature is now in the awkward position of having to prove that they didn't fail to appoint someone, but instead purposely chose to leave their State without representation. (Pardon me, but I can't imagine any State's Legislature pursuing such a humiliating case; and, even if one ever does opt to sue the Executive on those grounds, I can't fathom that the United States Supreme Court would actually rule in favor of that ludicrous argument that the "failure" to appoint was actually a successful Vacancy.)

I don't see where the legislature would have any obligation to prove anything as a matter of fact. They could argue, for example, that it's the governor's job to prove that the Legislature failed before s/he can exercise the appointment power, and in the absence of such proof, the power is absent and the appointment is null and void.

Pseudolus wrote:Honestly, I think this is a non-issue. Because if such a ludicrous scenario played out (an admittedly rare, if not unfathomable occurrence), then--in order for the Executive to be stripped of his/her power to make temporary Appointments--the Supreme Court would have to rule that the U.S. Constitutional language of "by failure of the Legislature" is subject to the interpretation of that State's Legislature, which would mean that the Legislature has the option of allowing the Executive to make a temporary Appointment or can refrain from granting the Executive such authority, which is exactly the type of language you proposed when you re-wrote the amendment. So, no matter how the Supreme Court rules, we're still in a great position; because either way, both the Executive and the Legislature have to answer for why they didn't take the option of a temporary Appointment.

So again, what's your concern? I really don't get it.

The difference being that my language attempted to require the Legislature to create a pre-commitment strategy, not an ad hoc "we consider this time a failure and this time a success" approach to determining whether the Executive has authority to make an appointment.

Mostly my concern is keeping the matter out of the courts. With no "failure" language, there's no argument to be made about it. I'll put it this way: if the road to * is paved with good intentions, then the road to creaky constitutional provisions is paved with well-meaning efforts at solving problems. A law professor friend of mine has a forthcoming book which touches on the subject (i.e., it is one chapter of 6 or 7), particularly in regards to serious and potentially debilitating problems in the 25th Amendment. Another example (not in the book) would be the peculiar situation we'd be in if the retrocession movement ever succeeded in sending some portion of the District of Columbia back to Maryland, and whether the inevitable handful of residents of any vestigal federal enclave that's left behind would be entitled to electoral votes under the 23rd Amendment.

Apparently the software does not like references to the place in the afterlife thought to be a place of pain and suffering, as the word got substituted for an asterisk.

Re: Was the 17th Amendment properly ratified? :: Reply by USeagle

no_email@example.com (USeagle) — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 06:10:05 +0000

I never took the the election of our State Representatives (Senators)to be by appointment. Article 1 Section 3 states "chosen by the Legislature" it is the same as the people of the State chosen their Representative under Article 1 Section2 "chosen every second year by the People of the several States"

I have never understood that argument "gridlocking the State", we would not have gridlock if the Senators were elected by the Legislature, just as we (the soverigen) elect the Representatives of our States. We are not appointing a member to SCOTUS... we are deligating our soverign rights to a higher level thru our State Legislatures; who are acting on our behalf.

Re: Was the 17th Amendment properly ratified? :: Reply by TheTrucker

no_email@example.com (TheTrucker) — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 16:15:43 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:This author offers a very interesting supposition about the 17th Amendment: She asserts that it may have not been properly ratified! If that is so, then the states could declare it null and void.

Read what Devvy Kidd wrote in Why Seventeenth Amendment Can't Be Repealed. ( October 1, 2010)

The lengths to which the conservative "right" will go in order to "justify" a conservative proposition is quite amazing. Whether the 17th amendment was ratified by the proper number of states before or after the declaration of its ratification was formalized is entirely irrelevant. Whether some states disagreed or did not ratify is also of no consequence. Just as with Article the First, at any time that there is a count of the requisite number of ratifying states then at that point the amendment is deemed ratified. To claim that the amendment is void because the declaration of ratification was premature is simply crackpot rightardidness; a continuing effort to undermine society using fear and suspicion with a constant flailing of one conspiracy after another.

I want the 17th amendment repealed in proper order. But my reason for that desire is exemplified by the Citizens United decision from the Supremes. I also believe that the Citizens United decision was correct when viewed as a freedom of speech issue. Unfortunately, it granted citizenship or person rights to non US entities such as the Chinese government. Multinational corporations and governments other than the representative body of the US government should not be allowed to participate in US elections in any direct way. And that most certainly includes campaigning and campaign funding. This same observation applies to state governments if the states are to be in any way sovereign. But the solution lies in the increase of the number of popular representatives of the people in direct elections; the same solution as the expansion of the House membership. It is much more difficult to buy an expanded legislature than it is to buy one senator. The 17th amendment was probably the greatest act of foot shooting in the history of progressive government.

Re: Was the 17th Amendment properly ratified? :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Thu, 12 May 2011 05:45:31 +0000

USeagle wrote:I have never understood that argument "gridlocking the State", we would not have gridlock if the Senators were elected by the Legislature, just as we (the soverigen) elect the Representatives of our States. We are not appointing a member to SCOTUS... we are deligating our soverign rights to a higher level thru our State Legislatures; who are acting on our behalf.

Please look into history because State Legislatures often could not agree whom they would choose as their U.S. Senator and thus their U.S.Senate seat would often remain vacant at crucial times where votes were needed by the nation at large. Since the State Legislatures are voting on behalf of their State and not themselves, selection of U.S. Senators is not like a normal vote where majority wins. Each State Legislature has and had their own rules for how their U.S. Senators would be chosen. Altering those rules so that a decision could be made that half of the Legislature is against wouldn't be satisfactory and may even be shortsighted. Gridlock happened regularly. In some states more than others.

Re: Was the 17th Amendment properly ratified? :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Fri, 13 May 2011 21:37:19 +0000

Pseudolus wrote: Gridlock happened regularly. In some states more than others.

Fine, if the state legislature cannot reach agreement within some specified timeframe (e.g., 30 days), then the Governor should be allowed to designate the Senator(s). Problem solved.

Re: Was the 17th Amendment properly ratified? :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Sat, 14 May 2011 03:07:11 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:Fine, if the state legislature cannot reach agreement within some specified timeframe (e.g., 30 days), then the Governor should be allowed to designate the Senator(s). Problem solved.

Yep, that's why I proposed we support an new Amendment to the Constitution with the following language:

Section 1.
The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2.
If Vacancies in the representation of any State in the Senate happen by failure of the Legislature of such State, the Executive authority of such State may make temporary Appointments until the Legislature of such State fills such Vacancies.

Section 3.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

I didn't include a specified time frame before the Governor has the option to make temporary appointments, because I did not want to prevent the States from having representation if an important vote came up during that constrained time frame. If the Legislature does not appoint, and the Governor chooses to exercise his option to make a temporary appointment, and the Legislature is unhappy with the Governor's selection, then the Legislature obviously can and likely would immediately make their own proper appointment to replace the Governor's temporary one.

Re: Was the 17th Amendment properly ratified? :: Reply by dogtired

no_email@example.com (dogtired) — Wed, 18 May 2011 15:24:26 +0000

It appears this thread has shifted off subject to the appointing of senators is the 17th was repealed or voided.

The book, THE BALTIMORE PRINCIPLES by Carl Douglas, addresses the old deadlocks in making senate appointments. He suggests the amendment to repeal 17 should include two additional clauses, one for appointing and the other for removal.

The state's upper house should narrow their choices of candidates down to two. Then invite the lower house in for a joint session vote. This would do away with the "have to pass each house" thing which did create all of the deadlocks. This would apply to filling vacancies as well. Personally, I would leave the governor completely out of the selection process.

The other clause would allow a state to remove a sentor should he fail a vote of confidence by two-thirds majority in each house. No reason has to be given and nothing has to be proved. Either they have confidence in him or they lost it. He'd really have to have done something stupid to get the legislature angry enough to fail by two-thirds in both houses!

Re: Was the 17th Amendment properly ratified? :: Reply by sbozich

no_email@example.com (sbozich) — Tue, 24 May 2011 16:59:50 +0000

Paul wrote:If we're going to address the issues with the election of senators, then address all of the issues. I don't like it that they serve 6-year terms. The world can really change in 6 years and we tend to forget what happened 6 years ago. The senators need to be accountable at all times in all things to the states. This helps to prevent sudden 'surprise' bills, like the PATRIOT Act, from being passed.

Interestingly, I was thinking about this very topic just this morning. If the 17th were repealed, and there were a dramatic shift in the composition of a state legislature between the six year election, there is nothing to prevent said state from recalling an unpopular Senator.

The purpose of the six-year term is to make the Senators less subject to the vagaries of popular politics, just as the two-year term of a Representative is designed to ensure that the people are properly heard.

Re: Was the 17th Amendment properly ratified? :: Reply by USeagle

no_email@example.com (USeagle) — Wed, 25 May 2011 05:21:14 +0000

Pseudolus wrote:
USeagle wrote:I have never understood that argument "gridlocking the State", we would not have gridlock if the Senators were elected by the Legislature, just as we (the soverigen) elect the Representatives of our States. We are not appointing a member to SCOTUS... we are deligating our soverign rights to a higher level thru our State Legislatures; who are acting on our behalf.
Please look into history because State Legislatures often could not agree whom they would choose as their U.S. Senator and thus their U.S.Senate seat would often remain vacant at crucial times where votes were needed by the nation at large. Since the State Legislatures are voting on behalf of their State and not themselves, selection of U.S. Senators is not like a normal vote where majority wins. Each State Legislature has and had their own rules for how their U.S. Senators would be chosen. Altering those rules so that a decision could be made that half of the Legislature is against wouldn't be satisfactory and may even be shortsighted. Gridlock happened regularly. In some states more than others.
Since the State Legislatures are voting on behalf of their State and not themselves, selection of U.S. Senators is not like a normal vote where majority wins. Each State Legislature has and had their own rules for how their U.S. Senators would be chosen.

This is where we part ways…. The State Legislators are not voting on behalf of that State ……they should be voting on behalf of the constituents in that district that elected them. In turn, these entire districts represent the State!

We the sovereign delegate our authority to our State and Federal Representatives.
Is this not our Republican form of Government that was guaranteed under Article 4, Sec 4

Re: Was the 17th Amendment properly ratified? :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Wed, 25 May 2011 06:30:36 +0000

USeagle wrote:
Pseudolus wrote:Since the State Legislatures are voting on behalf of their State and not themselves.
This is where we part ways…. The State Legislators are not voting on behalf of that State ……they should be voting on behalf of the constituents in that district that elected them. In turn, these entire districts represent the State!

I agree with that entirely, so there's no parting of ways. I was merely using a shorthand for the entire group of State Legislators who collectively represent their entire state (meaning the combined public within the individual districts they individually represent). It was just my way of saying these State Legislators aren't voting on behalf of themselves alone or the wishes of their political parties.

Re: Was the 17th Amendment properly ratified? :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Wed, 25 May 2011 06:54:56 +0000

dogtired wrote:It appears this thread has shifted off subject to the appointing of senators is the 17th was repealed or voided.

The book, THE BALTIMORE PRINCIPLES by Carl Douglas, addresses the old deadlocks in making senate appointments. He suggests the amendment to repeal 17 should include two additional clauses, one for appointing and the other for removal.

The state's upper house should narrow their choices of candidates down to two. Then invite the lower house in for a joint session vote. This would do away with the "have to pass each house" thing which did create all of the deadlocks. This would apply to filling vacancies as well. Personally, I would leave the governor completely out of the selection process.

The other clause would allow a state to remove a sentor should he fail a vote of confidence by two-thirds majority in each house. No reason has to be given and nothing has to be proved. Either they have confidence in him or they lost it. He'd really have to have done something stupid to get the legislature angry enough to fail by two-thirds in both houses!

I'm against the idea of telling a state's legislature how they should appoint. The particulars of state politics vary enough that such an issue should be handled internally within the state according to their own peculiarities. The Constitution need only tell them that they are to appoint a U.S. Senator. I added the bit about the governor occasionally assisting in a deadlock (as he does when the legislature is out of session), but I made sure not to make that a requirement. I've merely closed the gridlock loophole according to the state executive's temporary appointment method already contained within the U.S. Constitution. The Governor is free to leave the seat empty if he so chooses, though his constituents may hold him accountable for such a decision. And the Legislature is always free to replace the Governor's temporary appointment at any time. Just as they currently are both able in the U.S. Constitution.

I also see no reason to add a Constitutional clause for recall, because that too can be handled at the state level. The Constitution does not prevent recalls and the exact methods for Senatorial recalls should be handled according to the peculiarities of the states, not dictated by the federal government to the states.

When in doubt, I believe its best to keep the Constitution as simple as possible. Carl Douglas's suggestions for how a legislature appoints and recalls are worthwhile suggestions that the states might want to use as guides in writing their own state constitutions; but those suggestions are a bit too authoritarian to be contained within the U.S. Constitution itself, which is meant to control the federal government and meant not to control the individual states in running their own state affairs.

Re: Was the 17th Amendment properly ratified? :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Wed, 25 May 2011 20:21:00 +0000

sbozich wrote: If the 17th were repealed, and there were a dramatic shift in the composition of a state legislature between the six year election, there is nothing to prevent said state from recalling an unpopular Senator.

The purpose of the six-year term is to make the Senators less subject to the vagaries of popular politics, just as the two-year term of a Representative is designed to ensure that the people are properly heard.

Stephen, I agree with you entirely. It's important for people to realize that the Senator can be recalled by the state legislature, and that is a good thing IMO.

That being said, it may be prudent for a super-majority vote to be required, or the recall is not effected until the replacement Senator is approved by the state legislature.

Re: Was the 17th Amendment properly ratified? :: Reply by sbozich

no_email@example.com (sbozich) — Thu, 26 May 2011 03:25:24 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:

That being said, it may be prudent for a super-majority vote to be required, or the recall is not effected until the replacement Senator is approved by the state legislature.

I would assume that each state would prudently put in place a stop-gap measure to ensure that recalls are not commonplace; be it by super-majority, or executive concurrence, or whatever means they choose.

At the Federal level, a stick can legislatively be put in place (at the time of repeal) to create an incentive for states to ensure they have full representation in the Senate. I imagine an easy fix would be to simply subtract that states slot from the tally of the whole (e.g. 50 would be a majority, instead of 51), or, possibly allow the President of the Senate to cast a vote in the case of an absent Senator. Ultimately, any state legislature that causes damage to their state due to malfeasance will ultimately have to face the voters. THAT should be the greatest incentive of all!

There are plenty of options, and they can all be rationally gamed out. I don't think that should be a show stopper one way or the other.

Re: Was the 17th Amendment properly ratified? :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Thu, 26 May 2011 05:33:21 +0000

sbozich wrote:
JEQuidam wrote:That being said, it may be prudent for a super-majority vote to be required, or the recall is not effected until the replacement Senator is approved by the state legislature.
I would assume that each state would prudently put in place a stop-gap measure to ensure that recalls are not commonplace; be it by super-majority, or executive concurrence, or whatever means they choose.

At the Federal level, a stick can legislatively be put in place (at the time of repeal) to create an incentive for states to ensure they have full representation in the Senate. I imagine an easy fix would be to simply subtract that states slot from the tally of the whole (e.g. 50 would be a majority, instead of 51), or, possibly allow the President of the Senate to cast a vote in the case of an absent Senator. Ultimately, any state legislature that causes damage to their state due to malfeasance will ultimately have to face the voters. THAT should be the greatest incentive of all!

There are plenty of options, and they can all be rationally gamed out. I don't think that should be a show stopper one way or the other.

We really don't need to introduce new methods for temporary appointments to the Senate. The Framers already included in the Constitution a measure for temporary appointments. If a seat is vacant, the Executive of the State may make a temporary appointment until the legislature re-appoints. Let's stick with the Framers' solution rather than decreasing Senate votes (when perhaps the State purposely means to abstain) or inserting the VP (when perhaps that could result in the VP having more votes than any state should, let alone any one person).

When in doubt, trust the Framers. Their solution is usually the best.

Re: Was the 17th Amendment properly ratified? :: Reply by sbozich

no_email@example.com (sbozich) — Thu, 26 May 2011 14:29:05 +0000

The rub with the 17th Amendment is that it revokes from the states their ability to be represented at the federal level. Today, the federal government taxes the people directly, and then determines what, if any, a state will receive.

This flow of cash must be reversed, and repeal of the 17th amendment, in my opinion, plays an important role in doing so. We should be paying our taxes to our respective states, and then Congress, representing both the people and the states, can fight over who gets what.

Anything else distorts the principal-agent relationship that is supposed to exist between the people and the states, and the states and the federal government.

Re: Was the 17th Amendment properly ratified? :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Thu, 26 May 2011 15:08:19 +0000

sbozich wrote:The rub with the 17th Amendment is that it revokes from the states their ability to be represented at the federal level. Today, the federal government taxes the people directly, and then determines what, if any, a state will receive.

This flow of cash must be reversed, and repeal of the 17th amendment, in my opinion, plays an important role in doing so. We should be paying our taxes to our respective states, and then Congress, representing both the people and the states, can fight over who gets what.

Anything else distorts the principal-agent relationship that is supposed to exist between the people and the states, and the states and the federal government.

Seconded.

Links related to repealing the 17th Amendment :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 15:36:22 +0000

I will revise this posting later. Trying to create a listing of relevant links.

Not vouching for these. Just providing links. Send more to add.

FindLaw on the 17th Amendment

The Campaign to Restore Federalism

CNN's FindLaw Forum: Should the 17th Amendment be repealed? (Sept 17, 2002)

Posting: "Montana State Senator Jerry O'Neil answered this question on Yahoo discussion group" (date?)

WebLog: Repeal the 17th Amendment

Re: Links related to repealing the 17th Amendment :: Reply by dogtired

no_email@example.com (dogtired) — Wed, 18 May 2011 14:23:16 +0000

www.baltimoreprinciples.com
Please add this link. This is to a wonderful history book that addresses proper representation at all levels; local, county, state and federal governments. The history presented clearly shows how the original system worked and how we've lost some of the fundamental principles which are essential to make any republic work.

Re: Links related to repealing the 17th Amendment :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 00:32:49 +0000

Two more organizations:

National States' Rights Coalition

Repeal 17 Now!

Re: Links related to repealing the 17th Amendment :: Reply by rabi

no_email@example.com (rabi) — Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:21:53 +0000

Okay everybody. This is it. Congressional approval is at 5%. Now is possibly the best time to explain to people the reason why congress is horrible and provide a solution that may possibly keep our country going for another century or two. Not to be melodramatic or anything.

Repealing the 17th amendment :: Author Paul

no_email@example.com (Paul) — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 06:16:36 +0000

The 17th is completely out of the scope of TTO, but I completely agree that its repeal, or really , correction, is probably the second most important thing right after increasing the value of the vote and opening up the House to the average citizen.

Not to go too far into it, but the issue that the 17th amendment attempted to correct was a valid one - one of the problems leading up to the Civil War was under representation of some of the states in the Senate. This happened because terms would lapse without some states' legislators having elected a new senator. I think the better way to repair this problem would have been to provide competition to the legislators that also guarantees someone to be elected to office. For example, if by a certain date the legislator has not elected a senator, then the responsibility will irrevocably be moved to the newly elected members of the House. Before these members can be sworn in for their upcoming term, they must elect a senator. Obviously the senator would be one of the congressmen, and the transfer of the power from the state legislator to the federal representatives will not be in the general interests of anyone at the state level, so it is highly unlikely that a state would ever allow this to happen, and if it did, the person most likely to be elected would be someone recently elected to a federal office.

The beauty of this system is how the checks work. The state's interests and the people's interests are the only ones making and passing laws. Washington's interests are nearly completely removed. I imagine that after the second coming when the house is reduced to 30,000 people per district, we would see the last bastion of special interests holing up tight in the Senate, and nary a bill getting passed by either house.

Re: Repealing the 17th amendment :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 15:26:23 +0000

Paul wrote:The 17th is completely out of the scope of TTO, but I completely agree that its repeal, or really , correction, is probably the second most important thing right after increasing the value of the vote and opening up the House to the average citizen.

Paul, repealing the 17th amendment is outside of the narrow focus of TTO, but I agree with everything you stated, and this issue is highly complementary to our mission.

It's possible that in the future we could add repeal of the 17th amendment to TTO's educational mission, but I'm concerned that in the near term it would conflict with TTO's primary objective (advocacy of representational enlargement), primarily because it would confuse the message. In fact, it may seem contradictory to the uninitiated (i.e., "you want to increase the number of Reps we can elect, but not allow us to elect our Senators."). Many people may not understand.

The practical effect of the 17th amendment was to enlarge the number of representatives. It was put forth by Congress in 1912 and ratified by the states in 1913 [Wiki]. Coincidentally, that is also the last year the number of Representatives was increased to the current size of 435 (as a result of the 1910 Census). Congress did not reapportion the House at all after the 1920 Census (in violation of the Constitution!), and then permanently "fixed" their number at 435 in 1929. I can't help but wonder if the 435 Reps didn't see the Senators as effectively 100 more representatives (albeit elected from mega-sized districts) who were competing for the same campaign donations and special-interest support. And given how much more powerful a Senator is than a Representative (for the most part), you can imagine how quickly the influence-buying shifted from the Representatives to the Senators. (Compare the cost of an average senatorial race to that of a congressional race.)

Of course, the best way to remove the destructive effect of money from the Senatorial elections is to repeal the 17th amendment and simply allow the states' legislatures to appoint their Senators (as the Founders had specified in the Constitution). The Senators would then be accountable to the elected state legislators who appointed them, rather than the special interests who fund and support their political campaigns. This also makes the lobbyists' job much more difficult as instead of trying to influence a handful of Senators they have to influence hundreds of state legislators -- not that state legislators are saints, but it brings a huge amount of visibility to the process of exerting influence.

There is an analogy here. The Senators are beholden to the special interests who provide the support (financial and otherwise) that keeps them in power. Repealing the 17th amendment would make them accountable to the state legislators who appoint them. Similarly, the Reps today are likewise beholden to the special interests who provide the financing. Ratifying "Article the first" (the non-defective version) would make the Reps accountable to their constituency rather than to the special interests.

Re: Repealing the 17th amendment :: Reply by Paul

no_email@example.com (Paul) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 00:14:19 +0000

I was hesitant to enter the fray on this one, but I gave in to temptation. This is always a challenge in these types of forums, to not enter into sideline intellectual debates and discussions which confuse the issue. I remember the same thing happening to Ron Paul in his interview with Tim Russell when they started debating Abraham Lincoln. It's like we've all got our debate hats on and we're willing to engage in pretty much anything that we have an opinion on.

I half wonder if this forum shouldn't just be hidden, because it is very confusing. I am also not in favor of repealing the amendment, but rather recognizing that the solution to the problem it attempted to resolve was worse than the problem itself, but there is definitely a serious problem of state legislators not agreeing on things. I would hate to 100% rely on California's legislator to come to agreement so that Californians can have equal representation in the U.S. Senate. The state is about to run out of money and print IOU's for the second time in as many decades because of this problem.

I noticed that the links you posted are in the Strategy forum, was that intentional?

Re: Repealing the 17th amendment :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 01:56:41 +0000

Paul wrote:I half wonder if this forum shouldn't just be hidden, because it is very confusing.

I don't think so. I believe that the only people who will notice are those that already understand the debate and have a pro/con view on the 17th Amendment. What % of the voters would that be? Probably less than 5%, IMO. The other 95%+ won't notice it or tune in.

Paul wrote:I am also not in favor of repealing the amendment, but rather recognizing that the solution to the problem it attempted to resolve was worse than the problem itself, ...

I can't fathom another solution. To me, it's a pregnant/not-pregnant thing. Either one wants the Senators elected in a popular election, or return to having the state legislatures select them. I have faith that the state legislatures could select well-qualified Senators 95%+ of the time, but nothing is perfect! And we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good!

In any case, I can't imagine that the Senators chosen by the states' legislatures would be any worse than what we have now, most of whom are spineless and unprincipled careerist politicians. I'm sure you would agree.

(Those links are in this forum - check again.)

Re: Repealing the 17th amendment :: Reply by Paul

no_email@example.com (Paul) — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:40:56 +0000

When I hear 'repeal' I think 'return to the way it was before'. But the argument instantly comes up 'the way it worked before was not very good'. That's why I suggest using something like 'amend the 17th' as a solution, even though it's more like repeal and amend.

I don't support returning to the way it was before.

Re: Repealing the 17th amendment :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:24:38 +0000

Paul wrote:I don't support returning to the way it was before.

Paul, I don't understand.

Do you want the Senators to continue to be elected, appointed by the states' legislatures, or something else altogether?

If the answer is "C", then what solution do you propose?

Re: Repealing the 17th amendment :: Reply by claudevms

no_email@example.com (claudevms) — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 02:02:07 +0000

I would like to see senators from the several states be suggested for service by the Governor of a state with advise and consent of the state senate. A senator going to Washington is essentially an ambassador to the Federal Government from the state. They should be fighting "unfunded mandates" placed on the states, they should be re-callable if they are not doing their job and replaced in the same process above. Perhaps their term remains 6 years to overlap Governor terms? The states have exactly the same problem with senators today as the Federal Government has with the State Department employees. When you ask them to point to their country they point to the country they were appointed to. The senators point to Washington DC. If the number of people represented by a representative did not matter then King George could have told our ancestors he was our representative! Senators have an enormous voting base they are accountable to no one! The answer only to themselves.

Re: Repealing the 17th amendment :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 03:08:11 +0000

claudevms wrote:I would like to see senators from the several states be suggested for service by the Governor of a state with advise and consent of the state senate. ....

Claude, that is an excellent idea. Is that your invention or do you know if it has been previously advocated?

That method bypasses the risk of state legislatures being deadlocked over the choice Senator, and puts the final decision squarely on the Governor (who is analogous to the "president" of the state). I suggest adding a provision which allows that state's legislature, upon a super-majority vote (e.g., ¾), to veto the Governor's decision or recall the Senator. That proviso would be evoked rarely and provides relief in the event of a truly egregious appointment, such as one that might be made by a Governor Blagojevich (hypothetically speaking, of course).

However, such a proposal complicates things a little. If we simply repeal the 17th amendment then we return to the constitutional requirement, to wit: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years". Any variation to that (such as your proposal) would require an amendment that not only repeals the 17th, but also proscribes the appointment process. At this point, I'm in favor of doing that. Alternatively, some will argue that we should leave it up to each state to determine how they want to choose their Senators (which I believe is a problematic approach).

Re: Repealing the 17th amendment :: Reply by Paul

no_email@example.com (Paul) — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 03:56:06 +0000

I don't agree that having the governor appoint the senator would solve the deadlock problem, and it could even aggravate it.

If Schwarzenegger were to appoint someone to the U.S. Senate, I'm quite confident whoever the appointee is would get not get approved by the state senate. Any negotiating attempts made by the governor and the Republicans with the Democrats would probably go about as well and as quickly as the budget negotiations have been going. In fact, the California budget debacle is a great example of how the states can be so terrible at getting things done. The state government has MUCH more at stake in not getting the budget done on time that if it failed to get a senator elected on time.

This is why I feel that the most important change must be to introduce some type of competition for the legislator, as I outlined in my post above:

Paul wrote:I think the better way to repair this problem would have been to provide competition to the legislators that also guarantees someone to be elected to office. For example, if by a certain date the legislator has not elected a senator, then the responsibility will irrevocably be moved to the newly elected members of the House. Before these members can be sworn in for their upcoming term, they must elect a senator. Obviously the senator would be one of the congressmen, and the transfer of the power from the state legislator to the federal representatives will not be in the general interests of anyone at the state level, so it is highly unlikely that a state would ever allow this to happen, and if it did, the person most likely to be elected would be someone recently elected to a federal office.

Additionally, a governor appointed candidate will always be a member of the same party as the governor. However, a senator appointed by a legislator will not necessarily only be a member of the one party.

Re: Repealing the 17th amendment :: Reply by claudevms

no_email@example.com (claudevms) — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 04:14:29 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:
claudevms wrote:I would like to see senators from the several states be suggested for service by the Governor of a state with advise and consent of the state senate. ....
Claude, that is an excellent idea. Is that your invention or do you know if it has been previously advocated?

That method bypasses the risk of state legislatures being deadlocked over the choice Senator, and puts the final decision squarely on the Governor (who is analogous to the "president" of the state). I suggest adding a provision which allows that state's legislature, upon a super-majority vote (e.g., ¾), to veto the Governor's decision or recall the Senator. That proviso would be evoked rarely and provides relief in the event of a truly egregious appointment, such as one that might be made by a Governor Blagojevich (hypothetically speaking, of course).

However, such a proposal complicates things a little. If we simply repeal the 17th amendment then we return to the constitutional requirement, to wit: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years". Any variation to that (such as your proposal) would require an amendment that not only repeals the 17th, but also proscribes the appointment process. At this point, I'm in favor of doing that. Alternatively, some will argue that we should leave it up to each state to determine how they want to choose their Senators (which I believe is a problematic approach).

Thank you! I have not heard anyone suggest this before. I'm sure many have thought of it. Symmetry is a concept I strive for in engineering. Asymmetric solutions usually don't work well. We do need to supersede the 17th amendment with a new amendment that could incorporate what we have discussed above. Do state senate bodies have the filibuster available to them? The wording could be changed so that the senator serves a term of six years or until he/her appointed replacement reports for service. This provides the poison pill to one party or another to replace the senator. I only love term limits due to how these vermin become lifers in the government. Making a senator into a gofer for the state government may help to keep them in check.

On the subject of the people's representatives in the House I would suggest that all 6,000+ be unpaid! They can work in an office in their congressional district, elbow to elbow, with the people they serve. They can form a staff of volunteers. A representative should only serve three terms. This matches a senator's six years. There would be no more lifers in our government. They could solicit contributions from their constituents for salary, medical, etc. or perhaps bill them. This would let the people feel the pain if the representative is getting out of control! All federal government business would be conducted through the Internet. The representative would have a 3D environment where they could interact just like being on in DC, but be at home where they can be watched!

Re: Repealing the 17th amendment :: Reply by claudevms

no_email@example.com (claudevms) — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 04:34:23 +0000

Paul wrote:I don't agree that having the governor appoint the senator would solve the deadlock problem, and it could even aggravate it.

If Schwarzenegger were to appoint someone to the U.S. Senate, I'm quite confident whoever the appointee is would get not get approved by the state senate. Any negotiating attempts made by the governor and the Republicans with the Democrats would probably go about as well and as quickly as the budget negotiations have been going. In fact, the California budget debacle is a great example of how the states can be so terrible at getting things done. The state government has MUCH more at stake in not getting the budget done on time that if it failed to get a senator elected on time.

This is why I feel that the most important change must be to introduce some type of competition for the legislator, as I outlined in my post above:

Paul wrote:I think the better way to repair this problem would have been to provide competition to the legislators that also guarantees someone to be elected to office. For example, if by a certain date the legislator has not elected a senator, then the responsibility will irrevocably be moved to the newly elected members of the House. Before these members can be sworn in for their upcoming term, they must elect a senator. Obviously the senator would be one of the congressmen, and the transfer of the power from the state legislator to the federal representatives will not be in the general interests of anyone at the state level, so it is highly unlikely that a state would ever allow this to happen, and if it did, the person most likely to be elected would be someone recently elected to a federal office.
Additionally, a governor appointed candidate will always be a member of the same party as the governor. However, a senator appointed by a legislator will not necessarily only be a member of the one party.

You are correct sir!!! There must be a poison pill to get the state governments to do their jobs.

Re: Repealing the 17th amendment :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:52:39 +0000

My concern is that those opposed to repealing the 17th amendment will fuel a debate among us on how the appointment of the Senators should be conducted by the states. We'll be busy arguing about that amongst ourselves instead of getting the 17th repealed.

Paul, you state that the Governor would simply appoint a Senator from his own party. I agree that may happen (though that does not necessarily mean that person is not well qualified). In response, I point out the the majority party of the state legislature may simply do likewise. So that point is at a draw.

However, I believe that in a world where we have 6,000 federal Reps, the political party duopoly will no longer exist, and that the Governor (and many state legislators) may be independents or third-party candidates.

Also, relative to Claude's suggestion (as I modified it), I don't believe that the Governor's appointment should have to be approved by the state legislature. So I guess it's "Advise", not "Consent". However, the legislature could veto it based on some supermajority.

Anyway, my mind is still open, but that notion does make a lot of sense to me.

Claude, regarding the compensation of the Representatives, I believe they should be well compensated, but this should be the subject of a different thread. This very point was made during some of the debates in 1788. The gist of the rationale is that if they are not properly compensated, the Reps will consist largely of the very wealthy (which is not bad if they are not overrepresented) and scoundrels who intend to use the office for personal gain (or, worse yet, wealthy scoundrels). Members of the "middling class" (like me) who have families to support could not possibly become Reps. The business of government is very important and I would hope we could attract the most capable citizens from all walks of life.

Re: The corrupt Senate :: Reply by TheTrucker

no_email@example.com (TheTrucker) — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 14:58:08 +0000

The "Gang of 6" in the Senate is an illustration of the corrupt nature of our United States Senate.. This group of "senators", bought and paid for by the medical insurance sector, have been working very hard to stop health care reform in this country. The total number of cows and pigs represented by these 6 senators is greater thnn the number of people. The human population being represented is less than the population of Los Angeles County, California. If we were discussing a veterinary bill then this sort of representation might be appropriate. But that is not the case. We are trying to battle the blood sucking health insurance thieves.

Campaign funds come from two sources and always have and always will. First of all such funds come from the people of the state or the district as each person makes a small contribution. Then there is the lobby, corporate, and rich people funding that comes from the special interests like health insurance and Wall Street and such. In the state of Wyoming if all persons give a dollar then the campaign fund for "popular" TV ads is half a million bucks. In the state of California if all the people give a dollar then the amount would be 34 million. Now imagine that you are a corporation with lots of shareholders and officers and employees through which you can fund a senator's campaign. All votes in the Senate are equal. Which vote will you buy? You can CRUSH the populous of Wyoming with a couple of million bucks and sell whatever "snake oil" you might need to insure that "your man" will win.

Montana is only twice the population of Wyoming and it is a blue state. Max Baucus is supposedly and Democrat. Yet he too was purchased by the health insurance sector, and so too the senators from North and South Dakota. Party affiliation seems to make little difference.

The repeal of the 17th amendment _MIGHT_ do a lot to fix this regardless of whether you are a "states rights" Republican or a "larger insurance pool" Democrat. The only beneficiaries of the current system are the rich and the powerful whether they are the large land owners, the national and multinational corporations, or simply the very very wealthy.

Re: The corrupt Senate :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 23:10:04 +0000

TheTrucker wrote:...This group of "senators", bought and paid for by the medical insurance sector, have been working very hard to stop health care reform in this country.

Mike, I would be most grateful if you would try to make your points, which are valid, without basing them on partisan stands, as it distracts from the primary purpose of this forum.

The fact is that there are powerful corporate interests on all sides of that issue (which I wish you had pointed out). Mega corporations such as Wal-Mart are begging the government to take over the health liabilities as that would have a greatly beneficial impact on their EPS. Several other companies, such as General Electric, have a huge vested and direct interest in seeing the federal government take over the management of health care. The lawyers' lobby has successfully blocked any tort reform from being included. So it is accurate to say that powerful special interests, corporate and otherwise, are working all sides of this issue. So, when making these types of arguments, lets try to identify all of the powerful Special Interests that are working to corrupt the federal legislature.

Of course, I don't trust anything that will come out of this corporate- and Special-Interest-controlled Congress. Clearly a citizen-controlled House of Representatives would produce the most sensible solutions for the health care crisis. Furthermore, they would ensure that we the people fully understood what was in the legislation prior to voting on it.

Re: Repealing the 17th amendment :: Reply by Paul Taylor

no_email@example.com (Paul Taylor) — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 12:20:46 +0000

While repeal of the 17th might be outside the narrow focus of TTO, I can easily see it becoming important for the electorate to repeal it once they realize the improvements in representation that arise from enlarging the house. Enlarging the house would seem to negate the underlying need for the 17th, and a return to appointed senators would, I think, make happy many people who fight for states' rights.

Re: Repealing the 17th amendment :: Reply by Paul

no_email@example.com (Paul) — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 15:52:26 +0000

I've been thinking that I rather like the idea of having the senators appointed by the states similar to ambassadors, with no defined term. Six years is a very long time and all sorts terrible things could be done during that period.

If the states appoint the senator, then could send a replacement at any time, that would place even a larger fire under the senator to vote the will of the states.

It would still solve the issue that the 17th was supposed to solve by keeping the existing senator in office until the new one is sworn in, thus disagreements at the state legislator will not result in a state's going without representation in the senate. Even if the representation is not in perfect congruence with the legislator, it is still better than no representation and if the legislator is in some disagreement about replacement, then it is likely the senator is not radically outside the wishes of the state.

Re: Repealing the 17th amendment :: Reply by TheTrucker

no_email@example.com (TheTrucker) — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 15:34:33 +0000

Paul wrote:I don't agree that having the governor appoint the senator would solve the deadlock problem, and it could even aggravate it.

If Schwarzenegger were to appoint someone to the U.S. Senate, I'm quite confident whoever the appointee is would get not get approved by the state senate. Any negotiating attempts made by the governor and the Republicans with the Democrats would probably go about as well and as quickly as the budget negotiations have been going. In fact, the California budget debacle is a great example of how the states can be so terrible at getting things done. The state government has MUCH more at stake in not getting the budget done on time that if it failed to get a senator elected on time.

This is why I feel that the most important change must be to introduce some type of competition for the legislator, as I outlined in my post above:

Paul wrote:I think the better way to repair this problem would have been to provide competition to the legislators that also guarantees someone to be elected to office. For example, if by a certain date the legislator has not elected a senator, then the responsibility will irrevocably be moved to the newly elected members of the House. Before these members can be sworn in for their upcoming term, they must elect a senator. Obviously the senator would be one of the congressmen, and the transfer of the power from the state legislator to the federal representatives will not be in the general interests of anyone at the state level, so it is highly unlikely that a state would ever allow this to happen, and if it did, the person most likely to be elected would be someone recently elected to a federal office.
Additionally, a governor appointed candidate will always be a member of the same party as the governor. However, a senator appointed by a legislator will not necessarily only be a member of the one party.

I also do not agree with the selection of a Senator by a governor but for very different reasons. The senator should be selected by the legislature of the state because this does away with the focal point for corruption that is currently employed by out of state interests. I am also of the opinion that state legislators should be paid considerably more than currently. Owing to the desirability of the position there would be people in the community that are vying for that job at all times and always on the lookout for any form of malfeasance with which to nail the current representative. The individual in that job should be secure in his/her finances so long as (s)he does the job of a representative of the people. A well paid representative is simply less susceptible to corruption. The per capita amount of money lost to this salary function is derisory. On this score, the people of Wally Mart and Tyson Chicken will still have a lot of pull concerning who will be the senator from Arkansas. But it won't be some Chinese outfit that is buying influence in the US Senate. And alas, what is good for Tyson may well be good for Arkansas. And is that NOT the province of the senator from Arkansas?

But what to do should the state legislature fail to select a senator within a few weeks? I would then fall to a state wide special election typically between the candidates coughed up by the state legislature. Such an election will be open as it is now, but the candidates owned by the political parties or by the Chinese government will get the most media advertising just as it is now (see latest Supreme Court ruling).

But let us be clear about this. I would simply redefine the 17th amendment as a proposition of states rights. The states decide what they want to do about the situation. If they want the governor to appoint the senator then that is what they will get. It is _THEIR_ state. If they want elections as they are now then they do that also. The people of each state should have the choice, operating through their state legislatures, of defining their own mechanisms for selecting a senator.

Max Baucus is a Democrat and the Republicans love the latest Supreme court ruling. This tells us that corruption is not party specific. The senators representing states that have a greater population of cows and pigs than people are the most susceptible to corruption. The people's candidate in Wyoming will have a campaign war chest of half a million bucks if all the people of the state contribute a dollar. The Toyota sales force spends more than that for lunch. If a national or multinational corporation is going to try to buy influence in the Senate it will do it in Montana or Wyoming and not in California. Of course if you limit the size of the state legislature you get a greater amount of corruption at the state level as is the case in California. Smaller legislatures are more corrupt. But senatorial selection by the legislature is still less corrupt than the current system.

Re: Repealing the 17th amendment :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 14:19:35 +0000

TheTrucker wrote: I would simply redefine the 17th amendment as a proposition of states rights. The states decide what they want to do about the situation. If they want the governor to appoint the senator then that is what they will get. It is _THEIR_ state. If they want elections as they are now then they do that also. The people of each state should have the choice, operating through their state legislatures, of defining their own mechanisms for selecting a senator.

I agree!

Re: Repealing the 17th amendment :: Reply by Paul

no_email@example.com (Paul) — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 18:07:33 +0000

Well, I disagree on this one. The problem with the state argument on Federal positions is that they do affect the citizens of other states. Special interest ownership of the senators from just a few states can wield massive power in the Senate, and this affects all states. I do not want to have a single person responsible for selecting people put in such high office, as one person will be much more prone to corruption than many. I believe the senators should be appointed to office by their respective state's legislator for indefinite terms, and replaced at the convenience of the legislator, much as a foreign ambassador.

Re: Repealing the 17th amendment :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 18:28:22 +0000

Paul wrote:Well, I disagree on this one. The problem with the state argument on Federal positions is that they do affect the citizens of other states.

So many things that a neighboring state may do can affect other states (e.g., income tax rates, restrictions on alcohol sales, etc.). That obviously can't be a rationale for regulating what few areas the states still have sovereignty over -- except where explicitly permitted in the Constitution.

I certainly have a strong opinion on how Senators should be selected in Georgia (in the absence of the 17th amendment), but I don't think I should dictate to Idaho how they can do it.

Putting aside that question for a moment, what I'm wondering is, given how difficult it would be to repeal the 17th, would it be easier to simply repeal it, or to repeal it with some additional set of requirements on how the Senators are to be selected by each state? As a practical matter, I believe it would be easier to simply repeal it without all the additional baggage of agreeing on a mandatory selection system. If so, it would be better to get it repealed than it never being repealed because of disagreement over the perfect selection process!

Re: Repealing the 17th amendment :: Reply by Paul

no_email@example.com (Paul) — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 22:17:43 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:So many things that a neighboring state may do can affect other states (e.g., income tax rates, restrictions on alcohol sales, etc.). That obviously can't be a rationale for regulating what few areas the states still have sovereignty over -- except where explicitly permitted in the Constitution.

Well, I'm gonna' say that's a pretty weak argument that could be used to justify volumes of actions, including state officials traveling to neighbor states to make arrests without permission from the state being entered. The fact is that senators from other states have decided that California is only to receive back 79% of the money it sends out in federal taxes, and many states are in the same position as we are. The EPA has blocked the efforts of the California Air Resources Board on a number of occasions. Basically, the Federal Government, acting on legislation from other states, has taken many actions that are in direct opposition to the desires of the citizens of California (again, see Delta smelt). If the citizens of one state have the ability to directly affect those in another state without that state's having any say the matter, that is a form of tyranny, and this is why I believe that every state has the right to decide how those officials get elected.

Putting aside that question for a moment, what I'm wondering is, given how difficult it would be to repeal the 17th, would it be easier to simply repeal it, or to repeal it with some additional set of requirements on how the Senators are to be selected by each state? As a practical matter, I believe it would be easier to simply repeal it without all the additional baggage of agreeing on a mandatory selection system. If so, it would be better to get it repealed than it never being repealed because of disagreement over the perfect selection process!

I consider this from the point of the opposition. What arguments will they use against us? I think one that they would use is the original purpose of the 17th amendment, which was to prevent states from being under-represented in the Senate. My understanding is that this was happening leading up to the Civil War because there were so many contentious issues and state legislators were so divided that neither side would allow a senator to be elected. That is why I propose that the senators serve indefinite terms at the pleasure of the legislator. Nobody wanted to see TARP passed, so what I think would have happened was the instant that bill came up for a vote, a number of state legislators would have voted on and swore in (something they can do locally) new senators, then informed the old senators to return to whatever it was they did before public life. This is an asset.

Re: Repealing the 17th amendment :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:04:21 +0000

I'm FOR the repeal of the 17th Amendment. Actually, it's repeal is part of my 3 step process to save America (another of the steps is obviously the ratification of "Article the First").

But, with regards to how Senators are appointed, I think it would have to be by the state legislatures as originally intended by the Constitution. If the state legislature gets into a deadlock and cannot appoint a Senator before one is to be seated, then the Governor of the state would temporarily appoint someone to fill the vacancy until the state legislature resolves the deadlock issue.

It's an easy fix and is already basically in the original language of the Constitution.

Re: Repealing the 17th amendment :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 01:38:31 +0000

Pseudolus wrote:But, with regards to how Senators are appointed, I think it would have to be by the state legislatures as originally intended by the Constitution.

I believe that any attempt to impose a method of selection (other than the default method provided by the Constitution) would doom any 17th amendment repeal efforts. My only caveat is that it would be reasonable to allow the state legislatures to define an alternative method for selecting the Senators.

Re: Repealing the 17th amendment :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 05:48:20 +0000

Proposed language of a new amendment to repeal the 17th Amendment:

Section 1.
The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2.
If Vacancies in the representation of any State in the Senate happen by failure of the Legislature of such State, the Executive authority of such State may make temporary Appointments until the Legislature of such State fills such Vacancies.

Section 3.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

Thoughts? Comments? Problems?

Re: Repealing the 17th amendment :: Reply by dogtired

no_email@example.com (dogtired) — Wed, 18 May 2011 14:53:20 +0000

I don't think repealing the 17th is out of scope because it addresses proper representation.

There is a book out now that covers this subject. It brings up the subject of the old deadlocks in appointing senators. It suggests that after some serious vetting, the state senate narrow their choices down to two candidates, then invite the lower house in for a joint-house vote. This is important because the senator will be representing them too.

The book also suggests that a state should be able to remove their senator should he fail a vote of confidence in both houses by two-thirds majority.

The book is entitled THE BALTIMORE PRINCIPLES by Carl Douglas. It also addresses lower house reps as well as representation at local, county and state levels.

Re: Repealing the 17th amendment :: Reply by USeagle

no_email@example.com (USeagle) — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 05:14:57 +0000

All the points are well taken, but has anyone considered that the 17th to be null and void if the individual State desires!
Point is…it takes 2/3 of Congress, 2/3 of the States or 3/4 Legislature of the State to propose Amendments, I am sure you know that part. Take a close look at the very last sentence in Article 5 that deals with ratifying Amendments. “and that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”

That last sentence tells me… as an individual (State) I do not give a Damn what 2/3, 3/4 or even 99% of you what …I (State)am not giving up my equal suffrage in the Senate.

IMO… if the States wanted to reclaim their Representatives, it would be a matter of, We the People of that State, demanding this action from our elected State Representatives.

On another point....were in The Constitution, does it say that the Senator is to be appointed? "The Senator, is to be chosen by the State Legislature, as the House of Represenatives is to be chosen by the people of that State.

Appointing is different from chosen!

Re: Repealing the 17th amendment :: Reply by wjh2657

no_email@example.com (wjh2657) — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 20:44:33 +0000

I downloaded "THE BALTIMORE PRINCIPLES by Carl Douglas" and it is only $4.00 on Amazon Kindle! I personally believe we need strong regional pressure on the Federal Government. The Senate, as originally formed by the Constitution before the 17th Amendment, was and still is the answer. Even though the Senator is in D.C. out of my immediate reach, his would be boss, the state legislature, is close enough for me touch. My state assemblywoman and my state Senator have both been in touch with me by correspondence. They are well aware that I have a local hardware store that sells good strong rope and that we have an abundance of tall trees (allegorically speaking) and that I will be after them if they stray. The senate needs to be under our states' control so as to keep the Feds under control. Get back to the original constitution.

Repeal the 17th!

Re: Repealing the 17th amendment :: Reply by Green_TZM

no_email@example.com (Green_TZM) — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:19:12 +0000

What about continuing to allow the citizens to vote for their Senators, and removing the corruptive MONEY from public elections? Public Offices should not be for PRIVATE gain.

Re: Repealing the 17th amendment :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 19:54:22 +0000

Green_TZM wrote:What about continuing to allow the citizens to vote for their Senators, and removing the corruptive MONEY from public elections? Public Offices should not be for PRIVATE gain.

Money will never be removed from the process. There is no way to eliminate money without eliminating freedom of speech - SCOTUS has confirmed that principle. And I want the right myself to spend money on commercials for my favorite congressman (if I had one). So the best thing that can be done is to eliminate the need for the money. For the House of Reps, drastically shrinking the size of congressional districts also drastically reduces the need for money, as it eliminates the mass marketing expense of reaching many hundreds of thousands of voters. So lets extend this argument to the Senators, whose districts are the size of a state! Because some states are especially huge, it can take millions of dollars to win such an election, especially if a candidate is trying to unseat an incumbent, or overcome one of the dominant parties. So the best way to eliminate the need for Senators to prostrate themselves for donations is to have them appointed by the states' legislatures! Those legislators represent us (especially in states with smaller electoral districts) so I am comfortable letting them select the Senator from my state. In addition, the way our federal congress was supposed to work is that the Representatives represent the people, and the Senators represent the states. I agree with that concept, and I believe we should return to that.

Re: Repealing the 17th amendment :: Reply by Mark Davis

no_email@example.com (Mark Davis) — Fri, 07 Mar 2014 16:23:52 +0000

I am also a big fan of repealing the 17th Amendment. That will go a long way towards fixing the Senate. Meanwhile, creating more seats will help fix the house because the smaller the seats are, the harder they are to gerrymander. I like both approaches...

Re: Repealing the 17th amendment :: Reply by USeagle

no_email@example.com (USeagle) — Sat, 08 Mar 2014 04:08:25 +0000

Re: Repealing the 17th amendment :: Reply by WMCraig

no_email@example.com (WMCraig) — Fri, 20 Jun 2014 03:01:08 +0000

Repeal is the only option.
It is clean and neat. As for how Senators are selected, let each state decide that themselves. The whole point I believe is to push decision making to the local level and take power away from Washington. The problem with modifying or adding amendments is that you get special interest groups vying for options and in the end you get a 2700 page change that no one knows what is in it until you pass it. You reduce the possibility of getting it ratified.

But make it simple, just focus on repeal the amendment and let the states have control over how they make the decision to appoint or select Senators. This is a quick, is free standing, requires no extensive debates or compromises, eliminates modifications intended to kill the deal and give the states motivation through self interest that increases the probability of ratification.

There are many things we might want to improve. But the founding fathers created a system of checks and balances and three branches of government isn't all that made it work. Part of it was representation for the people. the main purpose of this site. Part of it was protection against an out of control administrative branch which the Senate before the 17th amendment made possible. The third part isn't that the Administration existed but that they did not have the power of direct taxation (that other pesky Wilsonian era amendment #16) without which the administration could not just print money and spend it without a budget. So there is a lot to be said for a convention of the states to repeal or remove barriers that have been added that are preventing us from getting the representation the founders intended.

Article: Ben Sasse Calls for Repealing the 17th :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 15 Mar 2022 02:50:13 +0000

National Review: Ben Sasse Calls for Repealing 17th Amendment, Eliminating Popular-Vote Senate Elections (September 2020)

NR: How the 17th Amendment Ruined Federalism :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Mon, 10 Apr 2023 15:05:46 +0000

National Review article: How the 17th Amendment Ruined Federalism. Here are some excerpts…

The Senate was meant to protect states as distinct governments with independent powers. State legislatures are part of those governments. Thus, in pursuing their self-interest, they will tend to seek to protect (even enhance) the political power of the states.
…
Importantly, whereas the Founders desired the Senate to be a body more rational, cool, and distant from popular passions, the House’s two-year terms and direct selection by the voters would reflect the people’s more knee-j.erk responses. Of course, gut reactions can prove rash, dangerous, and often damaging to both public good and individual rights. The Senate’s more stoic and thoughtful poise would not result merely from its six-year term but also from the distance state legislative selection created between it and the people. State legislatures would be more likely to pick on the bases of knowledge and virtue rather than mere popularity — hence, the reason the Senate holds special powers the House doesn’t in confirming judicial nominees and ratifying treaties.
…
Right now, our country suffers from states overpowered by the national government and a Congress that’s both weak and feckless against bureaucracies, courts, and presidents alike. The 17th Amendment surely isn’t the sole culprit in the development of these woes, but it’s certainly not helping. Its anniversary is no cause for celebration.

Right Wing Representation :: Author TheTrucker

no_email@example.com (TheTrucker) — Fri, 22 May 2009 20:36:53 +0000

I spend some time looking at the web site and the articles referenced thereby and came to the conclusion that it was a partisan Republican site. That does not make it BAD even though I am partisan Democrat. The things that jumped out at me were the idea that since there would be more representatives then their wages should be cut and that would reduce the expense of the expansion. There is also the Libertarian stuff and the Atlas Shrugged stuff which are way off of my own political and economic map. But what was interesting is that some one would attempt to increase the level of democracy by appealing to Libertarians. I know, of course, that in the strict sense, this may be workable. But it is much more difficult to get Libertarians to embrace representative government than it is to get small 'd' democrats to do so...... Or, at least, one would think so.

As to the wages thing I am of the opinion that I would want high wages to make the position very attractive and to provide a good income and retirement for the representative without that representative being in any way dependent of such things as land speculation to enrich himself. The return on investment regarding representatives should come from their defensive efforts in blocking government handouts to special interests. And they would do this because they can't afford to do otherwise lest they lose their good paying jobs to a "new guy" that discovers their malfeasance in his effort to gain this very good position and income by ousting the current crook. Honest representation becomes the key to success. This "blocking of special interest handouts" is mentioned in Fed 10. As

Madison wrote: Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.

Re: Right Wing Representation :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sat, 23 May 2009 02:08:13 +0000

TheTrucker wrote:I spend some time looking at the web site and the articles referenced thereby and came to the conclusion that it was a partisan Republican site.

I'm missing the antecedent. What web site are you writing about?

Re: Right Wing Representation :: Reply by TheTrucker

no_email@example.com (TheTrucker) — Sat, 23 May 2009 03:38:49 +0000

My short piece on "Right Wing Representation" was written as a topic in the California "Enlarging State Legislatures" forum. That is probably where It should appear but if there is a way to make it do so I am unaware of it. That "effort"/forum has http://www.californiacommonwealth.com/ as the primary web site and that is the site I was speaking of. The Libertarian and right wing stuff is more in the articles and supporting documents than it is an integral part of the web site. However, the comment about stiffing the legislators in order to save money was put forth by the guy that filed the suit. I will not attempt to comment anywhere but here concerning such issues and I hope the action in California is successful. It may actually work out because the Democrats have gerrymandered California as bad as the Republicans have gerrymandered Texas. The California Republicans may be angry enough to make something happen. I would also suggest that the administrator of that site include information on the relative number and size of congressional districts as compared to the legislative. I say this again because of Federalist 10 in that it says:

Madison wrote:By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.

Context is required here in that Madison was defending federal congressional districts of 30 thousand while state legislative districts were max of 5000 people. But the inference is that US Congressional districts should be much larger than state legislative districts. That does not seem to be the case in California.

Re: Right Wing Representation :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Mon, 25 May 2009 11:53:12 +0000

Regarding californiacommonwealth.com being Republican? I don't see it. If I had to ascribe a political label, I would say libertarian.

In general, the libertarians have been quick to support Thirty-Thousand.org and enlarging representation. They quickly grasp the difference between governance and government.

When it comes to enlarging representation, I don't concern myself with whether the arguments appear to be from "republicans" or "democrats", I don't care if Thirty-Thousand.org is supported by left-wing loons or right-wing kooks, or greens, or whatever. That doesn't matter. A congress of 6,000 will be comprised of more of all of those groups, plus a huge number of independent and sensible patriotic Americans.

Re: Right Wing Representation :: Reply by TheTrucker

no_email@example.com (TheTrucker) — Thu, 28 May 2009 03:19:55 +0000

I am still pondering the California stuff, but I think I see it now. When a state has gone so far down the path of lunacy that it requires a 2/3rd majority in the congress to pass a budget, yet amends the State Constitution with a 51% majority vote you know you are dealing with some very strange birds. So it may well be that the California folk have now decided that a decent government in which the people are actually represented is a good Idea that can be more serviceable than the direct initiative stuff and the simple "starve the beast" approach. After all, if you want to control government then the best way to do it is to stay involved by carefully selecting your "agent" (your representative) and holding him accountable by dismissing him (or her) in the event of failure to represent. Automatic transmissions such as requirements for larger legislative majorities or filibuster/cloture votes do not fix anything, and direct democracy such as statewide initiative and referendum are too easily ab-used by special interest groups. I can see where a Libertarian might be able to make peace with that.

Re: Right Wing Representation :: Reply by kalimkhan0900

no_email@example.com (kalimkhan0900) — Tue, 02 Dec 2014 04:47:46 +0000

I examine your post, but i think that there should be more talk about the threat that have initial started, so that the reasonable amount of data'll be available for decision, However, Nice post to talk about, well i like this. Regards

http://pass4-sure.me/

Rasmussen: 43% Say Local Government Better Than Feds, States :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:27:14 +0000

Forty-three percent (43%) of U.S. voters rate the performance of their local government as tops compared to its counterparts on the state and federal level.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 14% think the federal government does a better job. Nineteen percent (19%) say state government is better than the other two.

Rasmussen poll: 43% Say Local Government Better Than Feds, States (February 16, 2010)

Rasmussen: Only 21% Say US Gov. Has Consent of the Governed :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:35:02 +0000

The founding document of the United States, the Declaration of Independence, states that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Today, however, just 21% of voters nationwide believe that the federal government enjoys the consent of the governed.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 61% disagree and say the government does not have the necessary consent. Eighteen percent (18%) of voters are not sure.

Rasmussen poll: Only 21% Say U.S. Government Has Consent of the Governed (February 18, 2010)

Rasmussen: 23% Favor Gov. with More Services, Higher Taxes :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:44:30 +0000

Just 23% of U.S. voters say they prefer a more active government with more services and higher taxes over one with fewer services and lower taxes, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. This finding has remained fairly consistent since regular tracking on this question began in November 2006.

Two-thirds (66%) of voters prefer a government with fewer services and lower taxes.

Rasmussen poll: 23% Favor Government with More Services, Higher Taxes (March 4, 2010)

Fox poll: only 17% think Congress cares what the people want :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:27:40 +0000

17 percent think Congress cares what the American people want, compared to the large 79 percent majority who think Congress does whatever it wants to do.

Read: Fox News / Opinion Dynamics Poll (March 19, 2010)

CNN: Majority says government a threat to citizens' rights :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:38:06 +0000

A majority of Americans think the federal government poses a threat to rights of Americans, according to a new national poll.

Fifty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they think the federal government's become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. Forty-four percent of those polled disagree.

CNN poll: Majority says government a threat to citizens' rights (February 26, 2010)

Re: CNN: Majority says government a threat to citizens' rights :: Reply by TheTrucker

no_email@example.com (TheTrucker) — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 01:11:06 +0000

In that same poll:

According to CNN poll numbers released Sunday, Americans overwhelmingly think that the U.S. government is broken - though the public overwhelmingly holds out hope that what's broken can be fixed.

Do not be mislead by Fuax Noise and Rasmussen. And do not let yourself be too carried away with this CNN deal either. Most of this sentiment has been stirred up by the Tea Baggers and is the worst form of mob rule democracy. And it is this sort of incitement to riot that makes many people want to reduce the representation and embrace authoritarianism. Fear is a two edged sword.

Re: CNN: Majority says government a threat to citizens' rights :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 14:31:48 +0000

TheTrucker wrote:In that same poll:

According to CNN poll numbers released Sunday, Americans overwhelmingly think that the U.S. government is broken - though the public overwhelmingly holds out hope that what's broken can be fixed.

The polls have shown for a long time that people recognize that we cannot rely upon Congress to faithfully represent us, and that widespread recognition of that fact appears to have increased over the last year or so.

This is also why so many Americans don't vote. In 2006 only 40% of eligible voters voted in the federal elections. In 2008, only 61% voted in the federal elections. Many voters understandably stay home when they don't perceive a difference between the Tweedledee and Tweedledum candidates.

Interestingly, when you do the math, in 2008 the president was elected by approximately 31% of eligible voters. It is a very dangerous situation for a representational democracy when so few participate in choosing our representatives -- especially when they do so because they don't have faith that any of the candidates will actually represent them.

Rasmussen: 48% see U.S. government as a threat to rights :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 20:12:13 +0000

Nearly half of American Adults see the government today as a threat to individual rights rather than a protector of those rights. Only 37% hold the opposite view.

Rasmussen poll: 48% See Government Today As A Threat to Individual Rights (June 24, 2010)

Gallup: Americans Trust Own Judgment More Than Politicians' :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sat, 16 Oct 2010 20:58:55 +0000

This poll underscores one of the reasons for replacing the professional political class with true citizen representatives.

Americans continue to have more trust in themselves to make judgments than they do in the men and women who are in political life, with 69% of Americans expressing "a great deal" or "a fair amount" of trust in the former, and 47% in the latter. (I wonder what types of people primarily comprise that 47%.)

Read: Gallup Americans Still Trust Own Judgment More Than Politicians' (October 14, 2010)

Rasmussen and Fox are right wing crank cases :: Author TheTrucker

no_email@example.com (TheTrucker) — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 22:49:17 +0000

The statistics show that Rasmussen and Fox are Republican propaganda outlets while Polster and NPR are a lot more trustworthy. IMHO quoting Faux Noise and Rasmussen is a rightarded thing to do. And if you want another major installment of rightarded ignorance and stupidity then take a look at this high dollar video about representation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elNgRz2QF8A

It may be that public law 62-5 is the problem as amended by the Reapportionment Act of 1929 (the real problem). But it is quite typical of a Republican to call for repeal of a law and not mention any sort of replacement and to fix the date of the breach in the wrong time and to be totally ignorant of the actual history.

Re: Rasmussen and Fox are right wing crank cases :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 19:53:15 +0000

Trucker, I can always count on you to make things partisan.

Only 23% believe fed government has consent of the governed :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Fri, 13 May 2011 21:33:32 +0000

Rasmussen poll: “Only 23% believe the federal government today has the consent of the governed. Sixty percent (60%) do not think this is the case, while another 17% are undecided.” Also: “Just 17% believe most congressmen get reelected because of the good job they do representing their constituents.”

Nothing surprising there. Here is what is more interesting to me: “The Political Class, however, strongly disagrees. Seventy-nine percent (79%) of those in the Political Class believe the government does have the consent of the governed.” I wonder if that is delusion or arrogance.

Rasmussen poll: Just 23% Say Federal Government Has Consent of the Governed (May 13, 2011)

BTW, same story as last year: Only 21% Say US Gov. Has Consent of the Governed

This is so frustrating for me because everyone sees the problem, but so few people realize that the solution is much smaller electoral districts.

Re: Only 23% believe fed government has consent of the gover :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Sat, 14 May 2011 03:19:04 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:This is so frustrating for me because everyone sees the problem, but so few people realize that the solution is much smaller electoral districts.

I can understand your frustration, but you are making a difference. When I first stumbled on your site, I laughed aloud because I thought the idea sounded so ludicrous. As I kept reading, I realized--although it sounds crazy at first--it's actually a brilliant solution. Now, I'm one of your staunchest supporters. I talk about the benefits of greater representation all the time. And in time, the people will be convinced and will be swayed.

As Thomas Paine said, "We have it in our power to begin the world over again."

Re: Only 23% believe fed government has consent of the gover :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sat, 14 May 2011 03:40:00 +0000

Pseudolus wrote:When I first stumbled on your site, I laughed aloud because I thought the idea sounded so ludicrous. As I kept reading, I realized--although it sounds crazy at first--it's actually a brilliant solution. Now, I'm one of your staunchest supporters.

Thank you for those words of encouragement!

It is a brilliant solution. That's why the creators of the Bill of Rights intended it to be the First Amendment. Had the wording of Article the first not been sabotaged in the waning hours of the first Congress, it would have been ratified and our beautiful republic would not be in the peril it is today.

Imagine how many other concepts in the Constitution and Bill of Rights would have been considered "ludicrous" by the Founders' contemporaries, especially in Europe. The Founders' radical notions were considered quite dangerous and, in many parts of the world, they still are viewed as dangerous (by tyrants). The missing piece of the puzzle, this one last dangerous idea, has yet to be implemented: Establish a maximum population size for congressional districts.

Re: Only 23% believe fed government has consent of the gover :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Sat, 14 May 2011 03:52:25 +0000

JEQuidam wrote: Thank you for those words of encouragement!

You're very welcome. I express them with wholehearted sincerity.

JEQuidam wrote:Had the wording of Article the first not been sabotaged in the waning hours of the first Congress, it would have been ratified and our beautiful republic would not be in the peril it is today.

Do we have any idea why, after the discovery of the error and subsequent failure of the first amendment, the Framers didn't correct the amendment's wording and resubmit it for a new vote?

Re: Only 23% believe fed government has consent of the gover :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sat, 14 May 2011 15:23:03 +0000

Pseudolus wrote:Do we have any idea why, after the discovery of the error and subsequent failure of the first amendment, the Framers didn't correct the amendment's wording and resubmit it for a new vote?

My theory: once it was realized, it would have been embarrassing that the very first amendment inscribed in the historic Bill of Rights document contained a fundamental mathematical error (a defect that was not in the earlier version drafted by the House). It was then hidden away in history's attic, figuratively speaking. There is a huge amount of scholarly work on everything else in the Bill of Rights, but nothing about Article the first (except for TTO's report). How does one explain that? It's a huge blind spot in our understanding of our own history.

Everything I could find on the subject is provided in this TTO report: The Minimum and Maximum Size of the U. S. House of Representatives. The pdf can be downloaded from that page. It is comprehensive and well footnoted. A brief summary of this subject is also provided in Section 3 of Taking Back Our Republic.

This forum is devoted to Article the first, but not much discussion there so far.

Re: Only 23% believe fed government has consent of the gover :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Sat, 14 May 2011 21:48:21 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:My theory: once it was realized, it would have been embarrassing that the very first amendment inscribed in the historic Bill of Rights document contained a fundamental mathematical error (a defect that was not in the earlier version drafted by the House). It was then hidden away in history's attic, figuratively speaking. There is a huge amount of scholarly work on everything else in the Bill of Rights, but nothing about Article the first (except for TTO's report). How does one explain that? It's a huge blind spot in our understanding of our own history.

Even if it's just a matter of embarrassment, there must be letters from Madison about this. Someone has to have them. If we could find a letter by Madison saying something like:

When I ponder on that failed attempt, my face flushes with embarrassment that so important an amendment could be sullied with an error so glaring. Even now I fear were we to reintroduce the bill in proper form, our adversaries in Legislature would expose the original flaw to such a degree as to question the whole document and, in that manner, tear our fragile Republic apart. I can only hope in time the wisdom of the whole will be proved, and that in time the inheritors of our efforts will realize the importance of securing representation in numbers equivalent to that which was first proposed. It is imperative to democracy that the common man have an inlet to government not through nobility of name but through the influence of ideas and the persuasion of a handshake to his neighbors.

Have you tried reaching out to historians to see if such a letter exists?

Re: Only 23% believe fed government has consent of the gover :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sat, 14 May 2011 22:21:34 +0000

Pseudolus wrote:Have you tried reaching out to historians to see if such a letter exists?

I've spent many hours in the Library of Congress, other libraries, and examining other sources. I've tracked down every footnote I can. I've made numerous phone calls. Unfortunately, I never found anything that blatant. An appendix of the report identified above lists every historical work I could find where Article the first was discussed. There are a few more in the footnotes throughout the document. You should download that report if only to glance through it.

I dream of the day when scholars will pick up where I left off and take up this very interesting area of inquiry.

Gallup: Congress Ranks Last in Confidence in Institutions :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 01:02:33 +0000

American confidence in Congress ranks dead last out of the 16 institutions rated this year. Only 11% say they have "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in Congress.

The military continues its long-standing run as the highest-rated U.S. institution. Small business and the police occupy second and third places, respectively.

Read: Gallup Congress Ranks Last in Confidence in Institutions (July 22, 2010)

Re: Gallup: Congress Ranks Last in Confidence in Institution :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 11:02:23 +0000

Gallup: Americans Most Confident in Military, Least in Congress (June 23, 2011)

“Congress ranks last among these institutions, behind big business and health maintenance organizations.”

That’s no surprise given that the “People's House” fails to represent the people. It’s a safe bet that the Special Interests hold Congress in much higher esteem, since that is who Congress truly represents.

Only 17% believe U.S. government has consent of the governed :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sun, 07 Aug 2011 18:58:04 +0000

This is the lowest level measured yet.

More from that poll...

Only eight percent (8%) believe the average member of Congress listens to his or her constituents more than to their party leaders. ... Eighty-four percent (84%) think the average congressman listens to party leaders more than the voters they represent. ... Fifty-five percent (55%) of the Political Class, on the other hand, feel the government does have the consent of the governed.

Rasmussen poll: New Low: 17% Say U.S. Government Has Consent of the Governed (August 7, 2011)

Americans' dissatisfaction with the government #1 problem in 2022 :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Wed, 14 Dec 2022 15:14:40 +0000

According to this Gallup Poll, once again Americans identify our government as the nation’s #1 problem in 2022. All the other problems they identify are either created by, or aggravated by, our government. (December 2022 poll.)

We need to greatly enlarge our House of Representatives in order for the citizenry to take our government back from America's ruling class.

Census resistance? :: Author somesavvysooner

no_email@example.com (somesavvysooner) — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:28:04 +0000

If the constitutional authority for the census has been violated by limiting the size of the House, then why co-operate with the 2010 census takers? I'm serious. Perhaps resistance to answering all the irrelevant questions on the census forms can dramatize the goal of this group. "NO information without REPRESENTATION!"

Re: Census resistance? :: Reply by DerekNJ

no_email@example.com (DerekNJ) — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 01:55:14 +0000

It appears the illegal immigration community want to boycott the 2010 census.

The Washington-based National Coalition of Latino Clergy & Christians, led by New Jersey Rev. Miguel Rivera, is calling for a boycott of the 2010 Census by undocumented immigrants, who make up much of the coalition's constituency. Its leaders feel a boycott is the best way to pressure the Obama administration to put immigration reform on the front burner.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/0 ... stors.html

http://thehispanicinstitute.net/node/1602

Re: Census resistance? :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 02:33:35 +0000

We need to ensure that all citizens are properly accounted for in the 2010 Census! I believe that a boycott of the basic census function by citizens would be detrimental with respect to the resulting apportionment. Moreover, I would wonder about the true motives of anyone actively promoting a complete boycott.

However, given the statist direction of the federal government, I am disinclined to answer any census questions above and beyond those necessary to ensure my family is reflected in the population totals.

Different point, but related to the Census: a congressman has made the very sensible suggestion that the U.S. Post Office be used to conduct the census. Congressman Chaffetz notes that "we have a postal service with 760,000 employees who is a trusted entity, who already is charged with going door-to-door to every home in America." [link to story].

Re: Census resistance? :: Reply by somesavvysooner

no_email@example.com (somesavvysooner) — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 03:23:36 +0000

I suppose one may assert that the Constitutional Census places an obligation upon citizens to see that they are 'enumerated' for apportionment purposes. I think that position would persuasive if the 'enumeration' actually safeguarded the right of representation. As Thirty-Thousand.org has so conclusively demonstrated, representation is no longer the primary purpose of the census. The primary purpose of the census today is to collect personal data for corporate commercial use. Therefore, I would say that a boycott of providing that commercial information beyond strict enumeration is justifiable - assuming any lawful justification still exists.

Nevertheless, even if the enumeration did result in better representation after 2010 that would still not mean the collection of personal data for commercial use would be constitutional.

I hope this clarifies my position.

Re: Census resistance? :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 03:37:21 +0000

somesavvysooner wrote:Nevertheless, even if the enumeration did result in better representation after 2010 that would still not mean the collection of personal data for commercial use would be constitutional.

I agree with this statement, and I sympathize with your other concerns at a philosophical level.

My concerns are very pragmatic: states which willfully and systematically harbor illegal aliens will likely be rewarded by an overallocation of representation in the next apportionment for,like it or not,the apportionment population consists of all inhabitants. (Only a constitutional amendment could change that, IMO.)

Conversely, states which attempt to enforce the laws relative to illegal immigration will be penalized by the apportionment.

This problem is further exacerbated if citizens eliminate ourselves from the population counting. I think this is an important point.

However, I don't think anyone should provide any information beyond that if they don't feel comfortable doing so!

Re: Census resistance? :: Reply by somesavvysooner

no_email@example.com (somesavvysooner) — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 06:46:53 +0000

Regarding the enumeration of non-citizen inhabitants: Counting aliens has an effect that is inversely analogous to the old three-fifths rule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_compromise. In other words, citizens who vote gain representation in states with proportionally more aliens than those voting citizens in states with proportionally fewer aliens. The real effect of this skewing is also dependent on election outcomes in the states most skewed in both directions. One might call it "six-fifths" effect in those states with more alien inhabitants - provided, the outcome of elections in those favored states actually alter the outcome of elections for those representatives compared to what the outcome of elections for representatives would have been in the disfavored states had those elections taken place. This is a question which could only be settled by post 2012 election analysis. I agree that the skewing of representation is a reasonable hypothesis.

This may or may not be a "red" state versus "blue" state issue. Recall the political reason why the size of the House was frozen. It was a 'bipartisan' deal struck between Northern politicians awash in immigrants becoming 'unreliable' votes and Southern politicians who did not want to enfranchise their 'unreliable' negro inhabitants. In that era Northern immigrants tended to vote Democratic or Socialists and Southern Blacks tended to vote Republican - if they could vote. The deal took the pressure off incumbent politicians in both regions. Western voters were not considered as a factor in the balance of power either way.

Today, the reasons for maintaining the status quo remains the same: it protects incumbents who protect the establishment bipartisan power elite from challengers who would reflect the honest preferences of their electorates.

The establishment regards honest and effective representation as 'destabilizing'. It is a foregone conclusion within establishment circles that their failures spark 'populist' backlashes which decimate the ranks of their carefully groomed and faithful incumbent stooges.

Hence, American elections are essentially rigged behind a fog of pseudo-constitutional formalities. It makes one wonder why a census matters if elections don't matter. OH! I forgot we need the census to divvy up the deficits and stimulus boodle. It's not about representation at all anymore.

The American Form of Government :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 01:16:55 +0000

Video: "The American Form of Government"

I would like to know who made this video. (I like it.)

On YouTube:

Poll: Only 44% Say Their Own Congressman Thinks Like They Do :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 01:26:18 +0000

"Only 44% Say Their Own Congressman Thinks Like They Do" ideologically. (Rasmussen Poll)

Of course, that means that 56% of those surveyed feel that their representative is either more liberal or more conservative than they are.

Re: Poll: Only 44% Say Their Own Congressman Thinks Like They Do :: Reply by TheTrucker

no_email@example.com (TheTrucker) — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 23:35:59 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:"Only 44% Say Their Own Congressman Thinks Like They Do" ideologically. (Rasmussen Poll)

Of course, that means that 56% of those surveyed feel that their representative is either more liberal or more conservative than they are.

NOPE! It means that the people believe that the current representative is more representative of the lobby and the party than the people. It may be that a smaller number are concerned with ideology, but I am of the opinion that they feel the current system does not provide adequate support for their wants and needs regardless of the ideology. They know the system is broken but they are powerless to fix it and most do not have any idea how to do it. The current 'left wing lollipop" is "campaign finance reform"; a total waste of time and effort in that it has never worked though tried several times already. Rasmussen is used primarily by Republicans that want to discredit the Democrats. If the Republicans were in the majority in the congress this poll would probably never had been conducted by Rasmussen.

Re: Poll: Only 44% Say Their Own Congressman Thinks Like They Do :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:19:04 +0000

TheTrucker wrote: Rasmussen is used primarily by Republicans that want to discredit the Democrats.

I try to use any poll results that seem credible, and I have found Rasmussen to be credible (or at least as credible as any other polls). But thanks for the conspiracy theory.

Interestingly, an independent analysis ranked Rasmussen #1 with respect to "Poll Accuracy in the 2008 Presidential Election". Gallup is #17.

I think it's helpful to utilize relevant poll results from any reputable pollster, but of course we have to be very cautious about poll results unless we fully understand how they worded the questions (and how they selected their interview subjects).

Freedom in the 50 states :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 03:09:54 +0000

My brother sent this report to me:

Freedom in the 50 states: An index of personal and economic freedom (February 2009)
by William P. Ruger & Jason Sorens
Description and link to the PDF report is provided on this page.

From the report's summary:
"This paper presents the first-ever comprehensive ranking of the American states on their public policies affecting individual freedoms in the economic, social, and personal spheres. We develop and justify our ratings and aggregation procedure on explicitly normative criteria, defining individual freedom as the ability to dispose of one’s own life, liberty, and justly acquired property however one sees fit, so long as one does not coercively infringe on another individual’s ability to do the same."

Cut to the money shot, see the four charts on pages 9 and 10:
Table I: Fiscal Policy Ranking
Table II: Regulatory Policy Ranking
Table III: Economic Freedom Ranking
Table IV: Personal Freedom Ranking

And the consolidated "Overall Freedom Ranking" is provided on page 17. BTW, the authors also thoughtfully provide the supporting data (in a separate spreadsheet) to enable anyone to re-analyze the data with their own preferred weightings. Of course, there would be a million ways to measure and weight all the variables ― and inert scholars could forever debate these various ways in their march towards inconsequentness ― but these guys took the initiative and drew a line in the sand for the sake of attempting to benchmark that which I thought was not measurable. (I am impressed.)

Here is the interesting thing: note New Hampshire's preeminent ranking in these tables, and contrast with California's dismal results. Can anyone tell me how this relates to need for representational enlargement? Anyone? As Michael Warnken would hasten to point out, huge California has only 80 legislators in the lower house of its state legislature, while little New Hampshire has 400!

Re: Freedom in the 50 states :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:45:47 +0000

This is a follow-up to the posting about the freedom indices.

In addition to Mercatus, two other think tanks have ranked the states according to their relative levels of freedom.

I have analyzed the results of those analyses. Not surprisingly, those states with the lowest level of freedom have electoral districts (relative to their state legislatures) much larger than those states with the highest level of freedom.

Here is the report: “State Freedom Indices and Legislative District Population Sizes”

(The charts tell the whole story.)

Re: Freedom in the 50 states :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:20:48 +0000

A short article about this report is available here:
http://thirty-thousand-org.blogspot.com ... sizes.html
It's easier to read than the full report.

The Census, Noncitizens and Apportionment :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 02:01:53 +0000

Hypothetical scenario: State A has a large number of illegal aliens and State B has very few illegal aliens. Because illegal aliens are included in the population census, State A receives (in the 2010 apportionment) an additional federal Representative that would have otherwise gone to State B.

Question: is it fair and appropriate for State A get that extra Representative?

Unfortunately, that probably is not a hypothetical scenario.

I believe that noncitizens should be excluded from the population census used to allocate representation in the U.S. House. Noncitizens include illegal aliens (a.k.a. "illegal immigrants"), as well as legal foreign nationals such as exchange students or family members who are visiting from another country.

The Census Bureau should be required, by Congress, to collect the information necessary to apportion representation among the states based only on the total number of U.S. citizens. To do otherwise risks unjustifiably allocating too much representation to one state vis-à-vis the other states.

How is a respondent's citizen status to be verified? There is probably not an acceptable way to determine, in every case, whether the person being surveyed is actually a citizen. We obviously do not want to empower the census takers to demand passports or birth certificates. Instead, an acceptable solution would be to simply ask those being polled: "Are you a citizen of the United States?" In addition, instruct those who are completing the census forms to exclude any residents of the household who are noncitizens (or alternatively, identify them as noncitizens on the Census form).

Of course, there is a risk that some noncitizens will falsely claim to be citizens, but falsely including a few noncitizens in the population count is certainly more equitable (for calculating the apportionment) than deliberately attempting to include all of them.

Re: The Census, Noncitizens and Apportionment :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 02:33:45 +0000

On the subject of noncitizens and apportionment, and for future reference (mine or anyone else's), below are various random links I found based on a quick search. There are probably a few more worth adding.

News stories:

ABC: Senators Try to Exclude Illegal Immigrants From 2010 Census
by Haya El Nasser
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senators ... id=8825960 (14-OCT-2009)

Wall Street Journal: Our Unconstitutional Census
by John S. Baker and Elliott Stonecipher
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000142 ... 81832.html (10-AUG-2009)

LA Times: U.S. Census sparks feud over the counting of illegal immigrants
by Teresa Watanabe
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/31 ... -boycott31 (31-MAY-2009)

Other commentaries:

BigGovernment.com: Will the Census Count Illegal Immigrants?
by Sen. David Vitter (R-LA)
http://biggovernment.com/2009/10/08/wil ... mmigrants/# (8-OCT-2009)

Drum Major Institute:Sens. Vitter And Bennett Insist On Robbing Their States of Greater Census Representation
by Andrea Nill
http://www.drummajorinstitute.org/libra ... hp?ID=7138 (7-OCT-2009)

The Census Project Blog: Undocumented Immigrants & the U.S. Census
by Terri Ann Lowenthal
http://censusprojectblog.org/2009/10/06 ... -s-census/ (6-OCT-2009)

14thAmendment.us: Apportionment and the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution
by Fred Elbel
http://www.14thamendment.us/apportionme ... nment.html (1-DEC-2008)

Go Articles: The Politics Of Illegal Immigration
by James W. Smith
http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=1113219 (08-SEP-2008)

Huffington Post: Should The Census Count Illegal Immigrants?
by Chris Weigant
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-wei ... 66897.html (3-OCT-2007)

Re: The Census, Noncitizens and Apportionment :: Reply by HouseSizeWonk

no_email@example.com (HouseSizeWonk) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:17:12 +0000

The apportionment figure must include illegal aliens and other noncitizens due to constitutional imperative. "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed." U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 2 (emphasis added). Note that it does not say the whole number of citizens; it's the whole number of persons. There are no longer any untaxed Indians. See 87 CONG. REC. 70 (1941) (citing Superintendent of Five Civilized Tribes v. Comm'r, 295 U.S. 418 (1935); 39 Op. Att'y Gen. 518 (1940)). As a result, everybody "in each State" counts towards the apportionment figure.

Re: The Census, Noncitizens and Apportionment :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:18:18 +0000

HouseSizeWonk wrote:The apportionment figure must include illegal aliens and other noncitizens due to constitutional imperative. ...

Are you saying that the only way to change this (so that only citizens are counted) would be through a constitutional amendment? So if Congress did enact such a law, SCOTUS may rule that law to be unconstitutional?

Re: The Census, Noncitizens and Apportionment :: Reply by HouseSizeWonk

no_email@example.com (HouseSizeWonk) — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:48:33 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:
HouseSizeWonk wrote:The apportionment figure must include illegal aliens and other noncitizens due to constitutional imperative. ...
Are you saying that the only way to change this (so that only citizens are counted) would be through a constitutional amendment? So if Congress did enact such a law, SCOTUS may rule that law to be unconstitutional?

I am saying precisely that. Such an amendment has been proposed. See H.R.J. Res. 11, 111th Cong. (2009); H.R.J. Res. 6, 110th Cong. (2007); H.R.J. Res. 53, 109th Cong. (2005).

This makes sense; at the time the 14th Amendment was proposed and ratified, there were no immigration controls. Moreover, it is at least arguable that the number of people living in a given place should determine the number of representatives it gets, given that the sheer size of the human population (whether citizen or non-citizen) affects the need for the distribution of public resources, and that not allowing the illegals to vote for the representation strikes the adequate balance. I happen to disagree, but it's arguable.

Re: The Census, Noncitizens and Apportionment :: Reply by General Welfare

no_email@example.com (General Welfare) — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 23:47:06 +0000

Hi I'm new here.
Long ago I came across this issue and postulated a new House of Representatives, 10,000 in number, meeting in a large stadium, each Rep. bringing local answers to wide ranging issues and the collective surplus to bear on pressing local concerns. What an experiment!

Anyway, as to the issue at hand, it seems somewhat superflous, in that what matter does it if apportionments are applied to population since if both the number/amounts of Reps, tax burden, and collective largesse are applied with the same formula. It all seems to work out as a wash.

One can't deny a state, burdened, willingly or otherwise, albeit due to disrupting immigration policies, the collective national resources to function, provide for all and thereby better secure peace, security and greater good for all.

Status of population might be better addressed with other plans and thereby not further complicate the process of gaining for all posterity the promise of a propoportionate representative republic.

General Welfare

Re: The Census, Noncitizens and Apportionment :: Reply by 803sccdantes

no_email@example.com (803sccdantes) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 06:34:15 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:
HouseSizeWonk wrote:The apportionment figure must include illegal aliens and other noncitizens due to constitutional imperative. ...
Are you saying that the only way to change this (so that only citizens are counted) would be through a constitutional amendment? So if Congress did enact such a law, SCOTUS may rule that law to be unconstitutional?

Exactly. The Court applied this same logic to give due process rights to illegal aliens. The 5th amendment only speaks of a "person" and not a citizen. That's why the old argument of "why can't we just deport all illegal aliens" doesn't work. Someone accused of being an illegal alien or committing a crime while being an illegal alien is entitled to the same due process rights as every citizen just like every person, legal or illegal, is counted in the census for purposes of apportionment.

Interestingly enough, the attempts to exclude immigrants from the apportionment count was part of the reason some in Congress wanted to pass the law capping the House at 435. The rural districts didn't like the idea of the cities gaining so many votes because they had grown so much due to the wave of immigration in the 1910-1920 period. I believe there was even an attempt to include an amendment to the 1929 apportionment bill that was nearly identical to the proposed amendment you mentioned is being currently proposed.

Who? :: Author uhclem

no_email@example.com (uhclem) — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 19:11:07 +0000

Maybe two of you know who I am.
I poasted here a couple of times and would have never again darkened your doors (mainly 'cause y'all are way smarter than me and I have unresolved anger issues that have nothing to do with you) but I stupidly signed up for email alerts from your forum and seems someone poasted something recently.

Regardless, I still link to your site (from halebobbdotcom) but I link to a lot of sites that I'm only mildly in agreement with.

So there!
Oh. The reason I'm writing:
I'm unsubscribing from the alerts. If someone wished to correspond with me I'm sure they can figure out how to.

Pfft!

Iraqi Constitution: one Rep for every 100,000 Iraqis :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 18:24:24 +0000

The Iraqi Constitution specifies that:

"The Council of Representatives shall consist of a number of members, at a ratio of one representative per 100,000 Iraqi persons representing the entire Iraqi people."

In other words, the number of constituents represented by each Representative in the Iraqi national legislature is approximately 14% of the number represented by Representatives in the U.S. House (each of whom represent over 700,000 people on average).

According to the current Wiki article about the Constitution of Iraq, this provision can be found in section 47, but other versions (earlier versions?) show this requirement in sections 48 or 49. The text posted on The Washington Post also indicates it is in Section 47. (That text is attributed to the Associated Press as of October 12, 2005.)

As a result, the Iraqi Council of Representatives currently has 275 Representatives, which is 63% the size of the U.S. federal House's 435 Representatives.

Taking Back Our Republic :: Author Jims65

no_email@example.com (Jims65) — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 23:37:18 +0000

In Taking Back Our Republic, Page 2 you wrote; “years later, after the 1920 census, Congress failed to reapportion the House in direct violation of the Constitution”.

I am wondering if you would clarify how the Congress was in direct violation of the Constitution. Doesn’t the Constitution indicate Congress can determine how that is to be done? (Article I Section 2)

Re: Taking Back Our Republic :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 13:24:46 +0000

Jims65 wrote:Doesn’t the Constitution indicate Congress can determine how that is to be done? (Article I Section 2)

(Sorry for the tardy reply. I'm supposed to receive e-mails notifying me of new posts. Not sure if I'm getting those.)

What Article 1 Section 2 of the Constitution explicitly requires is that "Representatives ... shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers" (subject to the minimum constraints of 1 per state and 1 per every 30,000). The key language is "apportioned among the several states ... according to their respective numbers". That language explicitly requires that if a state has X% of the population, it should have X% of the representation in Congress – to the extent mathematically possible without violating the minimum constraints – that is the primary requirement.

In order to achieve that objective, there has to be a sufficient number of Representatives. Otherwise, they could allocate only 150 Representatives with approximately the same degree of inaccuracy as they do today.

In addition, and directly related to that point, constraining the number of Representatives to such a small number inevitably forces an egregious violation of the Constitutional principle of "One Person One Vote". This is explained in section 9 of the pamphlet, and is also the subject of the Apportionment.us litigation against the federal government.

Ten Thousand Commandments - 2010 edition :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 18:03:41 +0000

According to the just-released 2010 edition of "Ten Thousand Commandments", an annual study published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, businesses and individuals incurred $1.187 trillion in expenses last year simply in order to comply with federal rules. Factor in the $54.3 billion that the federal government spends on administration and enforcement, and the full cost of the regulatory state comes to $1.24 trillion.

The Code of Federal Regulations is now over 157,000 pages long. Last year alone, 3,503 new rules went into effect -- that's nearly 10 new regulations every day, seven days a week.

Re: Ten Thousand Commandments - 2010 edition :: Reply by Paul

no_email@example.com (Paul) — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 04:36:56 +0000

Do you happen to know where I could get the total number of pages in the CFR each year? I've always wanted to graph out the increases in the number of pages each year.

Re: Ten Thousand Commandments - 2010 edition :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 15:28:14 +0000

Paul wrote:Do you happen to know where I could get the total number of pages in the CFR each year? I've always wanted to graph out the increases in the number of pages each year.

I just read this quote from George Washington:

The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position.

Paul, that would be a great graph! In fact, that's such a good idea, I wouldn't be surprised if somebody already did it.

However, I don't think the number of pages would be the right measure (pages and font sizes can change over time). It should be a graph of the number of regulations and/or the number of words. I don't know where you could find that data. Maybe the folks at the CEI have already done that.

WSJ: Congress Members Bet on Fall in Stocks :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 04 May 2010 13:22:45 +0000

From the article in the Wall Street Journal, "Congress Members Bet on Fall in Stocks": "Some members of Congress made risky bets with their own money that U.S. stocks or bonds would fall during the financial crisis, a Wall Street Journal analysis of congressional disclosures shows." [03-May-2010]

Who says that Congress isn't doing something about the financial problems facing our country?

Taiwan: one delegate per 500,000 :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 21:34:34 +0000

Michael Warnken (CaliforniaCommonwealth.com) recently pointed this out to me.

Taiwan (a.k.a. the "Republic of China") establishes a maximum ratio of representation of one delegate per 500,000 for their National Assembly according to their constitution. This language can be found in Article 26 (in Section III) which states:

One delegate shall be elected from each hsien, municipality, or area of equivalent status. In case its population exceeds 500,000, one additional delegate shall be elected for each additional 500,000.

Of course, a maximum district size of 500,000 is huge, but it is smaller than 434 of 435 Congressional districts in the U.S. Only Wyoming's single congressional district is smaller with a total of 495,304 residents as of the 2000 census. The average congressional district size in the U.S. was 646,952 (as of the 2000 census).

Re: Taiwan: one delegate per 500,000 :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Sun, 18 Jul 2010 16:18:53 +0000

The problem is keeping the House productive while appropriately representing the population level. Given today's social networking capabilities, it seems like one for every 250,000 (or roughly 1,200 Representatives) would be an appropriate number. As populations grow and technology changes, perhaps the divisor of 250,000 should change.

What needs to be determined is how to fluctuate the House appropriately so as to maintain some sense of stability, then once a proper formula is set how best to move to that system without sending the House into growth shock.

I've been trying to work out the math all morning, but it may be over my head.

Re: Taiwan: one delegate per 500,000 :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sun, 18 Jul 2010 18:24:30 +0000

Pseudolus wrote:I've been trying to work out the math all morning, but it may be over my head.

Pseudolus, I would be grateful if you would carefully read "Taking Back Our Republic" which can be downloaded from this page.

Re: Taiwan: one delegate per 500,000 :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Sun, 18 Jul 2010 23:44:55 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:Pseudolus, I would be grateful if you would carefully read "Taking Back Our Republic" which can be downloaded from this page.

I did read it. It doesn't persuade me to increase membership as high as 6000, at least not without several steps between. This is why I've been begging you to start a thread where we debate the language of such an amendment, as implementing the original language now would break our entire system by sending it into shell shock.

Re: Taiwan: one delegate per 500,000 :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 01:57:53 +0000

Pseudolus wrote: I did read it. It doesn't persuade me to increase membership as high as 6000, at least not without several steps between.

Please see my reply here: http://forum.thirty-thousand.org/viewto ... ?f=16&t=64

Follow the money :: Author FiddlerBob

no_email@example.com (FiddlerBob) — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 02:29:01 +0000

In addition to changing the size of congressional districts please consider another solution that I believe would lead to more accountable and responsive representation.

Our Constitution provides for a periodic census for apportionment of representation and tax purposes. This apportionment is necessary to fulfill the promise of equal representation. What seems to be interfering with our "equality" more than anything else is the allowance of foreign money - any money from outside a given constituency - to enter political campaigns. Yes, political contributions are protected under our freedom of speech. But, money entering an election process from foreign sources (outside constituencies) violates those citizen's right to equal representation. Such contributions are rightfully considered unconstitutional. They, in effect, take representation away from one citizen to give to another. Politicians are heavily pressured to "follow the money" and tend to serve whoever provides it.

A politician should be allowed to accept donations only from individual citizens who reside within his constituency. In respect of every citizen's freedom of speech, no limit should be set. However, all contributions should be transparent. Unspent campaign contributions, except for the personal funds of the politician, should be returned to the voters or to the general fund of the district.

Further, elected officials are paid well enough to provide for their own retirement programs and health care. Eliminate their "Golden Parachutes" and a lot of other perks and we'll get more patriots and fewer parasites in office . When you really think about it; within the framework of a constitutional republic that respects and embraces the rights and responsibilities of the individual and the states there really shouldn't be a lot left for the federal government to do after 250+ years.

Re: Follow the money :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 06:26:18 +0000

FiddlerBob wrote:...money entering an election process from foreign sources (outside constituencies) violates those citizen's right to equal representation. Such contributions are rightfully considered unconstitutional. They, in effect, take representation away from one citizen to give to another.

I disagree wholeheartedly. Also, I think this suggestion is a backwards insult to the American voter as it suggests they don't know why they're making the choices they make. Besides, with smaller Congressional districts, campaign financing will not be a major issue as it won't cost much to reach all the voting constituents. In small Congressional districts, the most valuable asset is not money but clear arguments and persuasive power.

FiddlerBob wrote:Politicians are heavily pressured to "follow the money" and tend to serve whoever provides it.

Yes, that's why we're making money mostly irrelevant via small districts. It's also why many of us separately support a repeal of the 17th Amendment.

FiddlerBob wrote:A politician should be allowed to accept donations only from individual citizens who reside within his constituency.

Really? So if I run for office and all my friends and family happen to live outside my gerrymandered district, none of them can support my dream so that I can simply let voters know I exist? Get real. This would be awful. The solution to authoritarian problems is rarely the creation of more authoritarian law. Anyone from anywhere should be allowed to donate and help publicize campaigns. Donations should be transparent, but we should not put additional limits on charity and freedom.

FiddlerBob wrote:Further, elected officials are paid well enough to provide for their own retirement programs and health care. Eliminate their "Golden Parachutes" and a lot of other perks and we'll get more patriots and fewer parasites in office.

This detail is a minor financial one that does not need to be in the Constitution. People like their Constitution clean and simple, not muddied with minutia. Eliminating "Golden Parachutes" is as simple as electing Representatives via small Congressional districts and forcing them to change the law. If they don't vote as they were elected to do, the small district's constituents will easily and quickly not re-elect them; and with such short terms in the House and the Representative's desire for re-election, the "Golden Parachute" law would be changed relatively quickly for all future Representatives.

Re: Follow the money :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 14:06:46 +0000

Pseudolus wrote:
FiddlerBob wrote:Politicians are heavily pressured to "follow the money" and tend to serve whoever provides it.
Yes, that's why we're making money mostly irrelevant via small districts. It's also why many of us separately support a repeal of the 17th Amendment.

That pretty much sums up my view as well. Though smaller districts will not make money completely irrelevant, its corrupting influence will be significantly reduced. For those who are skeptical, read this comparison between California and New Hampshire: "Freedom and Legislative District Size". How much would it cost (or even be worth) to campaign in NH to become a state legislator? (The answer is determined by the size of the electoral district, not the size of the state.)

And for those who want to drastically reduce the corrupting influence of money on the Senate, the most effective solution is to repeal the 17th amendment.

I agree that the federal Representatives' pension plan is extravagant, especially relative to the short amount of time they must serve to be eligible for it. This may provide the most conspicuous example of how this country-club oligarchy takes advantage of the American people. However, I believe this problem can be solved after we, the people, take back the House. After we take back the House, many of these issues will be, in time, properly resolved by our citizen legislators.

TRANSPARENCY OF COMMUNICATION :: Author depressionbaby

no_email@example.com (depressionbaby) — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 01:52:43 +0000

I would like to have criticism of the idea of making ALL COMMUNICATION OF OUR REPRESENTATIVES WITH OTHER MEMBERS OF GOVERNMENT, of public record and posted daily, so any person go go online every evening if desired and to monitor just what is being discussed and what position our representative is taking. This in my opinion, would bring instant honesty to government.

The myth: Voters hate Congress but love their Congressman :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 23:11:57 +0000

Scott Rasmussen, a highly respected pollster with an excellent track record, wrote a little book last year titled “In Search of Self-Governance” in which he made a number of insightful observations. The one I want to call to everyone's attention is his commentary about “the tired cliché that ‘voters hate Congress but love their own Congressman’”. I had longed believed this was an old canard that, though it may hold true in a number of districts, is not applicable to any great extent.

Below is the relevant excerpt from In Search of Self-Governance.

Scott Rasmussen wrote:Political activists routinely snicker about the fact that most Americans can’t even name their own representative in Congress. To political junkies, who view these elected politicians as princes or petty monarchs, this is a sure sign of public ignorance. From a different perspective, it’s a bit like not knowing the names of the cool kids in junior high school.

But, like junior high school students worried about hanging with the cool kids, political activists are so wrapped up in their own world that they miss a very basic point – there’s no reason that most people should know who represents their districts in Congress. It might help in a game of Trivial Pursuit, but what difference does it make in the real world?

Knowing the name of your District’s rep in Congress is certainly not going to give you any influence over how that person acts or votes. Unless you’re a close friend, lobbyist, or big donor, they’re not going to pick up the phone when you call.

And if you need help from a Congressional office, you don’t need to know your Congressman’s name. Congress has set up a web service where you can enter your zip code and they’ll connect you with the appropriate office staff. All legislators are happy to help, especially since their constituent services are paid for by taxpayers.

What about elections and voting? Well, about 90% of Americans live in Congressional Districts specifically designed to avoid competitive races and offer no meaningful choice to voters. Incumbents like it that way. But, if there’s no meaningful choice, knowing the name of your representative doesn’t matter even on Election Day.

Activists from both political parties like to discourage talk about the way elections are essentially rigged for one party or the other. They tend to trot out the tired cliché that “voters hate Congress but love their own Congressman.” They intentionally overlook the obvious contradiction that people can’t love their elected officials if they don’t know their name. Deep down they know the truth. Legislators win reelection for the same reasons that casinos make money: they write the rules.*

The US Census and the Amazing Apportionment Machine (video) :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 22:03:30 +0000

This video, produced by the U.S. Census Bureau, does a nice job of using graphics to illustrate the apportionment process in a simple way (without losing their audience over the underlying mathematics).

Relative to representational enlargement, the most interesting part of the video is this assertion: “The apportionment process ensures equal representation for all, just like the founding fathers planned.” Though that is exactly what the Founders had planned, the apportionment process certainly does not ensure “equal representation for all” (as a result of the limitation created by having only 435 Representatives). Instead, the result is an egregious violation of “one person, one vote” as explained in section 9 of Taking Back Our Republic. This injustice is also the subject of Clemons vs. Department of Commerce (see Apportionment.us).

The Repeal Amendment :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 17 May 2011 16:38:35 +0000

Proposed amendment: "Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed."

See RepealAmendment.org

This amendment would certainly put some teeth back into the Tenth Amendment!

It is basically a streamlined version of an Article V convention (as provided by the Constitution), but with the narrow purpose of negating existing laws rather than proposing new amendments. It's a brilliant idea. Who could oppose it? The political elites and the special interests who fund them.

Re: The Repeal Amendment :: Reply by dogtired

no_email@example.com (dogtired) — Wed, 18 May 2011 16:04:22 +0000

I believe the Repeal Amendment would be better than nothing... but Repealing the 17th Amendment is the only true solution as it would give the states their voice back.

Those pushing for the Repeal Amendment agree. But they decided to try this route because they think it will be easier to pass. I disagree. We don't need new laws so much as we need getting rid of the bad ones.

One drawback to the Repeal Amendment is that Congress can just keep on passing the very law that just got vetoed by the states. They can play this game forever. With 17 gone, the states can nip dumb laws before they are passed. And they only need a simple majority to do so.

The whole idea of having two houses is that one is to represent the state governments and the other are those directly representing we the people. Having two houses of the same type of representation is redundant.

The book, THE BALTIMORE PRINCIPLES, points out that this was the way our colonial governments operated during the 125 years prior to the revolution. The upper houses represented the lower governments (appointed) while the lower house had representatives for the people (elected). These vertical checks and balances were one of the reasons why our colonies were so great (and so independent) compared to other British colonies.

Re: The Repeal Amendment :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Wed, 18 May 2011 21:15:26 +0000

dogtired wrote:We don't need new laws so much as we need getting rid of the bad ones.

Which is precisely what the "Repeal Amendment" is intended to do! There are no perfect solutions, there are only better solutions. Representational enlargement, repealing the 17th, the "Repeal Amendment" are all compatible solutions that would improve our republic.

Re: The Repeal Amendment :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Thu, 26 May 2011 05:47:29 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:
dogtired wrote:We don't need new laws so much as we need getting rid of the bad ones.
Which is precisely what the "Repeal Amendment" is intended to do! There are no perfect solutions, there are only better solutions. Representational enlargement, repealing the 17th, the "Repeal Amendment" are all compatible solutions that would improve our republic.

This sounds like a good idea at first, but I fear it could drastically backfire in a slew of future Supreme Court cases.

The States grant power to the Federal government. If Congress writes an unconstitutional law, the 10th Amendment is supposed to be used to protect individuals and states alike. If the Repeal Amendment is ratified into the Constitution, the federal government could argue that unless the States opt to execute their power to repeal Congressional laws, then those States are by omission granting said power to the Congress.

The States should be using the 10th Amendment more, and they should be using Article V where the 10th Amendment fails. If a Congressional law that would otherwise get a 2/3rd's repeal from the States somehow passes muster both through a Supreme Court 10th Amendment challenge and through a failure in an Amendment Convention, I've no doubt the public will soon elect representatives who will repeal the highly controversial law upon entry into Congress.

The Repeal Amendment is too dangerous a rabbit-hole for me to jump down.

Alternative Structures :: Author jrb16915

no_email@example.com (jrb16915) — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 20:46:04 +0000

I totally agree that the level of representation in the house is too small, by far. As an aside, one side effect of the arbitrary 435 number is that it makes the impact of the 2 Senate seats on the Electoral College proportionately very large. This is probably discussed elsewhere on the site, but thought I would mention it in case it wasn't. As both a small state and red state fan, I have to admit I kind of like that effect.

Left wingers, Right wingers and moderates alike all seem dissatisfied the current political environment. Lurching from one set of reps to another in the current system doesn't seem like its going to lead to much more satisfaction. It seems worth trying something different.

There is one practical difficulty with the thirty-thousand.org proposed structure. Even 435 representatives is a lot of cooks stirring the legislative pot, 10,000 would be pretty unwieldy. I suggest leaving the Senate as is, but dividing the duties of the house between two tiers. The first tier would be similar in size to the current house. That group would be strictly limited to drafting legislation and advocating for it but would have no votes. They would be located in Washington as they are now. The second group would be the larger group 6k to 10k depending on whether you want 30k citizens per rep or 50k citizens per rep. This number would grow with the population. This group would not be located at home and would strictly be limited to voting on legislation. Enlarging the population of voting reps undermines lobbyists and the big money needs. Staying home full time would allow much better citizen access. Separating the vote from the drafting, would nearly destroy the impact of big money lobbying. The tier 1 drafter/advocates will have no incentive to draft legislation that fails time after time. The really will have to address the need of the electors. To pay for the added electors, I would reduces the sizes of the drafting/advocate members in Washington's staff by 15-20 per member. The drafters would be able to rely on the elected reps at home for advice and feedback, and they would not need the staff they do now to wine and dine lobbyists. By having these members stay home, and only vote, voters in the election will simply be looking at there voting records, and not have to worry so much about "constituent" service and other issues.

In the event legislation is initiated in the Senate, the voting members would have a straight up or down approach on the Senate version before the drafters/advocates got involved in the process. Any drafting member of the house could initiate legislation.

I think this structure would have all of the benefits of the main proposal, but be more practical. The main drawback, is that it seems as though simple legislation could implement the thirty-thousand.org approach, while this proposal clearly needs a constitutional amendment.

Re: Alternative Structures :: Reply by sbozich

no_email@example.com (sbozich) — Tue, 10 May 2011 15:23:42 +0000

I don't dislike your idea. It is apparent that the country has swelled to the point of being ungovernable, as evidenced by the persistent gridlock in Washington. It seems that the only time something does get done is when tectonic political plates shift rapidly, and the result is often as destructive as the natural version. Textbook examples would be the passage of the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act of 2010, and the lack of "Comprehensive" Immigration Reform (that actually maintains the borders of the country).

I am happy to see a site like this exists, and furthermore that intelligent, thoughtful posts seem to be commonplace. I would like to take this opportunity to ask that we consider another possibility:

The main thrust of this site seems to be to improve representation through the denominator effect; that is, increasing the number of representatives per voter. Should we also consider the possibility of improving representation through the numerator effect, or reducing the number of citizens eligible to vote. Our War of Independence was fought and won with (among others) the slogan "No taxation without representation", yet today we see an explosion of representation without taxation. From a purely theoretical standpoint, surely we can agree that a society that allows 51% to vote for themselves the wealth of the other 49% is little more than a tyranny.

Thus, I would like to take this opportunity to open the door for discussion regarding limiting the right of citizens to vote. I would begin the conversation by asking if there is some basic principle upon which we could all agree? Should someone who pays no income tax be empowered to vote? What of those recieving government transfer payments like SSI or even the EIC? I know it is a sensitive subject, but that makes approaching it in an intelligent and mature manner ever more important. I am confident this forum is an appropriate environment for such a discussion.

Re: Alternative Structures :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Fri, 13 May 2011 22:35:01 +0000

I moved this discussion to the "Whatever..." category (because it had nothing to do with "One Person, One Vote").

Re: Alternative Structures :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Fri, 13 May 2011 22:49:47 +0000

Stephen, for the record, TTO would never expand its mission to include the concept of disqualifying citizens from voting. However, I have no objection to the concept being debated in this forum. Since you asked about it, I’ll add my 2¢.

We already disqualify citizens to some extent in that felons are prohibited from voting, but that is an unambiguous delineation to make. There are probably disqualifying circumstances on which most people would agree. For example, a few weeks ago I saw a news story about a mentally handicapped man who was driven (with other patients) to the poll and told for whom to vote. This man’s parents reported the event. The poor man didn’t know for whom he voted, or why. However, there is no way I would ever want to police that. Who decides where we draw the line? (Maybe some states have laws regulating this, I don’t know).

In any case, what you propose would require a constitutional amendment. From a strictly pragmatic perspective, you would never achieve agreement on the language of that proposed amendment; there are far too many subjective standards. And people who know history realize what a terrifying slippery slope we could find ourselves on.

From my point of view, the instances of poorly qualified citizens voting is really just statistical noise that should be overwhelmed by a much larger number of better informed voters. Therefore, I prefer considering enabling solutions for the problem you raise, rather than disabling solutions. I would much rather improve the quality of the electorate through better education and by having better information available to the voter. And it would help if we had an unbiased media that doesn't selectively distort the candidates' information on a partisan basis.

It is my firm belief that with smaller congressional districts, such as 50,000, the quality of the electorate would improve significantly. I believe this for many reasons, one of which is that a Rep in such a district would have every reason to better enlighten and involve his/her constituency. If the Rep isn't doing that, then his/her challenger will. Moreover, in smaller districts many more citizens will get involved. I have no doubt that many intelligent and thoughtful citizens currently abstain from the voting process because, in their oversized electoral district, they realize that their vote really won't make a difference. I discuss these points in “Taking Back Our Republic” and so won’t belabor them here.

Also, in much smaller districts, the role of the media becomes far less significant. This is important! In smaller electoral districts, the emphasis is on the candidate reaching out to the community, in person. This is a real game changer. Slick (and expensive) media campaigns will be replaced by very personal townhall meetings. When that happens, I have great faith that the electorate will almost always make the best decision.

Finally, I would be very happy if we could simply prevent non US citizens from voting in our elections.

Re: Alternative Structures :: Reply by dogtired

no_email@example.com (dogtired) — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:52:06 +0000

Me and my friends have been kicking this subject around for years and we have come up with several ideas. I want to bring some of these up as food for thought and get other people's ideas and opinions. At this time I'm not set on any alternative solution but like most conservative people, I'm certainly open to entertain ideas and discussions.

One idea we came up with is to create a new voting rule for lower-house legislation. When each member votes, his vote is recorded on two different tally sheets. The measure must pass both sheets.

The first one is "one district, one vote" just like it's always been done.

The other tally records the number of people he represents, as he is essentially voting for them by proxy. Therefore, if a rep is representing a million prople, he gets a million votes, whereas, the guy representing a district of only 550,000 gets 550,000 votes. This would provide us the "one person, one vote".

In doing this, each measure or bill must pass by both district and population. Should a bill pass one tally but not the other, it fails.

While I do think there is some merit to this idea, it does not improve our accessibilty to be heard by the reps. And everyone needs the opportunity to be heard. Perhaps we might consider two tally voting regardless of whether we keep the magic number at 435 or expand the house because no matter what we do we can never have all districts with equal population.

I have other ideas but let's discuss them one at a time.

Re: Alternative Structures :: Reply by sbozich

no_email@example.com (sbozich) — Tue, 24 May 2011 01:04:15 +0000

I don't disagree that reducing the size of the congressional district would have the dynamic effect of improving the electorate. While that might lessen the noise caused by an uninformed electorate, what I fear is that the distortion caused by gerrymandering will offset any gains enjoyed by reducing the size of the congressional district.

Assuming such distortion, there needs to be a Constitutional amendment regardless: either we limit the state legislature's ability to gerrymander, or we limit the effect of gerrymandering by creating limitations on who can vote.

I understand the slippery slope argument. I do. But what of demanding that to vote, a citizen must at least demonstrate the ability to, say, master the material needed to obtain a high school diploma or GED? Indeed, my taxes pay for that high school degree, why can't I require that for someone to offset my vote, they must at least show a minimum level of competency?

I'm not arguing that TTO adopt the policy of the "denominator" effect. I'm just trying to expand the discussion. I feel that I am in good company here, and look forward to the views of others.

Re: Alternative Structures :: Reply by sbozich

no_email@example.com (sbozich) — Tue, 24 May 2011 16:41:27 +0000

dogtired wrote:
The first one is "one district, one vote" just like it's always been done.

The other tally records the number of people he represents, as he is essentially voting for them by proxy. Therefore, if a rep is representing a million prople, he gets a million votes, whereas, the guy representing a district of only 550,000 gets 550,000 votes. This would provide us the "one person, one vote".

In doing this, each measure or bill must pass by both district and population. Should a bill pass one tally but not the other, it fails.

But it doesn't actually reduce the ratio of voting citizens to representatives. If such a reduction took place, would this even be necessary? After all, the variance in representation per district would be, theoretically, much, much smaller. I like the idea, and think that if the idea of TTO were off the table, this would be an acceptable alternative, but I also would like to hear some of your other ideas. Of course, I could be totally wrong in my understanding of what you're suggesting, so I also look forward to hearing if I'm wrong!

Re: Alternative Structures :: Reply by dogtired

no_email@example.com (dogtired) — Wed, 25 May 2011 17:47:18 +0000

sbozich,

I'm not saying I support the idea I presented above. I'm just kicking the tires and wanted to hear what others (you) thought. I do think we should at least think about this regardless of what we do concerning district sizes. True, the idea of "one vote, but on two tallies" isn't new nor would it restore proper representation aka our accessibilty to our reps so that we can be heard.

But since it is virtually impossible to create equal-sized districts, this method would give those with the larger districts more vote on the popular tally than those with smaller districts. But on the other hand, the other tally gives each district gets an equal vote so therefore, the smaller districts are never rendered as insignificant.

For example, take our presidential election. Currently we use the electoral college (districts) and the bigger states get an unfair advantage over the smaller states because the winner is not required to carry 26 or more states. He just needs the majority of electoral votes to win. If he can carry the top 11 most populated states, then he wins. The other 39 states wouldn't matter at all. How would you feel if you were living in Wyoming knowing your vote never matters? But it would always count if the candidate had to carry BOTH the popular vote AND the majority of states.

Re: Alternative Structures :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Wed, 25 May 2011 20:36:37 +0000

dogtired wrote:But since it is virtually impossible to create equal-sized districts...

Paul, as it turns out, if we increase the number of congressional districts so that there is one for every 50,000 people, the difference in size between the smallest one and the largest ones becomes almost insignificant!

I know this because I've done the math. (I have a model that develops the apportionment solution for every House size between 200 and 10,000 for every possible apportionment method.)

Re: Alternative Structures :: Reply by sbozich

no_email@example.com (sbozich) — Thu, 26 May 2011 13:17:29 +0000

dogtired wrote:

For example, take our presidential election. Currently we use the electoral college (districts) and the bigger states get an unfair advantage over the smaller states because the winner is not required to carry 26 or more states. He just needs the majority of electoral votes to win. If he can carry the top 11 most populated states, then he wins. The other 39 states wouldn't matter at all. How would you feel if you were living in Wyoming knowing your vote never matters? But it would always count if the candidate had to carry BOTH the popular vote AND the majority of states.

BTW, you can just call me Steve.

First, when was the last time a candidate won all of the 11 most populous states? Reagan? So while it is certainly possible that winning those 11 states confers the Presidency to a candidate that is less popular among the 39 other states, going to a popular vote won't change that at all. I am a proponent of adopting the Maine/Montana model for ALL states.

JEQ has argued in the past that the means by which a particular state chooses its electors ought to be up to it, but I would argue that since it is the only Federal office for which all states vote, the mechanisms by which the vote is tallied is rightfully in the hands of the Feds. To clarify, Maine and Montana use a winner-take-all method at the congressional district level for each representative electoral vote, and a winner-take-all at the state level for the two remaining senate electoral votes. I believe, in conjunction with the goal of TTO, and some slight additions to prevent rampant gerrymandering and other electoral shenanigans, this would go a long way towards restoring political power to the people, where it belongs.

It would also have the intended consequence of making third (or fourth, or fifth) parties more viable, insofar as they would be able to compete for a handful of electoral vote in a handful of districts. Given sufficient safe-guards to prevent a constitutional crisis (a la Florida, 2000) these alternative parties could find themselves in the position of king-maker, which would boost their party's prestige, and work to diversify the duopoly we have come to know and hate today. Will it be a bumpy road from time to time? Absolutely! But I'd rather the ruts of a constitutional republic, than smooth asphalt of tyranny!

Many people today believe that the course we are on now is unsustainable (myself included), and caterwaul about the supposed aftermath (myself not necessarily included). While I am not necessarily optimistic about quite a number of things, I am also a student of both history and physics; thus I know that history has a tendency to repeat itself, and for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I, therefore, do hold out hope that the damage being done to this country today will have to reverse itself, and that the means by which it does so will be just as dramatic as the manner in which said damage was accomplished. Indeed, our Constitutional amendments are not distributed equally throughout our 230-some years, but rather tend to be Poissonian, and come in fits. There will come a time, sooner rather than later, when the mood of the country will be ripe for reformation, and those whose voices will be the loudest among the din will be those who have invested the time today on crafting their thoughts into words.

Re: Alternative Structures :: Reply by sbozich

no_email@example.com (sbozich) — Thu, 26 May 2011 14:51:24 +0000

jrb16915 wrote:
There is one practical difficulty with the thirty-thousand.org proposed structure. Even 435 representatives is a lot of cooks stirring the legislative pot, 10,000 would be pretty unwieldy. I suggest leaving the Senate as is, but dividing the duties of the house between two tiers. The first tier would be similar in size to the current house. That group would be strictly limited to drafting legislation and advocating for it but would have no votes. They would be located in Washington as they are now. The second group would be the larger group 6k to 10k depending on whether you want 30k citizens per rep or 50k citizens per rep. This number would grow with the population. This group would not be located at home and would strictly be limited to voting on legislation.

The more I think about it, the more I think I like it! I do believe there is more than "one practical difficulty", however. I really think that one of the main hurdles in making this a viable debate in the public square is that people will initially be apprehensive about the sheer size, and the logistical problems entailed. By keeping the majority at home, within their district, and bifurcating the responsibilities of the House, I think you kill multiple birds with a single stone. You lessen collusion and corruption, you make representatives more accessible, and solve the problem of where to put 6,000 bodies.

But let's consider some of the other obstacles, voting among them. I think you could essentially keep things exactly the way they are. Present day Congressional districts would remain untouched, but within them multiple new congressional districts would arise. So 600K+ of us would vote for one to go to D.C., and among those 600K or so, would be 20 "new" Congressional districts that would vote for our "stay-at-home" representative. The only major logistical challenge would be ensuring that people from the right district vote in the right election, but that already exists. It would be marginally more difficult, but the cost in relation to the benefit would be immaterial.

I'd also like to challenge this forum to consider some of the unintended consequences: Can state congressmen hold the federal position as well? Is this something that would be favorable, or would it create conflicts of interest? Would all congressmen continue to operate on a 2-year cycle? What kind of compensation would the "stay-at-home" (heretofore referred to at S@H) congressmen receive? Should term limits be put in place for either the D.C. or S@H rep's? Just some food for thought, I look forward to your feedback!

Re: Alternative Structures :: Reply by dogtired

no_email@example.com (dogtired) — Thu, 26 May 2011 15:18:46 +0000

First, allow me to let you know more about me so you know where I'm coming from.

1) I am pro-TTO. I do not believe we have the proper representation as our framers had intended.

2) I do believe in the one man = one vote.

3) I've never been a fan of the electoral college. Unlike everything else, this was one idea our founders came up with all on their own with no previous models to study. I do not believe they completely thought this idea through. Thus Amendment 12, and yet still more problems.

4) I'm a "like to kick the tires before I buy" type guy. I'm using this board to kick around ideas before committing to any one solution. Why this board? Because I think you guys are smarter than the average bear.

5) As a new member I wasn't sure where to post my thoughts off the main TTO subject. Then Jeff got a hold of me and suggested I just start new threads under Whatever. That I will do soon.

I'm almost sorry I used the presidential elections to illustrate the concept of the "one vote on two tallies" idea because it changed the focus, which was voting in the House.

Whether it would make any difference or not, the two tally voting system does make every citizen count regardless of who he is or where he lives. But it does not an will not improve our representation.

I'll see you guys later under WHATEVER.

Re: Alternative Structures :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Thu, 26 May 2011 15:29:33 +0000

sbozich wrote:
jrb16915 wrote:There is one practical difficulty with the thirty-thousand.org proposed structure. Even 435 representatives is a lot of cooks stirring the legislative pot, 10,000 would be pretty unwieldy. I suggest leaving the Senate as is, but dividing the duties of the house between two tiers. The first tier would be similar in size to the current house. That group would be strictly limited to drafting legislation and advocating for it but would have no votes. They would be located in Washington as they are now. The second group would be the larger group 6k to 10k depending on whether you want 30k citizens per rep or 50k citizens per rep. This number would grow with the population. This group would not be located at home and would strictly be limited to voting on legislation.
The more I think about it, the more I think I like it! I do believe there is more than "one practical difficulty", however. I really think that one of the main hurdles in making this a viable debate in the public square is that people will initially be apprehensive about the sheer size, and the logistical problems entailed. By keeping the majority at home, within their district, and bifurcating the responsibilities of the House, I think you kill multiple birds with a single stone. You lessen collusion and corruption, you make representatives more accessible, and solve the problem of where to put 6,000 bodies.

But let's consider some of the other obstacles, voting among them. I think you could essentially keep things exactly the way they are. Present day Congressional districts would remain untouched, but within them multiple new congressional districts would arise. So 600K+ of us would vote for one to go to D.C., and among those 600K or so, would be 20 "new" Congressional districts that would vote for our "stay-at-home" representative. The only major logistical challenge would be ensuring that people from the right district vote in the right election, but that already exists. It would be marginally more difficult, but the cost in relation to the benefit would be immaterial.

I'd also like to challenge this forum to consider some of the unintended consequences: Can state congressmen hold the federal position as well? Is this something that would be favorable, or would it create conflicts of interest? Would all congressmen continue to operate on a 2-year cycle? What kind of compensation would the "stay-at-home" (heretofore referred to at S@H) congressmen receive? Should term limits be put in place for either the D.C. or S@H rep's? Just some food for thought, I look forward to your feedback!

There are countless ways to solve the problems of robust debate in an enlarged House. In other threads we've discussed other alternative solutions, such as local home presence and internet voting/debate, regional branches of the House who debate then select specific representatives to represent their unique sides at the national branch while the others communicate and watch from their various localities using the web, which would allow Congressman to specialize in various fields of policy, etc.

The benefits in these methods become overly numerous because it also serves to make the country more secure since a terrorist attack or break down in national communication wouldn't fully break down the federal government because the regional offices could take temporary control and/or serve as relocation outlets.

Take a few moments to check out some of the other threads, because I know there are lots of ideas on them. The main point is, how to handle robust debate in an enlarged House is a solvable challenge that can and will be discussed by an even larger group than the few of us once we expose the need for such an enlarged House.

Re: Alternative Structures :: Reply by sbozich

no_email@example.com (sbozich) — Thu, 26 May 2011 16:00:44 +0000

I am wary of leaning too hard on technology, as I am on the concept of one man, one vote.

Technology is wonderful, but classical representation is designed to quiet some of the noise, and quell some of the distortion that arises from direct democracy (or, as I like to call it, the tyranny of the 2%; assuming two opposed camps sitting at 49%).

The benefit of S@H representatives is that they could communicate with each other and us away from the raucous and rancor of D.C. But using real-time internet voting (assuming that is one of the things you were suggesting) relies too much on technology for my tastes. I am cursed with Time Warner Cable; what happens when I my internet connection drops unexpectedly? What if I despise TWC so much I choose to do away with my internet connection altogether (which I am more inclined to do every billing cycle)? I have more of a vision of a local leader that is accessible to the populace on a daily basis, on-line or IRL, that can directly gauge the mood of his or her electorate, and vote accordingly.

Furthermore, he or she, having been chosen as the representative of said populace, can, when *, go against the will of the people. In doing so, that particular representative will have the opportunity to make their case for their actions directly to the people, without having to negotiate the media echo chamber.

The pitfall of direct democracy is that it dispels the possibility of actual leadership. The big picture is often subordinated to the immediacy of the here and now. The purpose of the House, is to allow the people the benefits of both direct representation and visionary leadership (albeit limited to a two-year horizon based on the election cycle), while the Senate acts as the "saucer" that takes a longer, more sober view.

That is the genius of the Founders, but various events (to include the 17th, and the explosion of the ratio of constituents to representatives) has conspired to undo it. Now, the 17th is a different matter for a different thread, but I do think that creating a means for greater representation (although less than 1:1) balances all of the costs and benefits appropriately.

Which brings me back to the original question: how to accomplish it?

Re: Alternative Structures :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Fri, 27 May 2011 12:30:33 +0000

sbozich wrote:I am wary of leaning too hard on technology...

The Luddites have already lost this battle Our representation is currently dependent upon technology, starting with the all the technology required to transport them from their home districts to Congress every week. Then there is the voting technology used within Congress, as well as the communication technology they use in their meetings, and to communicate with distant constituents, et cetera.

People who are familiar with the technology being used by the military to communicate and hold virtual meetings will tell you that it is extremely robust and reliable. That same technology could be used to enable Congressional votes even if the members are residing in their home districts. This ain't Comcast or Time Warner.

We do not need to virtually enable full house deliberations of the House of Representatives as they don't do that even now, even though they are all in D.C. Any citizen who has visited the House while they are supposedly in session has been disappointed by lesson: There is sparse attendance. Congressman are hustled in by their aids for key floor votes, then they return back to their usual activities. All the productive work is done in committees, a practice that will continue in a 6,000-member House. I would expect that the 5% to 10% of Reps who are then on committees may continue to travel for committee meetings, but the rest can read proposed legislation back in their home districts while answering questions from their constituents.

I am certain that the benefits of having the Reps living among their constituents outweigh any technical issues that may arise. And, as I point out on TTO's home page, decentralizing the House drastically reduces the decapitation risk (the intended objective of the last two commandeered commercial flights on 9/11/2001).

Re: Alternative Structures :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Fri, 27 May 2011 12:40:29 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:
sbozich wrote:I am wary of leaning too hard on technology...
The Luddites have already lost this battle Our representation is currently dependent upon technology, starting with the all the technology required to transport them from their home districts to Congress every week. Then there is the voting technology used within Congress, as well as the communication technology they use in their meetings, and to communicate with distant constituents, et cetera.

Not to mention that President Obama just used technology to sign the Patriot Act into law yesterday while he was overseas in another country! It's a gadget called the "auto-pen" that mimics the handwriting of the user who is in a remote location even as far as the other side of the world--crazy!

Re: Alternative Structures :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Fri, 27 May 2011 20:04:10 +0000

Pseudolus, that's interesting. If it is acceptable for the President to electronically sign legislation into law on foreign soil, then the people will certainly not object to their Representative voting on legislation in their home district.

Personally, I would not care if my Representative voted on legislation from the ninth green, as long as I know they have read and understood the bill. In a smaller district, we should be able to find our Representative in their office to explain both the legislation and their vote, thereby convincing us of their extensive knowledge of the matter. Otherwise, the Representative will find themselves in a very precarious position come the next election.

Re: Alternative Structures :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Sun, 29 May 2011 03:52:50 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:Pseudolus, that's interesting. If it is acceptable for the President to electronically sign legislation into law on foreign soil, then the people will certainly not object to their Representative voting on legislation in their home district.

Personally, I would not care if my Representative voted on legislation from the ninth green, as long as I know they have read and understood the bill. In a smaller district, we should be able to find our Representative in their office to explain both the legislation and their vote, thereby convincing us of their extensive knowledge of the matter. Otherwise, the Representative will find themselves in a very precarious position come the next election.

I agree.

The autopen, I believe, was developed in the Bush administration; but Bush opted never to use it for fear the Supreme Court would declare the autopen-signed law invalid (so I suppose there's still a floating question about validity). To my knowledge, this is the first time the autopen has ever been used for federal law (and a controversial one at that); but I don't see much outcry so I doubt there will be a Supreme Court challenge, instead everyone seems to like and accept the new technology.

Elite rule: Insider trading on Capitol Hill? :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 31 May 2011 13:14:03 +0000

Or are members of Congress much better at picking stocks than the average investor?

Read Insider trading on Capitol Hill?

Duverger's Principle (a.k.a. "Duverger's Law") :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Thu, 26 May 2011 15:28:46 +0000

Pseudolus has raised the thought-provoking subject of “Duverger's law”. Though this is often called a “law”, it is actually a theory. For an explanation, read this Wiki article. According to that article: “A two-party system often develops from the single-member district plurality voting system (SMDP). In an SMDP system, voters have a single vote which they can cast for a single candidate in their district, in which only one legislative seat is available. The winner of the seat is determined by the candidate with the most votes. This means that the SMDP system has several qualities that can serve to discourage the development of third parties and reward the two major parties.”

While I am aware of this theory, I have not studied it nor am I familiar with whatever body of evidence may support or refute this theory; therefore, others are encouraged to provide additional insights relative to this.

Regardless of Duverger’s theory, I am convinced that if our congressional districts were much smaller then two-party control of our government would end. I make these arguments in “Taking Back Our Republic”, particularly in Section 6 of that pamphlet.

It is my belief that Duvenger’s theory is predicated upon the existence of massive electoral districts such as we have had in our country for over a century. In other words, this theory may become “law” at larger district levels, but breaks down at much smaller district sizes. It would be great if someone could test that hypothesis.

Allow me to offer a thought experiment to make my point: Imagine if we had a district size of 10 people. You and 9 neighbors elect your Rep. Do you think a two-party system would be inevitable? I don’t. You and your neighbors would simply pick the best qualified (or most willing) among you, and you wouldn’t give a damn about someone’s party affiliation. (In fact, it may turn you off.) Instead, you’re simply picking Joe or Joanne on the basis of their personal views and integrity. In a smaller electoral community, you are likely to be familiar with the candidates, or have only one or two degrees of separation from them. In any case, any candidate who really wishes to win election will need to make himself personally available to the voters (in contrast to what happens today in 700,000-person congressional districts).

Moreover, I believe this holds true if the district size is 100, 1,000, 10,000, and possibly 100,000. How do we test for this? That is, at what district size does Duvenger’s theory possibly become “law”? That is an interesting question, as knowing the answer would further bolster the argument for smaller districts.

By the way, and perhaps a little bit of a tangent, I believe there should be run-off elections whenever any of the candidates fail to receive 50% of the vote. It makes me nervous that any candidate can win office with 40% of the vote, especially given some disastrous historical examples of such. And I suspect this could help mitigate the Duverger effect to some extent.

Re: Duverger's Principle :: Reply by dogtired

no_email@example.com (dogtired) — Thu, 26 May 2011 16:29:40 +0000

I never heard of Duverger's law until now. Thanks Jeff. Although I haven't studied it either having only read Jeff's comments and the wiki link he gave us, I will respond with my first thoughts.

I'm not in favor of those things which are designed to preserve the two-party system. I believe each of our two parties are nothing more than just another self-intrest group trying to steal our individual rights and liberties. Obviously, I'm an independent.

I agree with Jeff in that smaller districts do lessen the power of parties for the reasons he stated. Jeff, in answer to your question about the right size for districts, we can study other government levels.

When I was born, my hometown had roughy 5,000 people. By the time I graduated from high school we had around 30,000 and now we are over 450,000 and still growing. There was a time when everybody knew everybody so when voting for mayor and city council, parties didn't matter at all. It still didn't matter when we grew to the point that if you didn't know the candidates personally, you certainly knew somebody that did. Then we reached a point where very few people actually knew anyone running for office. By that time the party system had taken over as people would vote R or D. Perhaps the biggest problem was our six council districts became too big, each with over 75,000 people. The other major problem is our mayor and council still act as both executive and legislative branches.

We can no longer just drop in and see any of these guys. At best we can show up to a council meeting and say something just minutes before they vote. By this time, they have already made up their minds how they will vote and the meeting is nothing but a formality. This is all televised so once a week I get to watch our leaders make fools out of their good citizens.

I have launched a local campaign to add more council seats, thus reducing the size of each district. I've also launched a campaign to add more seats in our county's board of supervisors. Currently the board has just five seats (acting as both executive and legislative branches) and yet Maricopa County is the nation's fifth largest metro with well over 3 million people. See? Supporting the TTO goes far beyond our House of Representatives.

My local Tea Pary has taken the ball and is moving it forward. Will it go anywhere? We won't know until we've tried.

The Duverger Dilemma :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Thu, 26 May 2011 22:49:08 +0000

I should probably weigh in since I sparked the conversation.

I've spent much time researching Duverger's Law, and I am of the strong opinion that there is one main cause for its inevitability in SMDP systems: the inherent value of only one vote. Yes, familiarity (either through smaller districts or through an educated populace) help lessen the impact of Duverger's Law; but a simple poll of a local rotary club will show partisanship exists at the most basic levels whenever there is a SMDP system in place. I'd even argue that Duverger's Law comes into effect the moment there are as few as 3 people involved in a vote.

We don't need a complex series of tests to know the point at which Duverger's Law becomes "law", we only need to understand human behavior.

For example, if we're all at dinner together and can only voice one opinion for one dish meant to be served family style among us, Duverger's Law holds true. If I truly want to order (a) osso bucco, but believe osso bucco has a snowball's chance in hades of winning the vote over something as mainstream as (b) pizza or (c) pasta. Then I'm less likely to vote for (a) osso bucco, because I want my vote to matter in a close race between (b) pizza versus (c) pasta. Therefore, I'm no longer going to vote sincerely for (a) in the choice of dinner but instead will choose the less desirable, but more palatable between (b) and (c). Hence, pizza and pasta are now examples of Duverger's Law in effect at something even as small as the dinner table.

Replace the small dinner metaphor with something as large as a Presidential election and you'll discover the problem stays precisely the same. If a voter sincerely prefers (a) a third-party or independent candidate but believes only the (b) Republican or (c) Democrat will win, then the SMDP system forces the voter into a dilemma:

(1) vote sincerely for the most desirable candidate (a), but know that the vote is most likely "wasted",
(2) skip over the most desirable candidate (a), so as to make sure the less desirable/more palatable candidate (b) beats the less desirable/less palatable candidate (c), or
(3) opt out of voting entirely because what's the point if your preferred candidate can't win anyway.

The problem with choosing options (1) and (3) is that both of those options breed resentment, apathy, hopelessness, disengagement, and ultimately unfamiliarity (regardless of district size) with future candidates, thus further perpetuating Duverger's Law (again, regardless of district size).

The problem with choosing option (2) is that the vote cast does not actually express the actual will of the voter. Rather than making a sincere vote, the voter is opting to select the lesser of two evils. Like (1) and (3), this choice (2) perpetuates Duverger's Law and, again, eventually leads to resentment, apathy, hopeless, disengagement, and unfamiliarity (even further perpetuating Duverger's Law).

JEQ's suggestion of a run-off election if a candidate does not receive 51% of the vote is on the right track, but it still does not handle the Duverger challenge. For example, candidates in Louisiana must receive 51% of the vote or there is a forced run-off; but partisan politics and corruption run rampant in Louisiana more so than most anywhere else in the country. Clearly, Duverger's Law exists here.

We've all been raised to believe that one-man-one-vote is not only the best method but the only method of voting. It's not true; there are literally infinite methods available. Voters could have a YES vote and a NO vote; they could have unlimited YES votes or unlimited NO votes or varying degrees of combinations thereof; they could have a preferential ranking system; and on, and on, and on...

The problem with the introduction of voting methods that favor multi-party systems is that often the most milk-toast candidate wins (so rarely is anyone getting their top choice) or, worse still, the highest vote-getter doesn't even win at all! This is the flip-side problem to Duverger's Law.

What I'll now coin as the Duverger Dilemma is the choice between the two problematic sides of Duverger's Law. What we need to discover is a method for safeguarding against both downsides of Duverger's Law; in other words, we need to figure out a way to make a coin land on its side.

My proposal is that we have a two-tier voting method (if any political party chose to have their own primary, it would take place before these two tiers and would not affect the solution below):

In the first tier, voters check all those candidates whom they "approve" of as their would-be representative then cast a single (more valuable) sincere vote for their most preferred candidate. In other words, if the candidates for dinner are: pizza, pasta, osso bucco, fish, and steak; then the voter might check that they approve of both pizza and steak, but most prefer osso bucco (thus, in this scenario, pizza and steak would win approval votes, osso bucco would win a more valuable sincere vote, while pasta and fish receive zero votes--not to be confused with a negative vote.) In this manner if someone preferred an independent or third-party candidate they could feel free to give them the sincere vote, knowing that they'd still be able to approve of whichever is the less desirable/more palatable candidate while dismissing the less desirable/less palatable candidate.

In the second tier, would be a run-off election between the top two candidates of the first tier. This would be a traditional one-man-one-vote run-off election, however the effects of Duverger's Law at this level would be irrelevant as there now would only be two candidates.

I still need to run the math on this proposal (which becomes increasingly complex with potentially infinite candidates and subsequently nearly infinite voting outcomes) to make sure I've counter-acted all the effects without introducing a new problem; but I think this method would work and be quickly understandable for the electorate.

Ultimately, it's the dragon known as partisanship that set fire to the House (setting the # of Reps at 435) and set fire first to the states' legislatures (resulting in appointment gridlock and the passage of the 17th Amendment) then spreading into yet another fire in the Senate itself (Senators towing the party line against their own state's interests). If we can slay the dragon of partisanship, then the fires will be easier to extinguish. If we simply extinguish the flames, it's only a matter of time before the dragon lights anew elsewhere...and in possibly more destructive ways.

Re: The Duverger Dilemma :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Fri, 27 May 2011 00:42:01 +0000

Pseudolus wrote:For example, if we're all at dinner together and can only voice one opinion for one dish meant to be served family style among us, Duverger's Law holds true. If I truly want to order (a) osso bucco, but believe osso bucco has a snowball's chance in hades of winning the vote over something as mainstream as (b) pizza or (c) pasta. Then I'm less likely to vote for (a) osso bucco, because I want my vote to matter in a close race between (b) pizza versus (c) pasta. Therefore, I'm no longer going to vote sincerely for (a) in the choice of dinner but instead will choose the less desirable, but more palatable between (b) and (c). Hence, pizza and pasta are now examples of Duverger's Law in effect at something even as small as the dinner table.

But there will be regional differences in regard to both the entrée options and the choice of candidates! A district (or a restaurant) in Manhattan would have very different candidates (or entrées) than a restaurant in the San Fran bay area or down here in Georgia.

In a nation with 6,000 congressional districts of 50,000 people each, it is easy to imagine there will be a district with the Greens and the Socialists as the predominant parties; and yet another district dominated by Republicans, Constitution Party and the Baptist Party (I just made that last one up). In both cases, you would also have independent candidates (the Joe and Joanne I mentioned in my initial post). Though we may see the dynamics you describe within any district, the result will be a variety of Representatives who are neither Republican nor Democrat. However, it is difficult to imagine a community-sized district of 50,000 that would have a run-off between the Greens and the Republicans. The reason: most such districts will represent relatively homogenous communities, and that is a good thing.

Smaller districts will have political menus as different as a sushi versus a barbecue restaurant. And not just state to state, but from Manhattan to Queens. When the districts are right sized, there won't be a runoff between Al Sharpton and a Hassidic. Though there won't be very much diversity within any district, the resulting diversity in the federal House will be dazzling.

As explained in "Taking Back Our Republic", the biggest factor is the elimination of the marketing costs of campaigning in 700,000-person congressional district. Campaigning in a 50,000-person district will be very affordable, and success will depend heavily upon personal outreach. In other words, I'll beat your slick TV ads with my personal door-to-door campaign and small townhall meetings. The huge political machines are made virtually obsolete (which is why they'll oppose representational enlargement).

So I'm not disputing the dynamics you are describing. Instead, I'm contending that reducing the district size is not just changing a few rules, it's creating an entirely new game.

Duverger's Principle :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Fri, 27 May 2011 03:04:47 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:
Pseudolus wrote:For example, if we're all at dinner together and can only voice one opinion for one dish meant to be served family style among us, Duverger's Law holds true. If I truly want to order (a) osso bucco, but believe osso bucco has a snowball's chance in hades of winning the vote over something as mainstream as (b) pizza or (c) pasta. Then I'm less likely to vote for (a) osso bucco, because I want my vote to matter in a close race between (b) pizza versus (c) pasta. Therefore, I'm no longer going to vote sincerely for (a) in the choice of dinner but instead will choose the less desirable, but more palatable between (b) and (c). Hence, pizza and pasta are now examples of Duverger's Law in effect at something even as small as the dinner table.
But there will be regional differences in regard to both the entrée options and the choice of candidates! A district (or a restaurant) in Manhattan would have very different candidates (or entrées) than a restaurant in the San Fran bay area or down here in Georgia.

Indeed the regional menus may change (though this is highly doubtful considering NH's General Court has legislative districts as small as 3,000ppl. and yet still has not one third party candidates in office--instead only Republicans and Democrats); but, even with diverse regional menus, the waiter is still only serving two specials du jour. We need to change how we order, if we want to change what we eat!

This was a problem that existed (though it wasn't yet fully understood) even in our Founders' time of small Congressional districts; and more than that, had it then been fully understood, the type of math required to test for solutions to the problem wouldn't be invented till decades later, let alone be easily calculated as it is today using computers (and even now it's not that easy to calculate).

More than that, if successful (which the partisan make-up of NH's General Court proves is unlikely), your method for inducing a change in partisanship first requires a drastic enlargement of Congress (a goal sure to be strongly opposed by those in power), which will itself first require national demand and understanding at a thundering level (a highly unlikely scenario given that the local bodies themselves derive power and influence from the status quo).

Riddle: How do you eat a whale?

- - - - Solution: One bite at a time (not in a single gulp!).

So if the root cause for limited representation (435 Reps) was/is partisanship and if the root opposition to House enlargement is partisanship, then it makes sense to dismantle the machinery of partisanship one bolt at a time.

Let's look at NH for example, if one state legislative district changed their voting method then a third-party candidate would be more likely to be elected to their General Court where said representative could then expand discussion to inspire and invoke similar changes in other districts, as well as perhaps in the state at large. If enough small districts changed or if the state changed at-large, then NH as a collective would be likely to elect a third-party candidate into national representation which would help expand the discussion as well as inspire and invoke change in other small districts of other states around the country, as well as perhaps in other states at large, as well as perhaps in the nation at large.

In order to get a sizable third-party presence in Congress who might be open to breaking with the status quo of limited representation (435 Total Reps. to 1:50,000 Reps), it's entirely conceivable that we would not need even one state at-large to change their voting method, simply enough districts within the various states to change their own local voting mechanisms.

We need to expand our numbers and influence, if we accomplish that then we have a chance (albeit still a longshot) to reach House enlargement. In changing the voting method, we're not only creating scenarios more probable to expand our numbers and influence; but we're at the same time tearing apart, scale by scale, the partisan dragon that first started all the fires in the House, Senate, and State Legislatures.

This is doable! Now that we have an idea on how to invent the wheel, we need to take the time to craft and sand it till it's stable and smooth enough for swift travel.

Duverger's Principle :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Fri, 27 May 2011 13:34:42 +0000

Pseudolus, there may not be enough data available to establish a firm proof for your views or mine. We have dueling suppositions. We have both raised several questions worthy of academic scrutiny.

Pseudolus wrote:Indeed the regional menus may change (though this is highly doubtful considering NH's General Court has legislative districts as small as 3,000ppl. and yet still has not one third party candidates in office--instead only Republicans and Democrats)

I wonder if NH has any state laws mandating party affiliation in order to get onto the ballot; that is a problem in many states which helps to maintain the political duopoly.

If that's not a factor, then I cannot account for the lack of political creativity of the people of New Hampshire. It reminds me of places I've been where it seems like everyone is either a Baptist or a Methodist, at least nominally. However, not all of them go to Church regularly, if at all. Some may not know the differences between the two. In the spirit of that analogy, I suspect that many of New Hampshire's state legislators may not be "good Democrats" or "good Republicans". By which I mean, not totally orthodox to their party's platform. As a practical matter, I suspect most voters there are still voting for Joe or Joanne, i.e., someone they personally know without deep consideration to their formal party affiliation.

Pseudolus wrote:This was a problem that existed (though it wasn't yet fully understood) even in our Founders' time of small Congressional districts...

In this case I have the data, which was carefully developed. The two-party phenomenon did not really arise until some time after the "Civil War". See this chart: Political Party Composition of the House. Note that it's a percentage chart, and the "N/A" in the earlier years are federal Representatives with no party affiliation.

Re: Duverger's Principle :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Fri, 27 May 2011 17:19:52 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:The two-party phenomenon did not really arise until some time after the "Civil War". See this chart: Political Party Composition of the House. Note that it's a percentage chart, and the "N/A" in the earlier years are federal Representatives with no party affiliation.

Even in reviewing your research, the two-party phenomenon clearly existed at the start of our nation. Granted, in our early days of small districts, a dominant party was more regularly supplanted and permanently replaced by a third party; but this is all in keeping with Duverger's Law, since third parties either:

- pull votes from the more similar-minded dominant party (causing the weaker of the two dominant parties to succeed at the expense of both the dominant party and the third party, à la Bush v. Clinton v. Perot), or
- replace one of the dominant parties entirely, resulting in yet another two-party system (albeit a different two parties).

JEQuidam wrote:Pseudolus, there may not be enough data available to establish a firm proof for your views or mine. We have dueling suppositions. We have both raised several questions worthy of academic scrutiny.

Given that voting methodology has been studied in nearly every country throughout history, I'm quite certain there's been more than enough research on this topic--though I'm not certain the wealth of research will prove conclusively convincing to us on either supposition (even if we had the time to review it all).

However, there's something much greater for both of us to consider: assuming either one of us are correct and a multi-party system comes into being through either supposition, does then the government itself inevitably become less stable due to the preponderance of political parties rather than the simpler two-party system?

Re: Duverger's Principle :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Fri, 27 May 2011 20:19:58 +0000

Pseudolus wrote: Even in reviewing your research, the two-party phenomenon clearly existed at the start of our nation.

Please download that image and zoom in. Note that all the "N/A" (in white) was no affiliation. That's not two party, it's zero party! Mostly independents!

Also, as you'll zoom in you'll see a myriad of "third parties", especially between the 20th and 41st Congress. That data is very consistent with my assertion that Duverger's Principle does not become "law" until the electoral districts reach a certain size.

So, in answer to your question, I do not believe that our government was "less stable due to the preponderance of political parties rather than the simpler two-party system" during this early period in our history.

Moreover, even to the extent one or two parties were more popular than the rest in those early years (e.g., Federalists, Jacksonians, Whigs), it is my opinion that those parties were not at all akin to the two powerful national political machines that exist today.

Re: Duverger's Principle :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sat, 28 May 2011 04:21:06 +0000

This question was raised above: Why would New Hampshire, with its small electoral districts, have only Republicans and Democrats in its legislature? You would think that with 400 representatives in their lower house, a state like NH would manage to have at least one or two independents, Greens, libertarians or whatever. In response to the question, I wondered if NH has any state laws hindering additional political parties from getting on the ballot.

I found this explanation on a blog: "In New Hampshire, the ruling parties require that a new political party collect an estimated 32,000 party nomination ballots (a 10-foot, 8-inch stack of paper) to yield the required number of validated signatures to have another option (political party) for all elected positions."

Assuming that is correct, then we can safely conclude that the culprit is state law, not Duverger's law.

Evidently, rather than going through NH's petitioning process, it is easier for a candidate to simply declare under one of the two state sanctioned party banners regardless of how devoted they may be to that party's platform. And, once elected, why should they make it easier for challengers?

Everyone extolls bipartisan cooperation. Could there be anything more bipartisan than the two dominant parties working together to preserve their political duopoly? By the way, there are many states with such barriers to entry. On this subject, I found this article by Ralph Nader: Break Down Barriers to Minority Parties.

Re: Duverger's Principle :: Reply by dogtired

no_email@example.com (dogtired) — Sat, 28 May 2011 16:37:46 +0000

Wow, you guys put a lot on the plate.

First, I wasn't suggesting doing any rocket science for figuring out the proper maximum size for a district. I was simple answering QED's question, "How do we test for this?" But having reread his comment, I see I hadn't taken his question in the manner he meant. Sorry about that QED.

With so many districts to look at, we already know that our founders were correct in coming up with their 30,000 figure. Once my council district had passed the 40,000 mark, the disconnect between people and candidate was obvious and the parties along with their self-interest groups had taken over.

Voting for executives (mayor, commissioner, governor, president, etc) needs slightly different rules than for district representatives because those executive positions involve other governments while the other doesn't. For now, let's just discuss electing district reps.

QED was good to show that often it's the little sneaky laws that can ruin what could've been a good system. The parties do such things for their own survival. I too support the idea that anyone can run and there should be runoffs... and have as many runoffs as it takes.

A while back, some guy in California suggested several rounds of voting. He said the first round includes everyone (regardless of party). Then take the top contenders (say top half) and do another vote (no write-ins). Repeat this until the field has narrowed down to two, then the final election. In this way, it's possible that the two finalists might be of the same party, different parties or independent.

Does this fit in with Duverger's law?

I think this idea deserves serious consideration. Of course, I'm an independent anti-party type guy so naturally I would love to see our party system lose its grip.

Re: Duverger's Principle :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sat, 28 May 2011 17:42:37 +0000

dogtired wrote:... and have as many runoffs as it takes.

Various runoff solutions, and the method mentioned by Pseudolus, may be worth exploring in a country stuck on mega-districts. However, I have no interest in discussing work-around solutions that do not eliminate the fundamental problem of oversized districts. Moreover, solutions that require a constitutional amendment are unlikely to ever get past the concept phase, unfortunately.

In any case, for the reasons I provided above in this thread, I'm convinced that smaller electoral districts will break the stranglehold of the two-party system.

My own opinion is that we don't need runoffs unless any candidate fails to win at least 50% of the vote. It would be difficult to justify the expense of runoffs for any other reason.

Paul, be sure to study the Political Party Composition of the House chart. It indicates what percentage each party affiliation comprised of the total. Note that all the "N/A" (in white) was no affiliation, i.e., independents. In the early years, note the myriad of minority parties, especially between the 20th and 41st Congress. That data is consistent with my assertion that Duverger's Principle does not become "law" until the electoral districts reach a certain critical mass.

Re: Duverger's Principle :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Sat, 28 May 2011 18:46:48 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:In any case, for the reasons I provided above in this thread, I'm convinced that smaller electoral districts will break the stranglehold of the two-party system.
...
In the early years, note the myriad of minority parties, especially between the 20th and 41st Congress. That data is consistent with my assertion that Duverger's Principle does not become "law" until the electoral districts reach a certain critical mass.

Contrary to your view, I'm of the firm belief that this is all continued proof of Duverger's Law, both in the early years of Congress and in present-day NH.

The assertion made about small districts breaking down two-party rule is flawed because it is not taking into context the time aspect within Duverger's Law. Two-party rule does not exist at the immediate stages of Duverger's Law, because voters must first learn the patterns of other voters. Given enough time, two-party rule becomes an inevitability even for incredibly small districts.

Ballot access is merely a red-herring in disproving Duverger.

Re: Duverger's Principle :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sun, 29 May 2011 00:21:31 +0000

Pseudolus wrote:Ballot access is merely a red-herring in disproving Duverger.

I did not assert that New Hampshire's anti-minority party laws "disproves" Duverger's theory! Instead, I was pointing out that NH's barrier to new political parties reasonably explains why there are only Democrats and Republicans in their state legislature. Perhaps if such barriers did not exist then there would still only be Democrats and Republicans in the NH legislature, but few people believe that would be so (and I certainly don't).

As I've stated above, I'm inclined to believe that Duverger's theory becomes "law" when the population of electoral districts reaches a certain size. The reason I say "inclined to believe" is because I have not studied this theory nor the supporting data, so my endorsement is conditional, but intuitively the theory makes sense, and it would explain the situation we find ourselves in today with the political duopoly. So, to that extent, you and I actually agree on the theory with respect to very large districts.

Our only disagreement is with respect to the applicability of Duverger's theory to smaller districts. Returning to the thought experiment suggested in my initial post, it intuitively makes sense that if the district sizes were 10 people, then there would be tremendous diversity in the legislature. In fact, I believe that a majority of the Reps would have no party affiliation (just as we see in the early years in the "Political Party Composition of the House" chart). I believe this outcome would be the same if the districts were 100, 1,000, 10,000 or possibly 100,000. I suspect that the Duverger effect does not become noticeable until the average district size reaches a certain level, and thereafter it becomes increasingly applicable as the districts grow larger. However, in the absence of an adequate body of data to conclusively prove your supposition or mine, I think people will have to run their own thought experiments in order to reach a conclusion.

Re: Duverger's Principle :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Sun, 29 May 2011 03:38:50 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:
Pseudolus wrote:Ballot access is merely a red-herring in disproving Duverger.
I did not assert that New Hampshire's anti-minority party laws "disproves" Duverger's theory! Instead, I was pointing out that NH's barrier to new political parties reasonably explains why there are only Democrats and Republicans in their state legislature. Perhaps if such barriers did not exist then there would still only be Democrats and Republicans in the NH legislature, but few people believe that would be so (and I certainly don't).

Yes, I understand. And what I'm telling you is that you're putting faith in a red herring. A very good and plausible red herring, but a red herring nonetheless.

JEQuidam wrote:I suspect that the Duverger effect does not become noticeable until the average district size reaches a certain level, and thereafter it becomes increasingly applicable as the districts grow larger. However, in the absence of an adequate body of data to conclusively prove your supposition or mine, I think people will have to run their own thought experiments in order to reach a conclusion.

Having studied Duverger's Law a bit, I can assure you without a doubt that there is an overwhelming body of data to prove conclusively your supposition or mine; we only need to pour through that data to discover the truth. It's exactly the magnitude of the data that causes me to be unable to tell you conclusively which is the correct supposition (yours or mine), because I haven't yet been able to sift through so much information. People need not run through their own thought experiments to reach a conclusion, they merely need to review the well-documented experiments of others.

Beyond all this, I'm still unclear why you think it would take a constitutional amendment to change local voting methods. That's an idea you've got to abandon because every small locality has their own rules and altering the method of voting need not necessarily be that difficult in any given locality.

Re: Duverger's Principle :: Reply by dogtired

no_email@example.com (dogtired) — Mon, 30 May 2011 19:34:56 +0000

I'm still reading and rereading Duverger’s Law in hopes I can figure out exactly what this Frenchman is trying to say. Thanks to you guys, I think I'm starting to get it.

In the early days parties weren't that well organized as half were set up to promote a particular candidate and endorse his policies or just to take a stand on a particular issue. The other half were formed to simply to oppose the first half. It's not to say these parties didn't have an influence, but they were relatively weak.

Back then there were a whole bunch of little parties. For example, most of the communities didn't have a local Federlist or Republican party but did have, say, a Smith Party (supporting their mayor) and a Jones Party in opposition. The national parties had to woo the Smith and Jones party leaders in effort to get them behind their national agenda. Eventually, many of these small parties did end up merging with the big parties. The others just disappeared.

We see this today with the Tea Party. There isn't just one Tea Party but a whole bunch of them. Currently the bigger ones are: Tea Party, Tea Party Patriots and Tea Party Express. But there are many more and they don't all have the word "tea" in their name. Each of these are independent of each other and politicians have to hunt them down and woo each one, one at a time. Even the various local chapters are somewhat independent as many aren't organized with upper level structures, like at district or state level. In truth most chapters aren't all that connected with their national organization of which they umbrella-ed under. As time goes on these chapters and parties will probably merge in effort to give themselves more power.

It was the civil war that made our two parties strong. In a sense, the Republicans had won the war and were in control. Regardless of which state or what side of the Mason-Dixon line one lived in, this created a need for a stronger opposition party and the old Democratic Party was in the best position to provide it. Since then, both parties became better organized and found ways to not only increase their power... but keep it. And they do this by stealing ours.

I think our oversized districts certainly have contributed to our overpowering two party system but it's not the cause. Therefore, I don't think having smaller districts would break the system either, but would weaken each party's influence because the personal connection between representative and people would be reestablished.

Perhaps my biggest reason for wanting smaller districts is to make each representative more accessibile to their own people, so each of us can be heard. Another is so we can establish and maintain a more personal connection with him/her. This is tough to do even with just 30,000 people but not impossible. With smaller districts, the R & D thing really wouldn't matter in regards to local or district voting and small parties could compete. But the big parties would still retain a strong influence with electing those positions of which the candidates most likely live outside ones own district.

Re: Duverger's Principle :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Mon, 30 May 2011 22:13:40 +0000

Pseudolus wrote:...I'm still unclear why you think it would take a constitutional amendment to change local voting methods.

I only meant that an amendment is required for any changes to the voting method relative to federal elections, not local elections. The alternative methods referenced in your initial post, or the "several rounds of voting" method mentioned by dogtired, would require an amendment to be implemented for federal elections. It's not even possible to implement term limits on federal representatives without an amendment. And if a solution requires an amendment to be implemented then I'm not really interested in discussing it, because (I believe) it would be a futile effort, even if I thought they were good ideas (which I don't).

Re: Duverger's Principle :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Mon, 30 May 2011 23:36:49 +0000

dogtired wrote:I think our oversized districts certainly have contributed to our overpowering two party system but it's not the cause. Therefore, I don't think having smaller districts would break the system either, but would weaken each party's influence because the personal connection between representative and people would be reestablished.

You are unconvinced by the thought experiment I posed above. Allow me to make the hypothetical more extreme. Imagine that we had 1-person districts; in other words, a "direct democracy" relative to legislative matters. In effect, this is similar to California's proposition system, so the notion is not as absurd as it would seem. In this case, it is manifestly clear that we would not have a party system since each of us elect ourselves to participate (or not).

For the record, I am an ardent supporter republican government and would be opposed to such a direct democracy method of self-government (except as it relates to a proposition system such as California's).

So there are no political parties if we had only a direct-democracy legislature. (For this hypothetical, assume there is no Senate or President.) Instead, we would have only issue-driven "movements", as we do now (e.g., environmental, pro-life, Fair Tax, gun rights, etc). People would tend to support two or more various combinations of movements.

Now let's create 2-person districts. There are only two of you; for example, the two adults who head a household, or two roommates. There obviously will not be a party-affiliation requirement in order to choose which of you will be the Representative. You'll flip coins, take turns, or whatever. Continue this thought process: You can't possibly believe that when there are three of you, or four, or five, that it will become inevitable that all of you suddenly become Republicans or Democrats, unless you think people are mindless robots (I don't). Within your tiny district, a majority of you will simply vote for the person who is the most likely to reliably represent your values and interests. As I said above, I have no doubt that this state of party-irrelevance will hold true for 10, 100, and much larger districts. We can debate where Duverger's Principle begins to take effect, and at what point it becomes "law".

By the way, I believe the predominance of issue-movements will continue (in lieu of parties) until Duverger's becomes law. This is much more nuanced than everyone declaring allegiance to being either an R or a D. In smaller districts, one candidate could be "Green" and pro-life and favor gun-control, and so forth (but no party). The permutations of issues will depend on the community they represent and so there would be a great variety. Rather than two political parties, numerous coalitions of interest will be formed. So two Reps who work closely together on pro-life might oppose one another on environmental issues.

All that being said, I would be quite happy if someone could convince the duopoly that Duverger's theory would still be law if the population of congressional districts were reduced to 50,000. Wouldn't the party machines love to have a Congress comprised of 3,000 Democrats and 3,000 Republicans? Couldn't we then count on having bipartisan support for representational enlargement? At a minimum they would not oppose it if they were convinced of the inevitability of two-party rule at all district sizes. However, when the concept of representational enlargement eventually gains broader support, the two political machines will vehemently oppose it. The reason: They recognize the serious threat this poses to maintaining their perpetual political duopoly.

Re: Duverger's Principle :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Tue, 31 May 2011 09:19:16 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:I only meant that an amendment is required for any changes to the voting method relative to federal elections, not local elections. The alternative methods referenced in your initial post, or the "several rounds of voting" method mentioned by dogtired, would require an amendment to be implemented for federal elections. It's not even possible to implement term limits on federal representatives without an amendment. And if a solution requires an amendment to be implemented then I'm not really interested in discussing it, because (I believe) it would be a futile effort, even if I thought they were good ideas (which I don't).

JEQ, this conversation is becoming exceedinly frustrating; because you're so smart, yet you refuse to address the strategy suggested. I'M NOT SUGGESTING, NOR NEVER SUGGESTED A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT! STOP TALKING ABOUT CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS IN THIS THREAD! Why the heck do you think I provided the riddle of 'how to eat a whale'? I've explained myself in so many ways, yet you refuse to see the suggestion. A Constitutional Amendment would be the equivalent of eating a whale in one gulp, i.e. it's not going to happen!, which is why I'm suggesting the exact opposite!!!

If the problems in the House (only 435 Reps) came to be due to two-party dominance, if the problems in the Senate today are a result of two-party dominance, then it behooves us to dismantle that two-party dominance; and, in so doing, we stand a better chance at taking on the greater issues of House enlargement and 17th Amendment repeal.

I'm not talking Constitutional Amendment; I'm talking about taking apart the two-party dominance in individual districts. If we can start there, then we're dissipating R&D(Republican & Democrat) control. If other districts then begin adopting similar measures, then we're dissipating R&D control even more. If enough districts in a given state change their own local voting methods, then third-parties in that state will begin to gain power, money, and influence. When power, money, and influence are paired with voter expectation that a third-party might win an election, then Duverger's Law states it becomes possible for a third-party actually to win an election.

If a state elects a third-party representative to a federal level, (it's not because there has been a Constitutional amendment) it's because that third-party has slowly gained credibility and influence in local elections throughout the state! NO CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NEEDED, NO CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT SUGGESTED! If enough districts in enough states then elect enough third-party members, then we're in a much better place to take on the House enlargement issue!

You eat a whale one bite at a time, but you have to take that first bite. You pick apart a dragon one scale at a time, but you have to pull off one scale first. We'll tear into two-party dominance one district at a time, but we have to succeed in one district first. We don't need a constitutional amendment to start, we just need 1 freakin' district!

This was all explained in detail earlier in this thread, I'm not sure why you keep bringing up Constitutional Amendments while ignoring the actual strategy suggested.

JEQuidam wrote:Allow me to make the hypothetical more extreme. Imagine that we had 1-person districts; in other words, a "direct democracy" relative to legislative matters. ... In this case, it is manifestly clear that we would not have a party system since each of us elect ourselves to participate (or not).
...
Now let's create 2-person districts. There are only two of you; for example, the two adults who head a household, or two roommates. There obviously will not be a party-affiliation requirement in order to choose which of you will be the Representative. You'll flip coins, take turns, or whatever.

What the frick is this?! Didn't I expressly say above that I believe Duverger's Law begins taking affect the moment there are three voters? Would you also explain to a returning Christopher Columbus that the humans he met in New World don't actually exist because people can't live in the ocean? He's not claiming they live in the ocean!

Your examples for 1-person districts and 2-person districts are inaccurate reflections of Duverger's Law, because Duverger's Law is about how and when people engage in insincere voting (aka tactical voting). Duverger says that our current U.S. voting method tends to favor two-party rule. Obviously, there cannot be two party rule in a 1-person district; because two parties cannot exist in a 1-person district! 1 can never equal 2! Obviously Duverger's Law is impossible to prove in a 2-person district, because you either see the basic logic in the reflexive property of equality (i.e. 2=2) or you don't. And if you don't first admit that 2=2 then no further equations can be proved or disproved (or even intelligently discussed).

Duverger's Law can only be debated once there are three people in existence, because without that there's nothing to debate.

JEQuidam wrote:You can't possibly believe that when there are three of you, or four, or five, that it will become inevitable that all of you suddenly become Republicans or Democrats, unless you think people are mindless robots (I don't). Within your tiny district, a majority of you will simply vote for the person who is the most likely to reliably represent your values and interests. As I said above, I have no doubt that this state of party-irrelevance will hold true for 10, 100, and much larger districts. We can debate where Duverger's Principle begins to take effect, and at what point it becomes "law".

First off, I find it completely disrespectful for you to toss nonchalantly aside ALL political science, psychological, and mathematical study on voting methodology for the past 60 years post-Duverger without any real research or understanding into what makes Duverger's "principle" accepted as Law according to everyone else who has studied it. UGH!

Secondly, no one is saying people become mindless robots clicking R&D's in 3-person districts. Quite the contrary! We're actually suggesting that people are not mindless robots even in grotesquely large million-person districts. Duverger's Law is based on the fact that people are not mindless robots, they are instead individuals with individuals votes actively attempting to get the most voice out of their one vote. There have been countless proofs of Duverger's Law in 3-person districts if you'd bother to do the research!

Example: There are three of us (JEQ, Pseudolus, and DogTired) and three dinner options (pasta, steak, salad). JEQ sincerely wants pasta; Pseudolus sincerely wants steak; DogTired sincerely wants salad.

If Pseudolus knows that DogTired is a vegan and thus believes his own sincerely-preferred steak is unelectable, Pseudolus is likely to vote insincerely for pasta over steak in order to prevent his least preferred choice salad from winning. Pseudolus is doing this not because he's a mindless robot, but precisely because he's not a mindless robot and wants to have a better say over his future meal. Hence, Duverger's Law.

If we had changed the voting method to "approval style" voting, then perhaps Pseudolus wouldn't have had to pick pasta at all, because he'd have had faith that someone else might at least approve of steak. Hence, the following happens:
- JEQ votes for Pasta and Steak (no salad)
- Pseudolus votes Steak (no pasta, no salad)
- DogTired votes Salad (no pasta, no steak)
Now Steak is the winning candidate, whereas beforehand Steak was only a dismissed third-party candidate.

Thousands of people have spent their entire professional lives trying to disprove Duverger--including through the small district approach. They've all failed! Moreover, mathematicians have proven why they failed (though they can't outright prove Duverger's Law itself because Duverger was describing a strong tendency). Psychologists, sociologists, political scientists, etc. have also all in their own respective fields proven the failures of those attempting to disprove Duverger. Look it up!

Re: Duverger's Principle :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 31 May 2011 11:17:09 +0000

Pseudolus wrote:I'M NOT SUGGESTING, NOR NEVER SUGGESTED A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT!

I NEVER SAID YOU SUGGESTED AN AMENDMENT [/all caps]. I was just commenting that: I'm generally not interested in discussing solutions that would require an amendment, such as multiple runoffs, term limits etc.

Pseudolus wrote:Example: There are three of us (JEQ, Pseudolus, and DogTired) and three dinner options (pasta, steak, salad). JEQ sincerely wants pasta; Pseudolus sincerely wants steak; DogTired sincerely wants salad...

I understand game theory. I understand there is "politics" whenever you have three or more people. It seems to me that we are talking past each other because you are discussing microeconomic principles and I'm discussing macroeconomics, so to speak.

Even if there would be, as you said above, "two-party dominance in individual districts", even tiny districts, that does not mean it would be the same two parties nationwide! In a liberal district near San Fran, there might be 2-party domination by the Greens and the Democrats. In a conservative district in Georgia, it might be the Constitution Party and the Republicans. In another district in Texas it might be Libertarians vs. the Constitution Party. In a small district in Wisconsin, it might be the Progressive Party vs. the Socialists. None of that would concern me, because the result would be a diversity of parties and independents in the federal legislature. It is my contention that all these various political interests do not begin to coalesce into a national two-party system until the congressional districts reach some critical mass of population (e.g., 100,000).

In my comments above in this thread, I have only been trying to explain and elaborate on my views, not "disprove" Duverger's theory.

Re: Duverger's Principle :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Tue, 31 May 2011 15:40:37 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:Moreover, solutions that require a constitutional amendment are unlikely to ever get past the concept phase, unfortunately.

JEQuidam wrote:I only meant that an amendment is required for any changes to the voting method relative to federal elections, not local elections. The alternative methods referenced in your initial post, or the "several rounds of voting" method mentioned by dogtired, would require an amendment to be implemented for federal elections. It's not even possible to implement term limits on federal representatives without an amendment. And if a solution requires an amendment to be implemented then I'm not really interested in discussing it, because (I believe) it would be a futile effort, even if I thought they were good ideas (which I don't).

JEQuidam wrote:I was just commenting that: I'm generally not interested in discussing solutions that would require an amendment, such as multiple runoffs, term limits etc.

For someone "not interested" in talking about an amendment, it seems you keep bringing it up. Let it go! No one else is speaking of an amendment in this thread but you!

JEQuidam wrote:Even if there would be, as you said above, "two-party dominance in individual districts", even tiny districts, that does not mean it would be the same two parties nationwide! In a liberal district near San Fran, there might be 2-party domination by the Greens and the Democrats. In a conservative district in Georgia, it might be the Constitution Party and the Republicans. In another district in Texas it might be Libertarians vs. the Constitution Party. In a small district in Wisconsin, it might be the Progressive Party vs. the Socialists. None of that would concern me, because the result would be a diversity of parties and independents in the federal legislature.

That's perhaps true, no argument; but how are you going to get Congress to increase the House first, hmmm? You're trying to swallow a freakin' whale! You know the duopoly of Congress is going to fight to keep their numbers small; it's in their interest to do so (because it increases their power and maintains their controlling duopoly). It'll first take massive simultaneous national support to increase 435 Reps; and how are you first going to get that massive simultaneous national support? It'll be about as difficult as passing a Constitutional Amendment (which I know you love to hate to discuss).

JEQuidam wrote:It seems to me that we are talking past each other because you are discussing microeconomic principles and I'm discussing macroeconomics, so to speak.

Exactly! That's the only reason this method is worth discussing: because it can be implemented on a micro-scale! We don't need massive simultaneous national support like we would with House enlargement. We don't need a Constitutional Amendment like we would in the Senate. We only need to persuade one small local district once. That's a reachable goal!

We're no longer attempting to lift 2000lbs, instead we're more modestly permanently removing 2lbs from that larger goal. And, if we remove 2lbs again and again, then we won't ever have to lift the 2000lbs; those in power will simultaneously lift 2000lbs for us because it's in their interests to do so (i.e. they'll want more power!):

An elected third-party will want more power and so will be more likely to push (from whatever level) House enlargement.
A public who elects (at any level) a third-party Rep will want to increase their Rep's influence so will be more likely to push for House enlargement.

All we'd be doing is creating the climate where our education on House enlargement will have the most impact and be most likely embraced. That's why this idea of changing the voting method in a small local district is worth discussing!

If we can't change the climate, then TTO's efforts will be like someone shouting in a hurricane: it'll never be heard over the tempest. Quiet the storm, then those nearby will be more likely to hear TTO's message.

Re: Duverger's Principle :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Tue, 31 May 2011 17:37:50 +0000

Pseudolus, you're way too contentious for me. We've pretty much beat this subject to death. I understand your view, and you understand mine. Good luck with whatever it is you are working on.

Re: Duverger's Principle :: Reply by Pseudolus

no_email@example.com (Pseudolus) — Tue, 31 May 2011 18:23:29 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:Pseudolus, you're way too contentious for me. We've pretty much beat this subject to death. I understand your view, and you understand mine. Good luck with whatever it is you are working on.

Yes, I tend to get impassioned, which is both a good and a bad gift.

Re: Duverger's Principle (a.k.a. "Duverger's Law") :: Reply by dogtired

no_email@example.com (dogtired) — Tue, 31 May 2011 19:11:37 +0000

Thanks to you learned gentlemen, I think I got it.

In regards to the House, none of us believe a constitutional amdendment is needed, we just need Congress to follow the Constitution as written. So let's agree not mention it again.

If I understand you guys right, Duverger's theory says that the bigger a district becomes, then the more stronger the two party system will be. Can we all agree on that? Yes? No?

I, too, we can end this thread. Unless of course, someone else has questions to learn more about Duverger's Law, like I did.

Thanks again guys, I learned a lot.

So our next question to address is, how big does a district have to be for Duverger's theory to effectively become the unwritten law, thus making us too dependent upon a two party system? I'll pose this question in a new thread entitled, What is the best size for a district?

Uncle Jay explains congressional recess :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 00:43:07 +0000

A friend sent me this...

Uncle Jay Explains the News: Congressional Recess (July 2, 2007)

I assume he is exaggerating, but I don’t know by how much.

Death of the Duopoly (WSJ editorial) :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sun, 19 Jun 2011 11:28:59 +0000

Death of the Duopoly
By Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch
Wall Street Journal, June 18, 2011

EXCERPT...

Nothing in American life today seems as archaic, ubiquitous and immovable as the Republican and Democratic parties.

The two 19th-century political groupings divide up the spoils of a combined $6.4 trillion that is extracted each year from taxpayers at the federal, state, county and municipal levels. Though rhetorically and theoretically at odds with one another, the two parties have managed to create a mostly unbroken set of policies and governance structures that benefit well-connected groups at the expense of the individual.

Americans have watched, with a growing sense of alarm and alienation, as first a Republican administration and then its Democratic successor have flouted public opinion by bailing out banks, nationalizing the auto industry, expanding war in Central Asia, throwing yet more good money after bad to keep housing prices artificially high, and prosecuting a drug war that no one outside the federal government pretends is comprehensible, let alone winnable. It is easy to look upon this well-worn rut of political affairs and despair.

Read full article.

========================================================

Though the title evinces too much optimism, it's great to see an article calling attention to the problems of political duopoly, especially in respected media such as the Wall Street Journal. I only wish the authors understood the role played by oversized congressional districts (in conjunction with Duverger's Principle, as we discussed here).

Created a C Program :: Author StriderV

no_email@example.com (StriderV) — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 19:04:37 +0000

I've created a C program which automatically apportions the states based on entered criteria. One thing I remember from reading a case about apportionment was a question of how close to one man, one vote would apportionment have to be to meet the requirements of the constitution. This program allows apportionment to a size determined by one of 3 functions.

First, you can simply enter a number of seats and it will assign the seats to fit that number. This is the way our seating currently works and is set to 435 seats.

Code: Select all

State           Seats  Population Ratio          State           Seats  Population Ratio
Alabama          7  +0 4779736    682819         Alaska           1  +0 710231     710231
AmerSamoa        0  +0 65628      0              Arizona          9  +0 6392017    710224
Arkansas         4  +0 2915918    728979         California      53  +0 37593222   709306
Colorado         7  +0 5029196    718456         Connecticut      5  +0 3574097    714819
Delaware         1  +0 900877     900877         Florida         27  +0 18801310   696344
Georgia         14  +0 9687653    691975         Guam             0  +0 178430     0
Hawaii           2  +0 1360301    680150         Idaho            2  +0 1567582    783791
Illinois        18  +0 12830632   712812         Indiana          9  +0 6483802    720422
Iowa             4  +0 3046355    761588         Kansas           4  +0 2853118    713279
Kentucky         6  +0 4339367    723227         Louisiana        6  +0 4533372    755562
Maine            2  +0 1328361    664180         Maryland         8  +0 5773552    721694
Massachusetts    9  +0 6547629    727514         Michigan        14  +0 9883640    705974
Minnesota        8  +0 5303925    662990         Mississippi      4  +0 2967297    741824
Missouri         8  +0 5988927    748615         Montana          1  +0 999243     999243
Nebraska         3  +0 1826341    608780         Nevada           4  +0 2700551    675137
NewHampshire     2  +0 1316470    658235         NewJersey       12  +0 8791894    732657
NewMexico        3  +0 2059179    686393         NewYork         27  +0 19378102   717707
No.MarinaIsl     0  +0 88662      0              NorthCarolina   13  +0 9535483    733498
NorthDakota      1  +0 672591     672591         Ohio            16  +0 11536504   721031
Oklahoma         5  +0 3751351    750270         Oregon           5  +0 3831074    766214
Pennsylvania    18  +0 12702379   705687         PuertoRico       0  +0 3725789    0
RhodeIsland      2  +0 1052567    526283         SouthCarolina    7  +0 4625364    660766
SouthDakota      1  +0 814180     814180         Tennessee        9  +0 6346105    705122
Texas           36  +0 25145561   698487         USTerritories    0  +0 442545     0
USVirgin         0  +0 109825     0              Utah             4  +0 2763885    690971
Vermont          1  +0 625741     625741         Virginia        11  +0 8001024    727365
Washington      10  +0 6724540    672454         WashingtonDC     0  +0 601723     0
WestVirginia     3  +0 1852994    617664         Wisconsin        8  +0 5686986    710873
Wyoming          1  +0 600456     600456

Represented Persons = 308532682, Total Seats = 435, US Ratio = 709270
Max is Montana at 999243,  Min is RhodeIsland at 526283
Max/Min = 1.899

Second, you can enter a ratio that all states would have to fall below. You can enter something like 30000, and it will apportion out the seats until every state is under the 30000 ratio. Based on our current census this comes to 10529 seats:

Code: Select all

State           Seats   Population Ratio          State           Seats   Population Ratio
Alabama        163 +156 4779736    29323          Alaska          24 +23  710231     29592
AmerSamoa        0 +0   65628      0              Arizona        218 +209 6392017    29321
Arkansas       100 +96  2915918    29159          California     1283 +1230 37593222   29301
Colorado       172 +165 5029196    29239          Connecticut    122 +117 3574097    29295
Delaware        31 +30  900877     29060          Florida        642 +615 18801310   29285
Georgia        331 +317 9687653    29267          Guam             0 +0   178430     0
Hawaii          46 +44  1360301    29571          Idaho           54 +52  1567582    29029
Illinois       438 +420 12830632   29293          Indiana        221 +212 6483802    29338
Iowa           104 +100 3046355    29291          Kansas          97 +93  2853118    29413
Kentucky       148 +142 4339367    29320          Louisiana      155 +149 4533372    29247
Maine           45 +43  1328361    29519          Maryland       197 +189 5773552    29307
Massachusetts  223 +214 6547629    29361          Michigan       337 +323 9883640    29328
Minnesota      181 +173 5303925    29303          Mississippi    101 +97  2967297    29379
Missouri       204 +196 5988927    29357          Montana         34 +33  999243     29389
Nebraska        62 +59  1826341    29457          Nevada          92 +88  2700551    29353
NewHampshire    45 +43  1316470    29254          NewJersey      300 +288 8791894    29306
NewMexico       70 +67  2059179    29416          NewYork        661 +634 19378102   29316
No.MarinaIsl     0 +0   88662      0              NorthCarolina  325 +312 9535483    29339
NorthDakota     23 +22  672591     29243          Ohio           394 +378 11536504   29280
Oklahoma       128 +123 3751351    29307          Oregon         131 +126 3831074    29244
Pennsylvania   434 +416 12702379   29268          PuertoRico       0 +0   3725789    0
RhodeIsland     36 +34  1052567    29237          SouthCarolina  158 +151 4625364    29274
SouthDakota     28 +27  814180     29077          Tennessee      217 +208 6346105    29244
Texas          858 +822 25145561   29307          USTerritories    0 +0   442545     0
USVirgin         0 +0   109825     0              Utah            94 +90  2763885    29403
Vermont         21 +20  625741     29797          Virginia       273 +262 8001024    29307
Washington     230 +220 6724540    29237          WashingtonDC     0 +0   601723     0
WestVirginia    63 +60  1852994    29412          Wisconsin      194 +186 5686986    29314
Wyoming         21 +20  600456     28593

Represented Persons = 308532682, Total Seats = 10529, US Ratio = 29303
Max is Vermont at 29797,  Min is Wyoming at 28593
Max/Min = 1.042

Thirdly, you can enter a Max/Min ratio which will keep adding seats until the Max ratio divided by the Min ratio is less than a certain number. Currently, Montana has 999,243 persons for their 1 representative while Rhode Island has 1,052,567 persons covered by 2 representatives. Montana's members have the least representation, while Rhode Island has the most. One citizen in Rhode Island has a value of 1.899 citizens in Montana. Now, it's not possible to reduce this to 1 without expanding the size of the house to the millions, however, you can get quite a bit closer to 1. In order to have a Max/Min of less than 1.6, you would need 759 seats (which actually gives you 1.51), less than 1.4 you would need 841 seats (which actually gives you 1.356), less than 1.2 you would need 1381 seats. It's interesting going by this, because in some cases increasing the seats can actually give you a worse max/min, such as when our 420th seat was added (Rhode Island #2), the max/min ratio went from 1.753 to 1.899. This function stops adding seats as soon as the max/min falls below the stated number.

Code: Select all

State           Seats   Population Ratio          State           Seats   Population Ratio
Alabama         21 +14  4779736    227606         Alaska           3 +2   710231     236743
AmerSamoa        0 +0   65628      0              Arizona         29 +20  6392017    220414
Arkansas        13 +9   2915918    224301         California     168 +115 37593222   223769
Colorado        23 +16  5029196    218660         Connecticut     16 +11  3574097    223381
Delaware         4 +3   900877     225219         Florida         84 +57  18801310   223825
Georgia         43 +29  9687653    225294         Guam             0 +0   178430     0
Hawaii           6 +4   1360301    226716         Idaho            7 +5   1567582    223940
Illinois        57 +39  12830632   225098         Indiana         29 +20  6483802    223579
Iowa            14 +10  3046355    217596         Kansas          13 +9   2853118    219470
Kentucky        19 +13  4339367    228387         Louisiana       20 +14  4533372    226668
Maine            6 +4   1328361    221393         Maryland        26 +18  5773552    222059
Massachusetts   29 +20  6547629    225780         Michigan        44 +30  9883640    224628
Minnesota       24 +16  5303925    220996         Mississippi     13 +9   2967297    228253
Missouri        27 +19  5988927    221812         Montana          5 +4   999243     199848
Nebraska         8 +5   1826341    228292         Nevada          12 +8   2700551    225045
NewHampshire     6 +4   1316470    219411         NewJersey       39 +27  8791894    225433
NewMexico        9 +6   2059179    228797         NewYork         87 +60  19378102   222736
No.MarinaIsl     0 +0   88662      0              NorthCarolina   43 +30  9535483    221755
NorthDakota      3 +2   672591     224197         Ohio            52 +36  11536504   221855
Oklahoma        17 +12  3751351    220667         Oregon          17 +12  3831074    225357
Pennsylvania    57 +39  12702379   222848         PuertoRico       0 +0   3725789    0
RhodeIsland      5 +3   1052567    210513         SouthCarolina   21 +14  4625364    220255
SouthDakota      4 +3   814180     203545         Tennessee       28 +19  6346105    226646
Texas          113 +77  25145561   222527         USTerritories    0 +0   442545     0
USVirgin         0 +0   109825     0              Utah            12 +8   2763885    230323
Vermont          3 +2   625741     208580         Virginia        36 +25  8001024    222250
Washington      30 +20  6724540    224151         WashingtonDC     0 +0   601723     0
WestVirginia     8 +5   1852994    231624         Wisconsin       25 +17  5686986    227479
Wyoming          3 +2   600456     200152

Represented Persons = 308532682, Total Seats = 1381, US Ratio = 223412
Max is Alaska at 236743,  Min is Montana at 199848
Max/Min = 1.185

Also, it has the capability of adding representation to our other territories. Here is how it would change with Puerto Rico and Washington DC being added, but remaining at 435 seats:

Code: Select all

State           Seats   Population Ratio          State           Seats   Population Ratio
Alabama          7 +0   4779736    682819         Alaska           1 +0   710231     710231
AmerSamoa        0 +0   65628      0              Arizona          9 +0   6392017    710224
Arkansas         4 +0   2915918    728979         California      52 -1   37593222   722946
Colorado         7 +0   5029196    718456         Connecticut      5 +0   3574097    714819
Delaware         1 +0   900877     900877         Florida         26 -1   18801310   723127
Georgia         14 +0   9687653    691975         Guam             0 +0   178430     0
Hawaii           2 +0   1360301    680150         Idaho            2 +0   1567582    783791
Illinois        18 +0   12830632   712812         Indiana          9 +0   6483802    720422
Iowa             4 +0   3046355    761588         Kansas           4 +0   2853118    713279
Kentucky         6 +0   4339367    723227         Louisiana        6 +0   4533372    755562
Maine            2 +0   1328361    664180         Maryland         8 +0   5773552    721694
Massachusetts    9 +0   6547629    727514         Michigan        14 +0   9883640    705974
Minnesota        7 -1   5303925    757703         Mississippi      4 +0   2967297    741824
Missouri         8 +0   5988927    748615         Montana          1 +0   999243     999243
Nebraska         3 +0   1826341    608780         Nevada           4 +0   2700551    675137
NewHampshire     2 +0   1316470    658235         NewJersey       12 +0   8791894    732657
NewMexico        3 +0   2059179    686393         NewYork         27 +0   19378102   717707
No.MarinaIsl     0 +0   88662      0              NorthCarolina   13 +0   9535483    733498
NorthDakota      1 +0   672591     672591         Ohio            16 +0   11536504   721031
Oklahoma         5 +0   3751351    750270         Oregon           5 +0   3831074    766214
Pennsylvania    18 +0   12702379   705687         PuertoRico       5 +5   3725789    745157
RhodeIsland      2 +0   1052567    526283         SouthCarolina    6 -1   4625364    770894
SouthDakota      1 +0   814180     814180         Tennessee        9 +0   6346105    705122
Texas           35 -1   25145561   718444         USTerritories    0 +0   442545     0
USVirgin         0 +0   109825     0              Utah             4 +0   2763885    690971
Vermont          1 +0   625741     625741         Virginia        11 +0   8001024    727365
Washington       9 -1   6724540    747171         WashingtonDC     1 +1   601723     601723
WestVirginia     3 +0   1852994    617664         Wisconsin        8 +0   5686986    710873
Wyoming          1 +0   600456     600456

Represented Persons = 312860194, Total Seats = 435, US Ratio = 719218
Max is Montana at 999243,  Min is RhodeIsland at 526283
Max/Min = 1.899

If anybody wants me to run a scenario, please let me know. The program is extremely fast. It does about 1000 seats per second, but once it gets past about 13000 seats it has a rounding issue. I could try to fix this, but none of the scenarios I've heard described would exceed this.

Re: Created a C Program :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 22:08:28 +0000

StriderV wrote:I've created a C program which automatically apportions the states based on entered criteria. ...

I wish I had that a couple of years ago!

I've already created a set of massive spreadsheets that calculates the apportionment for every house size between 200 and 10,000, and for every apportionment method. Believe me: Creating those spreadsheets was a b*tch. They're basically a brute force calculation, but only takes a few seconds. I've run and tested them many times, so it's easier for me to keep using them. That being said, I think it's really cool that you've created this and are putting it out there for others to use. I would love to see more math heads and programmers working on providing apportionment engines.

BTW, I wanted that full range of results (from 200 to 10,000 Representatives) in order to facilitate graphing and correlation analyses. The spreadsheet provides a single vector of solutions for every population scenario.

Re: Created a C Program :: Reply by StriderV

no_email@example.com (StriderV) — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 15:06:29 +0000

Ok! Well, I also created this program as a way of improving my coding skills.

Also, when you start the program, you can choose which population data set to use. I have created several so far. 2000 census, 2010 census, 2010 estimate (which was based on 2000 census, you'd be surprised how different it is from what actually happened), 2020 estimate, and other estimates up to 2060 estimate.

In 2060, we will have 1,058,507 people per representative...

Re: Created a C Program :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 12:23:31 +0000

StriderV wrote:(which was based on 2000 census, you'd be surprised how different it is from what actually happened)

If you are saying that your apportionment results are different than that actually implemented, then I know what is happening. The USCB provides two sets of population data which are slightly different. They do this for a good reason, but it creates a lot of confusion. One data set is residents only (what we normally think of as the census). This is the data used by each state to draw its congressional districts. The next data set also includes certain US residents living abroad (e.g., military personnel). This is used to actually calculate the apportionment of Representatives among the states. This way, if a particular state has a large number of its citizens overseas then they are not cheated out of their fair share of Representatives. There's a good chance you are using the residents-only data instead of the second data set.

For more data, check out the links on this page:
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/QHA-01.htm

I've done this massive set of analyses on apportionment, some of which I've already published on-line, and some I'm still putting together. When I'm done it will explain all that, and more.

Re: Created a C Program :: Reply by StriderV

no_email@example.com (StriderV) — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 17:09:30 +0000

I'm attempting to run the program such that in each apportionment since the beginning, no state would lose a representative. Just to see what size it gets to...

Anyway, when I got to the census data for 1810, I noticed something that seems very incorrect. Compare Maryland and Massachusetts.

Massachusetts population, 472040. Assigned 20 seats.
Maryland population, 380546. Assigned 9 seats.

I can't fathom any mathematic way that this would have occurred! One thought is that I am looking at total numbers, and not numbers separated with slaves (as up until the 14th ammendment slaves only counted as 3/5 of a person). BUT, why then in the next census it is apportioned as follows:

Massachusetts population 523,287. Assigned 13 seats
Maryland population 407,350. Assigned 9 seats.

It seems as if the discrepancy fostered in the 3rd apportionment (but also existing to a lesser extend in previous apportionments) was fixed in the 4th apportionment. And, this is a long way away from the 14th ammendment! Some 40 years away.

Re: Created a C Program :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 20:55:21 +0000

StriderV wrote:Anyway, when I got to the census data for 1810, I noticed something that seems very incorrect.

Be sure to review all the data and information provided at the links on the bottom of the following pages:

The "Historical Annual Population of the United States" page, in particular the data sets provided by Professor Margo J. Anderson;
The "Size of the U. S. House of Representatives and its Constituent State Delegations" page; and finally
the "Apportionment" page provides a ton of information.

The links above provide a goldmine of relevant data. Believe me, this is well covered ground. If you'll review that data you will likely find the source of your discrepancy. If you don't find the discrepancy after you've reviewed all that, then let me know and I'll help you figure it out.

Re: Created a C Program :: Reply by StriderV

no_email@example.com (StriderV) — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 22:07:11 +0000

Thanks. One of those spreadsheets shows the population numbers used in apportionment. The site even says they don't always match the census numbers. I find this odd. The case I was looking at, it was giving Massachusetts 700,745 population, even though the official census for that year is 472,040. I'm not certain, but I think somehow Maine was getting added to Massachusetts before it became a state? Either way, I am now using the data from that site as that makes the seats match up more accurately.

Conference on the Constitutional Convention :: Author moonhead

no_email@example.com (moonhead) — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 22:42:56 +0000

Harvard is having a conference on calling an Article V convention. (http://www.conconcon.org/)
Is anyone attending from thirty-thousand.org?

Re: Conference on the Constitutional Convention :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 21:44:00 +0000

I wish people would quit erroneously calling an Article V convention a "Constitutional Convention", because it isn't!! (That subject is discussed elsewhere in this forum.) Perpetuating the myth that it's possible to authorize a "constitutional convention" dooms these efforts from the start. Who wants a constitutional convention? I certainly don't. But we desperately need a convention for the purposes of proposing amendments to the Constitution, as can be authorized by Article V of the Constitution. Maybe someone can explain this to the fine folks who are organizing this conference.

Anyway, to answer your question: It sounds quite interesting, but I'm not planning to go. Though I personally advocate that the state legislatures call for an Article V convention, that goal is not explicitly a part of TTO's mission. Of course, an Article V convention could certainly benefit our cause, as it might approve "Article the first" as originally intended by the First Congress (rather than the defective version inscribed in the charter Bill of Rights document).

I wonder if any work product will be produced by that conference that we can all read.

Re: Conference on the Constitutional Convention :: Reply by moonhead

no_email@example.com (moonhead) — Sun, 14 Aug 2011 23:22:15 +0000

They are suppose to post videos after the conference is over.

Salaries of House and their staff members :: Author StriderV

no_email@example.com (StriderV) — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 18:37:11 +0000

Going to this site
http://www.legistorm.com/salaries/house_bonuses.html

I found that the average salary of a congressional staffer is about 80k (that graph shows amount per quarter, so you have to add 4 quarters). The salary of a congressman is $170k.
From some other site, I saw that the average number of staffers per congressman is 22.

So, each congressman costs us about $1.93 million. That times 435 equals $839.55 million

If we were to increase the size of the house to 6000, then the price of JUST the congressional salaries would be $1.02 BILLION. So, I don't see how this would be financially equivalent without reducing the compensation of our congressmen. It may make sense to reduce it anyway, as they are representing less citizens?

If you changed the salary amount to be equivalent to what is currently being spent, that would give each congressman $139,916. And, that's including their staffers!

Re: Salaries of House and their staff members :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 19:52:51 +0000

As significant as they are, the salaries are a small piece of the puzzle. You have to look at the entirety of the problem. Representational enlargement produces a net cost reduction. This is explained in section 7 of of "Taking Back Our Republic". That section is titled "Enlarging Representation Reduces the Size of Government". Please read that carefully, including the footnotes.

Re: Salaries of House and their staff members :: Reply by USeagle

no_email@example.com (USeagle) — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 04:27:42 +0000

StriderV wrote:Going to this site
http://www.legistorm.com/salaries/house_bonuses.html

I found that the average salary of a congressional staffer is about 80k (that graph shows amount per quarter, so you have to add 4 quarters). The salary of a congressman is $170k.
From some other site, I saw that the average number of staffers per congressman is 22.

So, each congressman costs us about $1.93 million. That times 435 equals $839.55 million

If we were to increase the size of the house to 6000, then the price of JUST the congressional salaries would be $1.02 BILLION. So, I don't see how this would be financially equivalent without reducing the compensation of our congressmen. It may make sense to reduce it anyway, as they are representing less citizens?

If you changed the salary amount to be equivalent to what is currently being spent, that would give each congressman $139,916. And, that's including their staffers!

Forget about the staffers!!! If we reduce the ratio, then there is less need for staffers, the congressman or woman will be doing most of the work.

What is the best size for a district? :: Author dogtired

no_email@example.com (dogtired) — Tue, 31 May 2011 19:28:41 +0000

What is the best size for a district?

Using my own observations of my hometown's council districts as a model, I believe Duverger's theory became law prior to our reaching the 50,000 number. The effects were already obvious as our district sizes reached 20,000 but became a hard law somewhere between 30,000 and 40,000.

Note: For those not familiar with Duverger's theory, there's already another thread which covered that well, perhaps too well. This thread isn't for debating his theory, although it might get mentioned here.

In looking at their own state legislatures, I believe that our founders were keenly aware that the disconnect between rep and people widens as each districts get bigger, and the reps were going to become even more dependent on campaign money from self interest groups. This was before we had any parties.

This topic was the convention's most heated debate. There were those that wanted to set the magic number at 40,000 while others thought that even 30,000 was too big. Even Washington, who rarely said anything during the entire convention, weighed in on this. He ended up supporting the 30,000 figure although he thought the districts should be even smaller.

Currently, I am of the opinion that our founding fathers had it right when they came up with the 30,000 number. I think we need to figure out how to return to this mark.

Furthermore, I think we need to look at all districts within all levels of government. Regardless of the size used for our US House districts, other level districts certainly can be made smaller. And can be used as models for others to study.

Re: What is the best size for a district? :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 00:18:07 +0000

dogtired wrote:What is the best size for a district?

With respect to the federal government, I'm convinced that the Founders arrived at the best answer to this question (as they did with everything else in the Constitution and Bill of Rights). The solution they settled upon was proposed by the House of Representatives in the first congress: Congressional districts should be no smaller than 30,000 people, and no larger than 50,000. That proposal is identical to Article the first of the Bill of Rights, except that the word "less" was changed to "more" in the last sentence, thereby rendering it meaningless. That subject is discussed in this forum posting.

Those who feel the Founders may have settled upon a district size too large must remember that they were operating under the expectation of a federal government with very limited powers as prescribed by the Constitution, then further bounded by the ninth and tenth amendments. They discussed that very rationale during the debates leading up to establishing 30,000 as the minimum district size. And that is an entirely valid rationale if one does not anticipate that an imperial federal government will come to usurp so much authority from state and local governments. This usurpation would have never occurred had we maintained appropriately-sized districts (less than 50,000) and had we never ratified the 17th amendment, but that is an entirely different discussion.

For those who don't understand why a congressional district size of 30,000 was perceived as massive by the citizenry when the Constitution was proposed, please read "The Naming of Thirty-Thousand.org".

Re: What is the best size for a district? :: Reply by dogtired

no_email@example.com (dogtired) — Sun, 12 Jun 2011 15:44:48 +0000

Sorry, I had to go away for a while.

Yes, I think we all agree that our founders were right in coming up with the 30-50K figure. And as QED pointed out, we could have save our country a lot of trouble had we stuck with it.

I guess my real question should've said, for district sizes concerning local, county and state levels. Currently, I am of the opinion that the lower level governments should have even smaller districts. I often wonder if it's possible to come up with a one size fits all, but I don't think so. Perhaps you guys, with your knowledge, already have some ideas.

Maybe max sizes should be something like: local 10K, county 15K and state 20K. Or 10K, 20K and 30K.

I don't want to dwell on this to much so we can move on to other things. I'm just curious in knowing your thoughts.

Re: What is the best size for a district? :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 12:42:17 +0000

dogtired wrote:...lower level governments should have even smaller districts.

When the Founders proposed congressional district sizes of 30,000, such districts were considered huge (as explained here). The Founders persuaded the citizenry that congressional districts of such immense size were adequate because the “objects of federal legislation” were to be limited to a few areas; therefore, “a moderate number of representatives” would be sufficient [Federalist 56]. That was then, this is now. The Founders never dreamed we the people would so readily abandon the ninth and tenth amendments. Therefore, community-sized congressional districts (of 50,000 each) are now more essential than ever.

With respect to our subnational governments, while the issues are more “local”, they are usually less consequential. In a city or county government, the concerns include sidewalks, potholes and schools, perhaps an occasional bond referendum or local tax. A state government usually deals with more momentous issues, though they have been largely neutered by expanding federal usurpation and the 17th Amendment. However, subnational governments do not approve international treaties or declare war. In other words, a neglected highway improvement is not as consequential as a foreign military intervention or national debt ceiling. In theory, it would now only take 110 Reps in the federal House to approve a declaration of war (i.e., a majority of a quorum). It would be more reassuring if the approval of at least a thousand Representatives were required for something so consequential. It boggles the mind that 110 Reps, or even 218 Reps, could commit a nation of 300-million people to war. In contrast, I’m not so concerned about a local highway appropriations bill being approved by a hundred or so state legislators.

My point: Because of the significant difference in the scope of power of the legislatures on different levels of government, it may not necessarily follow that a state legislative district size should be 25,000 if the congressional district contains 50,000 people. Despite that, I believe that the smaller the better. The article “Freedom and Legislative District Sizes” illustrates that no electoral district is too small, especially if your creed is “Live Free or Die”.

Re: What is the best size for a district? :: Reply by USeagle

no_email@example.com (USeagle) — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 01:40:26 +0000

2nd Congress 1st sess 1792.gif

President Washington vetoed the first aportionment bill, because Congress was not aloting uniformed Representation ratio between all the States.

Attachments

President Washington vetoed the first apportionment bill, because Congress was not aloting uniformed Representation ratio between all the States.
2nd Congress 1st sess 1792.gif (20.34 KiB)

Re: What is the best size for a district? :: Reply by USeagle

no_email@example.com (USeagle) — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 02:35:48 +0000

USeagle wrote:
2nd Congress 1st sess 1792.gif
President Washington vetoed the first aportionment bill, because Congress was not aloting uniformed Representation ratio between all the States.

1st apportionment bill copy2.gif

New Hampshire / 5 Representatives / 1790 Census Pop 141,885 (141,885/5 = 28,377 to 1 Rep)
Massachusetts / 16 representatives / 1790 Census Pop 378,787 (378,787/16 = 23,674 to 1 Rep)
Vermont / 3 Representatives / 1790 Census pop 85,539 (85,539/3 = 28,513 to 1 Rep)
Rhode Island / 2 Representatives / 1790 Census Pop 68,825 (68,825/2 = 34,412 to 1 Rep)
Connecticut / 8 Representatives / 1790 Census Pop 237,946 (237,946/8 = 29,743 to 1 Rep)
New York / 11 Representatives / 1790 Census Pop 340,120 (340,120/11 = 30,920 to 1 rep)
New Jersey / 6 Representatives / 1790 Census Pop 184,139 (184,139/6 = 30,690 to 1 Rep)
Pennsylvania / 14 Representatives / 1790 Census Pop 434,373 (434,373/14 = 31,027 to 1 Rep)
Delaware / 2 Representatives / 1790 Census Pop 59,094 (59,094/2 = 29,547 to 1 Rep)
Maryland / 9 representatives / 1790 Census Pop 319,728 (319,728/9 = 35,526 to 1 Rep)
Virginia / 21 Representatives / 1790 Census Pop 747,610 (747,610/21 = 35,601 to 1 Rep)
Kentucky / 2 representatives / 1790 Census Pop 73,677 (73,677/2 = 36,838 to 1 Rep)
N. Carolina /12 representatives / 1790 Census Pop 393,751 (393,751/12 = 32,813 to 1 Rep)
S. Carolina / 7 Representatives / 1790 Census Pop 249,073 (249,073/7 = 35,582 to 1 Rep)
Georgia / 2 Representatives / 1790 Census Pop 82,548 (82,548/2 = 41,274 to 1 Rep)

Do you see why, President Washington vetoed the first Apportionment Bill!

Attachments

1st apportionment bill copy2.gif (8.52 KiB)

Re: What is the best size for a district? :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 13:55:18 +0000

USeagle wrote:Do you see why, President Washington vetoed the first Apportionment Bill!

President Washington provided two reasons. The most indisputable reason was that the Constitution specified that the district population size (as calculated) could not fall below 30,000. In Congress's first apportionment proposal, eight of the states had districts smaller than 30,000.

Re: What is the best size for a district? :: Reply by USeagle

no_email@example.com (USeagle) — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 03:55:37 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:
USeagle wrote:Do you see why, President Washington vetoed the first Apportionment Bill!
President Washington provided two reasons. The most indisputable reason was that the Constitution specified that the district population size (as calculated) could not fall below 30,000. In Congress's first apportionment proposal, eight of the states had districts smaller than 30,000.

IMO…it was not the fall below 30,000 that were the concerns, it was the rise above 30,000 that he vetoed.

My first reason is in the words of the veto. “and the bill has allotted to eight of the States more than one for every thirty thousand” You will notice that in my example of the 1790 census there are actual 10 States with “more than one for ever thirty thousand” not 8. But, I am assuming that President Washington was taking into account that New York and New Jersey had a fraction over 30,000; in other words “8 of the States” had exceeded the 30,000 threshold by proceeding into a new whole number of 31,000 and above.

My second reason is in the words of Art 1 Sec 2 “but each State shall have at Least one Representative” this `but’ tells me that the F & F knew that as new State joined the Union the possibility of a State having less than 30,000 was possible.

Re: What is the best size for a district? :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 13:32:55 +0000

USeagle wrote: IMO…it was not the fall below 30,000 that were the concerns, it was the rise above 30,000 that he vetoed.

I now realize that the data you provided is incorrect (relative to this analysis), which is adding to the confusion here. Before I get to that, let me explain why President Washington and I are saying the exact same thing a different way.

In making his veto of the Congress's first apportionment act, President Washington identified the problem as follows: "the bill has allotted to eight of the States, more than one for thirty thousand" people. He is referring to the eight states which would have district sizes of less than 30,000 (I'll explain this below). He stated it that way because of how the constraint is worded in the Constitution, which is: "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand..." The Constitution is simply specifying that the minimum congressional district size is 30,000. Therefore, if the districts of any state are smaller than that, then that state could be said to have "more than one [Representative] for ever thirty thousand" people. This more than vs less than confusion happens often in this discussion because one statement is an obversion of the other.

Please read my little analysis of President Washington's first veto, The First Presidential Veto, which I wrote back in 2004. I would like to re-write that when I have time (to make it more complete). However, the full text of George Washington's veto can be found on that page. This takes us to the problem with the data you provided. Please see the data table in Section d of the page I just cited. In particular, focus on column "A". That is the population data they actually used in computing the apportionment. The reason it is different than the data you cited is explained in the footer of that table, as follows: "These are the representative population numbers, not the total population numbers. They are calculated in accordance with the method proscribed by the Constitution for apportioning Representatives and Taxes. Specifically, these totals include only 'three fifths of all other Persons' (referring to the slave population of the United States)."

You'll see the results of the first apportionment act under the column labeled "March 6, 1792". Note that eight of the states would have had districts less than 30,000; those are the eight states referenced in Washington's veto. Note that the next apportionment act which passed (April 14, 1792) did not have any districts smaller than 30,000.

State versus Federal power :: Author eriknelson65

no_email@example.com (eriknelson65) — Tue, 29 May 2012 19:11:25 +0000

Greetings all. I found this forum when searching Wikipedia on the number of people represented by each Representative in Congress, and the ideas here intrigue me.

I personally feel that the way to reach the goal of more effective representation of the people by the government is not to increase the size of the Federal government, but rather to drastically reduce it (particularly the Executive Branch), and for cities/counties (parishes)/states to take on a greater role. We as a nation fought a war over this 150 years ago, and while it was good for the future of the United States that the Union was preserved, I feel that this set us on the path of centralization and reduced representation, where we are today.

Can anyone recommend any reading material related to this idea? Also, I would be interested in hearing how the members of this forum feel regarding how a re-balancing of Federal/non-Federal responsibilities and funding would impact the mission of TTO.

Regards,

-Erik

Re: State versus Federal power :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Thu, 31 May 2012 00:39:09 +0000

eriknelson65 wrote:I personally feel that the way to reach the goal of more effective representation of the people by the government is not to increase the size of the Federal government, but rather to drastically reduce it (particularly the Executive Branch), and for cities/counties (parishes)/states to take on a greater role.

I agree. And the data shows that increasing the number of Representatives actually reduces the size of government! You should read "Taking Back Our Republic" which can be downloaded from:
http://www.Thirty-Thousand.org/document ... mphlet.pdf.

Re: State versus Federal power :: Reply by banleystuck

no_email@example.com (banleystuck) — Fri, 08 Jun 2012 17:15:16 +0000

Eric,

Increasing representation in your federal government does not lead to centralized power. It leads to increased involvement of the people in the political process, and would of course lead to local solutions, and increased importance of local governments.

Right now we have a federal government that is infinitely more powerful than the one our founders controlled, and yet we only have only 536 (house, senate, president) people who control it.

We live in a republic, or rather, what was set up as a republican government. There was great wisdom in this. Unfortunately, we have strayed.

Now those 536 individuals control how about $3,795,270300,000 is spent each year. That is $8.75 billion per representative per year, they control.

Since the congressional districts are so large. Your representative can likely vote anyway he wants on an issue, and not really suffer politcal consequence. Except voting to cut spending. Also elections are currently so expensive (over $1.4Million), that only celebreties with high name recognition can get elected. We need people who run on issues, and are involved in government because they love their country, not career politicians (incumbency * about 97%).

Consider the consequences and merits of having a House of REPRESENTATIVES. Read the above mentioned pamphlet please. Glad you found the site. Please continue to comment.

Bill of Rights for Voter Equality :: Author Green_TZM

no_email@example.com (Green_TZM) — Sun, 24 Feb 2013 01:01:28 +0000

My suggestion is a Bill of Rights for Voter Equality

https://www.facebook.com/groups/152631684794770 We have written our voting rules, care to comment?

Whereas we the people are created equal, and
whereas we the people are endowed with certain inalienable rights, and
whereas we the people instituted a government to secure these rights, and
whereas we the people lay the foundation on such principles, and organize its power in such form, as to us shall seem most likely to effect the above objective, do require the following Bill of Rights for Voting Equality.

1.
Each citizen of the United States at or exceeding the age of majority has the right to vote in any public election in the jurisdiction where he or she resides. That right shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, any State, agreement, person, or entity, nor as a penalty.

2.
a) All citizens of the United States, residing in all states, shall have equal access, (the same requirements), to creating a political party and achieving a ballot line.
b) All candidates and parties shall have equal time constraints to qualify for ballot access.
c) All proofs will be received by a multi-partisan regulatory board, such as the Board of Elections.

3.
The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall elect Senators and Representatives in the Congress in such number and such manner as it would be entitled if it were a State.

4.
All citizen's must be able to verify that the vote has been counted accurately. All ballots must be counted by hand. All counting must be supervised and recorded.

5.
The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every Thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative. Each state shall divide it's population by 30,000 to determine its number of representative seats.

6.
The congress shall be seated in proportion. The proportion shall be as follows: Each Representative shall have the voting power equal to the amount of citizens that voted for them.

7.
All citizens that desire to be candidates, shall register at their local Board of Elections. Once the deadline is reached the Board of Elections will divide equally the campaign tools for election purposes.

8.
Elections shall be publicly funded. No private money may be used for a public office, or seat in the government. The cicitzen must have full confidence that no bribery or appearance of bribery is taking place

9.
All citizens shall have equal early voting hours in which to cast their vote. sufficient voting places, materials, and personnel shall be provided to reduce the voting time to within an hour.

10.
The Presidential election shall be counted by (score or approval) counting.

Re: Bill of Rights for Voter Equality :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 19:28:29 +0000

Marcia, I moved this topic to start its own thread. As you know, some of those proposals I agree with, and some I do not. And some of the ones I agree with can probably be better implemented through legislation rather than a constitutional amendment. I don't want to get into specifics, other than to say TTO advocates that the maximum congressional district population size be set at 50,000, as was intended by Article the first of the Bill of Rights. However, I would be happy with a maximum size of 30,000 as well!

Because these are single-member districts, making them smaller would obviate the need for proposal #6 (regarding the congress being "seated in proportion"). If the maximum district size was set at 50,000 (or less) then mathematically all the districts would be the same size. They already have to be the same size intrastate, but since there are so few Reps (435) it is mathematically impossible to make them equally sized from state to state. That is why we now have such an egregious violation of one person, one vote. If we had equally-sized districts nationwide, each of the Reps would then represent the same number of people, therefore the same proportion, thereby eliminating the need for #6.

Jeff

The Most Egregious Violation of the Constitution :: Author HankW501

no_email@example.com (HankW501) — Mon, 07 Oct 2013 23:11:27 +0000

There have been quite a few Presidents throughout U.S. history who have been (informally) accused of being in violation of the U.S. Constitution. What I find surprising, and a little amusing, is that a great number of the critics seemed, in my opinion, to have spoken as if they believed that their President was the first to ever do so. A great deal of the Constitution was written in a manner that leaves points open to interpretation. I'm the type of person who would prefer to see every law written like a computer program, with every possible contingency accounted for and with no gray areas. However, I recognize that vagueness gives the courts power in their roll in the balance of power. Many who have said, "He's in violation of the Constitution!" probably would have spoken more accurately by saying, "His interpretation of the Constitution differs from mine!" Definitions change from generation to generation, and one President was even questioning what is is.

All that being stated, I'm having a very hard time wrapping my head around how it could have been possible for the 67th U.S. Congress to get away with refusing to carry out the required reapportioning of House seats after the 1920 Census. That violation seems as blatant to me as if Pres. Obama were allowed to run for a third term in 2016 (without repeal of the 22nd Amendment), or if California were allowed to appoint 200 electors to vote for him. It's not the results of the inaction that bother me (I doubt most Americans even know about it), but just the fact that it could happen without consequence. It scares me somewhat when the Constitution appears so weak. I've come to realize that, like the U.S. dollar, all of the strength of the Constitution comes from those who believe in it.

Out of curiosity, I calculated the 1920s reapportionment that should have been (I will reply with a list of the differences upon request). The Republican Party was the majority party at the time of the failure to reapportion, and ironically the failure cost the Republican presidential candidates in the 1924 and 1928 elections two votes each.

First 1,000,000+ Congressional District :: Author HankW501

no_email@example.com (HankW501) — Sat, 19 Oct 2013 02:28:49 +0000

The U.S. Census Bureau has estimated the population of Montana to have been 997,667 in July 2011 and 1,005,141 in July 2012. That means that as of some point between July 2011 and July 2012, the United States has for the first time an individual congressional district with a population of over a million, Montana At Large.

What If the 1921 Apportionment Were Done :: Author HankW501

no_email@example.com (HankW501) — Tue, 28 Jan 2014 08:45:15 +0000

The decennial apportionment of House seats was not done after the 1920 census, despite its being a constitutional requirement. Out of curiosity I calculated how it would have turned out if 435 seats were apportioned based on the 1920 census. In other words, what parts of the 1933 changes would have taken effect ten years earlier if the rules passed in 1929 were in effect before the 1920 census. 40% of the 48 states (19 of them) would have had a change in their apportionment. Listed below are the names of the 19 states and the actual number of House seats apportioned to each after the 1910 and 1930 censuses with the differences. The last two columns show the changes that would have happened in 1921 and 1931 if the current rule had been applied in 1921 (they are labeled 'S.H.B.' for 'should have been').

Code: Select all

              1911      1931     1921     1931
             actual    actual   S.H.B.   S.H.B.
             ------   -------   ------   ------
California     11     20 (+9)     +3       +6
Connecticut     5      6 (+1)     +1        -
Indiana        13     12 (-1)     -1        -
Iowa           11      9 (-2)     -1       -1
Kansas          8      7 (-1)     -1        -
Kentucky       11      9 (-2)     -1       -1
Louisiana       8      8  (-)     -1       +1
Maine           4      3 (-1)     -1        -
Michigan       13     17 (+4)     +2       +2
Mississippi     8      7 (-1)     -1        -
Missouri       16     13 (-3)     -2       -1
Nebraska        6      5 (-1)     -1        -
New Jersey     12     14 (+2)     +1       +1
New Mexico      1      1  (-)     +1       -1
New York       43     45 (+2)     -1       +3
Ohio           22     24 (+2)     +2        -
Texas          18     21 (+3)     +1       +2
Virginia       10      9 (-1)     -1        -
Washington      5      6 (+1)     +1        -

I went on to figure out how the listed 1920 changes would have affected the outcomes of the 1924 and 1928 presidential elections. The differences are insignificant. In each election, two additional votes would have gone to each of the Republican candidates which instead went to the Democrats.

1924 - Actual Results:

382 votes --> Coolidge/Dawes
136 votes --> Davis/Bryan
13 votes --> La Follette/Wheeler

1924 - Should Have Been:

384 votes --> Coolidge/Dawes
134 votes --> Davis/Bryan
13 votes --> La Follette/Wheeler

1928 - Actual Results:

444 votes --> Hoover/Curtis
87 votes --> Smith/Robinson

1928 - Should Have Been:

446 votes --> Hoover/Curtis
85 votes --> Smith/Robinson

The rule applied in 1890, 1900 and 1910 was to assign seats until no state lost a seat. Applying the same rule to the 1920 census totals yields 485 seats, with the 485th seat going to Missouri. Continuing with the 1930 census yields 557 seats, with the 557th seat going to Montana.

Code: Select all

                1880  1890  1900  1910  1920  1930
                ----  ----  ----  ----  ----  ----
Alabama           8    +1     -    +1    +1    +1
Arizona                             1    +1     -
Arkansas          5    +1    +1     -    +1     -
California        6    +1    +1    +3    +5    +10
Colorado          1    +1    +1    +1     -    +1
Connecticut       4     -    +1     -    +1    +1
Delaware          1     -     -     -     -     -
Florida           2     -    +1    +1     -    +3
Georgia          10    +1     -    +1    +1     -
Idaho                   1     -    +1     -     -
Illinois         20    +2    +3    +2    +3    +5
Indiana          13     -     -     -     -    +2
Iowa             11     -     -     -     -     -
Kansas            7    +1     -     -     -    +1
Kentucky         11     -     -     -     -    +1
Louisiana         6     -    +1    +1     -    +2
Maine             4     -     -     -     -     -
Maryland          6     -     -     -    +1     -
Massachusetts    12    +1    +1    +2    +2    +1
Michigan         11    +1     -    +1    +4    +5
Minnesota         5    +2    +2    +1    +1    +1
Mississippi       7     -    +1     -     -    +1
Missouri         14    +1    +1     -     -    +1
Montana           1     -     -    +1    +1     -
Nebraska          3    +3     -     -     -     -
Nevada            1     -     -     -     -     -
New Hampshire     2     -     -     -     -     -
New Jersey        7    +1    +2    +2    +2    +4
New Mexico                          1    +1     -
New York         34     -    +3    +6    +4    +10
North Carolina    9     -    +1     -    +2    +2
North Dakota      1     -    +1    +1     -     -
Ohio             21     -     -    +1    +4    +4
Oklahoma                            8    +1    +2
Oregon            1    +1     -    +1    +1     -
Pennsylvania     28    +2    +2    +4    +4    +4
Rhode Island      2     -     -    +1     -     -
South Carolina    7     -     -     -    +1     -
South Dakota      2     -     -    +1     -     -
Tennessee        10     -     -     -    +1    +1
Texas            11    +2    +3    +2    +3    +6
Utah                          1    +1     -     -
Vermont           2     -     -     -     -     -
Virginia         10     -     -     -    +1     -
Washington        1    +1    +1    +2    +1    +1
West Virginia     4     -    +1    +1    +1    +1
Wisconsin         9    +1    +1     -    +1    +1
Wyoming                 1     -     -     -     -

Sharing At answers.com :: Author HankW501

no_email@example.com (HankW501) — Sun, 02 Feb 2014 01:46:58 +0000

In response to seeing 440 as the answer to a question at answers.com regarding the total number of Representatives in Congress, I posted the reply below. I had intended simply to clarify the distinction between voting and non-voting membership, but I guess I got a little carried away. I share this not only to encourage y'all by informing y'all that I am doing my part in sharing our message as a frequent contributor to, and as a Supervisor at, answers.com but also because I sincerely welcome all suggestions regarding improving my presentation. It would also be greatly appreciated if someone would confirm the accuracy of the content. In addition to replying here, y'all are also free to make changes directly at WikiAnswers.

440

I don't know when the answer above was originally posted, but it is incorrect as of January, 2009, and before then it was correct only when including non-voting membership. There has never been more than 437 voting members in the House, which was from 1959, when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the Union, until 1963, when the apportionment of House seats based on the 1960 U.S. Census took effect.

Despite repeated warnings from the founding fathers not to allow congressional district sizes to exceed 60,000 people at the extreme maximum, The Reapportionment Act of 1929 froze the size of the House at 435 voting members, the quantity it had had since 1913. As a result, the average size of today's congressional districts is over 710,000 people, and one of them, Montana At Large, has over a million people! Congress could pass legislation to increase the size of the House any time it wanted to, but since more Representatives would mean less power for each existing Representative, it is doubtful that they will do so unless/until public pressure increases.

Each of the 435 voting members of the House is elected by each of the 435 congressional districts in the 50 states. The number of congressional districts per state is based on how many 435ths of the population of the 50 states each state has, after a minimum of one district per state. Because those fractions change due to births, deaths, immigration, emigration and internal relocations, they are recalculated, and the House seats are reapportioned, after every official U.S. Census, which takes place every ten years.

Since 2009, there are six non-voting House members, one from each of the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and, most recently, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), making the membership grand total 441. Although they are called non-voting members, they are allowed to vote in committee. It is only in the final votes that take place on the House floor that voting is restricted to Representatives from States.

Coincidentally, if Congress ever gets around to responding to Puerto Rico's December 11, 2012 request for statehood, and they respond affirmatively, there are expected to be 440 voting House members from that time until the subsequent reapportionment takes effect.

Proportional Representation: a cure worse than the disease :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sat, 15 May 2010 12:22:04 +0000

People sometimes ask me about proportional representation as an alternative to representational enlargement.

There are two aspects of proportional representation which are important to understand. First, because the U.S. Constitution specifies single-member districts, implementing proportional representation would require a constitutional amendment. In contrast, representational enlargement (with single-member districts) can be implemented without an amendment. Though I favor an amendment to compel enlargement (by establishing a maximum district population size), such an amendment is not a prerequisite.

The second point is that the root causes of our problems stem from the massive size of the congressional districts, not the number of Representatives. (This is explained in Taking Back Our Republic.) The main problem with proportional representation is that it preserves the oversized districts and, therefore, all the problems they produce (e.g., political party control, lobbyist and special interest control of the Reps, etc).

As a practical matter, I don't believe there are any success stories we can point to relative to proportional representation. A list of countries using this method is provided by Wikipedia; none of which are paragons of representative democracy.

Proportional Representation Is Like a Box of Chocolates... :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sat, 15 May 2010 12:29:31 +0000

Proportional Representation Is Like a Box of Chocolates: You Never Know What You’re Going to Get
by Azeem Ibrahim – Research Fellow, Harvard Kennedy School’s International Security Program
From the Huffington Post
May 14, 2010

Now that Britain has a coalition, electoral reform is more likely than ever. And yet the post-electoral dithering and huddling is a better argument against proportional representation (PR) than we have had in a long time.

The man in the street is entitled to expect that an election produces a government. Even days after election night, we still didn't have one. PR would mean that this disappointing inconclusiveness, this national post-electoral dithering and huddling, becomes the norm. If you think this result was inconclusive, why would you want it every time?

Part of the problem with most forms of electoral reform is that under it, no one party would win, so no party would do what it wants with the power. The people would only be able to shift the balance of power to the left or the right. It is after the elections that the real decisions are made on how the power will be used.

Proportional representation is the system that the Liberal Democrats have long supported. Us opponents of PR would be foolish to deny that it would be more representative than first past the post, in the sense that it would send to Westminster MPs who better represented the choice of the country. The problem is that because there would normally be coalitions, the laws and decisions they make would normally end up being less representative of the choice of the country. Whereas first past is like letting the electorate choose a driver who will choose where to drive, PR is like letting the electorate choose the passengers who will sit in the car, fighting over the destination. It would not be able to actually go anywhere until and unless they manage to agree.

Worse, coalitions are held together by leaders ‘buying off’ the smaller parties to prevent them splitting and triggering new elections. That inevitably results in leaders kowtowing to factional whims and offering concessions to the preoccupations of small parties, however arcane. That would be a very real risk here, where small party support has grown from 3% to 14% in the last thirteen years. In many countries this results in money for the pet projects of small parties or individuals. This is an awful idea at a time when there is such an urgent need to restrict spending.

The second problem with PR is that coalitions would seriously impinge on the government's ability simply to make a decision. This often results in governmental immobility. PR advocates must accept that sometimes, strong leadership is necessary. Now is one of those times. There are tough decisions to be made on Afghanistan and painful cuts to be made. Coalitions inevitably focus on what governments can do at the expense of what needs doing.

A third problem with PR are the kind of skills it incentivises in politicians. It rewards those skilled in the politics of the bazaar, the hidden backroom give and take. In Britain, we have a tradition of listening to the parties' opposing plans, picking one, and then letting the party which proposed it carry it through.

A fourth problem is that PR would make the Liberal Democrats the kingmakers of British politics. This is ironic: it means that a system designed to disperse power downwards and make sure that everyone's vote counts equally would in fact give it to one man: the leader of the Liberal Democrats. Proportional Representation would give any Lib Dem leader in the foreseeable future a permanent veto over government policy. That would be neither proportional nor representative.

In short, if a party asks you to vote for it, it should be able to tell you what it will do with the power. But if we had proportional representation, it wouldn't be able to, because it wouldn't know. Why should Britain change to an electoral system where you never know what you're going to get?

Azeem Ibrahim is a Research Scholar at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, Member of the Board of Directors at the Institute of Social Policy and Understanding and Chairman and CEO of Ibrahim Associates.

Re: Proportional Representation: a cure worse than the disease :: Reply by HouseSizeWonk

no_email@example.com (HouseSizeWonk) — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 16:35:48 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:First, because the U.S. Constitution specifies single-member districts, implementing proportional representation would require a constitutional amendment.

The Constitution does not require single-member districts. It says only:
"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators." U.S. CONST. art. I, § 4, cl. 1.

The rule requiring single-member districts is statutory only. See 2 U.S.C. § 2c (2006) ("In each State entitled . . . to more than one Representative . . . , there shall be established by law a number of districts equal to the number of Representatives to which such State is so entitled, and Representatives shall be elected only from districts so established, no district to elect more than one Representative . . . .").

In years past, congressional apportionment laws did not require single-member districts, and many states elected to do something different. Delaware, for example, was apportioned 2 seats from 1813-1823, and elected them both at-large. Georgia used a very interesting system, where the State was divided into districts but all members of the delegation were elected on an at-large basis (i.e., one person needed to be elected from each district, but all Georgia voters voted for all seats) from 1793-1827 and 1829-1845. The practice was basically ended with the apportionment act of 1842.

Re: Proportional Representation: a cure worse than the disea :: Reply by Epicurus

no_email@example.com (Epicurus) — Wed, 16 Jul 2014 23:07:55 +0000

I am all for increasing the number of representatives as this site suggests, but the winner-take-all, single member district (which as someone else has already pointed out is NOT required by the Constitution) leaves up to 49.1% of the voters with NO representation in the government. Can a Republican represent a Democrat? Can a Democrat represent a Republican? What happened to "no taxation without representation?"

Re: Proportional Representation: a cure worse than the disea :: Reply by Epicurus

no_email@example.com (Epicurus) — Thu, 17 Jul 2014 15:21:50 +0000

Ibrahim's criticisms above have more to do with Britain's parliamentary form of government and the composition of its voters (which he doesn't like--so much for his view of democracy) than proportional representation.

How depressing :: Author Epicurus

no_email@example.com (Epicurus) — Thu, 17 Jul 2014 15:33:22 +0000

This is a great website. It's depressing how few people have seen it or participate on it.

Re: How depressing :: Reply by fkalich

no_email@example.com (fkalich) — Fri, 18 Jul 2014 18:02:19 +0000

I became aware of this issue awhile back, after reading the Ascent of George Washington by Ferling. I believe that no single governmental tradition is more detrimental to the welfare of the public, and it is a tradition that could be easily corrected as no Constitutional Amendment would be required. I would posit that much of the problem is that congressmen like most people are primarily self interested, and have never been in favor of any change that would make their own career position less important. And the general public is pretty clueless, especially today as people pretty much spend most of their free waking time in fantasy land entertainment that is spoon fed to them (including what is called "the news"). The majority are much more concerned with how the obscenely paid mercenary athletes that have their city name sewn onto their shirt are doing, than how they are being exploited by a congress that is in the pocket of big money, as required to get elected in such large districts. I expect that it will take some very popular and influential (and dedicated) individuals getting behind this to convince the public of the importance of this, and nobody like that exists on the planet as far as I can see at the present moment.

Re: How depressing :: Reply by Epicurus

no_email@example.com (Epicurus) — Fri, 18 Jul 2014 18:18:41 +0000

much of the problem is that congressmen like most people are primarily self interested, and have never been in favor of any change that would make their own career position less important.

Absolutely. From what I have seen, most congresspeople are narcissistic sociopaths who run in order to feather their own nests. My congresswoman has made it a family business. She created a massive government boondoggle under the pretense of flood control and then got her own son hired at $100K a year to oversee it. Diminishing their individual power is something most of them will never go for.

no single governmental tradition is more detrimental to the welfare of the public

The fixed number of house seats, or single member districts?

Re: How depressing :: Reply by StriderV

no_email@example.com (StriderV) — Tue, 05 Aug 2014 17:15:13 +0000

The premise of the site is on the fixed number of house seats. So, I'm pretty sure that's what he's referring to.

I am definitely in support of increasing the number of house seats.

Multi-member districts, sounds intriguing, but I'm not 100% on that.

Re: How depressing :: Reply by Epicurus

no_email@example.com (Epicurus) — Tue, 05 Aug 2014 18:32:53 +0000

StriderV wrote:I am definitely in support of increasing the number of house seats. Multi-member districts, sounds intriguing, but I'm not 100% on that.

I want both, although I will work to get one before the other.

Proportional representation is a foreign concept to Americans, but here's a 6 minute video that explains the FairVote plan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS62N5b5L7Y

To me, it boils down to this. If you are in a 49.9% political minority, or even a 20% political minority, in some geographical area (say, a conservative in a liberal district, or vice versa), should your voice be shut out of the legislative process?

If someone is going to be taxed, I believe he is entitled to have someone who represents his views in the legislature. No taxation without representation!

Why Proportional Representation in addition to Enlargement :: Author Epicurus

no_email@example.com (Epicurus) — Mon, 22 Sep 2014 19:45:23 +0000

The Founders’ idea that the House should be an “exact portrait of the people” (John Adams) was imperfectly implemented. The only way they thought to implement the concept was by limiting the number of constituents per representative. They must have realized that opinions would be diverse even among 30,00 or 50,000 people. Did they really intend that the views of up to 49.9 percent of the people in a district not be represented in the House?

The Founders were products of tradition, as we all are. The single-member, winner-take-all district was part of the British tradition and unfortunately was given little if any critical thought in the 18th century. The unfairness of awarding 100 percent of the representation to a majority as small as 50.1 percent probably failed to occur to them. Consequently, they failed to consider that a multi-seat district formed with a slightly more complicated voting system (cumulative voting or its variants) would produce a House that better represents the diverse opinions in a geographical area and that much more closely reflects their desire for the House to be “an exact portrait of the people.”

If they had thought much about single-member districts, I think the unfairness of leaving large political minorities, such as Libertarians or Greens today, with no voice in Congress would have been anathema to them because they very much believed in the marketplace of ideas. They would want minority opinions represented because minority opinions sometimes become majority opinions later on. If they had been able to foresee today’s two-party monopoly, they would regard it as self-evident that a Republican cannot represent a Democrat and vice versa.

One rep per 50,000 AND Proportional Representation :: Author Epicurus

no_email@example.com (Epicurus) — Thu, 31 Jul 2014 01:20:31 +0000

The single member district is inherently unfair unless you believe the absurdity that a liberal Democrat can truly "represent" a conservative Republican and vice versa. Single member (aka winner-take-all) elections often award 100% of the representation to a narrow majority, as little as a 50.1% majority, or even to the winner of a minority of the votes where there are three or more candidates in an election and the plurality candidate wins. The people who vote for the losing candidate or candidates are left with no one to represent their views.

Here's the problem: there is no way to draw a single member district (and let's face it, most districts in the U.S. are gerrymandered) which does not leave some people without a voice in government. Real democracy is having a representative who represents your views. That's why most democracies which have emerged since ours have some form of proportional representation.

The single member district often leaves up to 49.9% of people without representation in government. Is that fair? What happened to "no taxation without representation?" And it's probably the biggest single reason a lot people don't vote: they live in a district which is almost certain to elect someone from the other party. So why should they care about voting?

To put it most succinctly, should your representative be determined more by your street address than by what you believe?

Like-minded voters in a geographical area should be able to elect candidates in proportion to their share of the vote. For example, in a five-seat district, like-minded voters with 20% of the votes should win one out of five seats and like-minded voters with 51% of the vote should win three of five seats. This voting method is perfectly constitutional and requires only that a federal law requiring single member districts be repealed.

In addition, ranked choice voting virtually insures that you will be represented by someone who YOU ACTUALLY VOTED FOR, unlike our present system where you can be "represented" by someone you didn't vote for and would never vote for. Voters simply rank candidates in order of preference, putting a 1" by their first choice a "2" by their second choice and so on. Voters can rank as few or as many candidates as they wish. More candidates with more varied views will be encouraged to run under this system.

Here's how we get there from where we are now in a six minute video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS62N5b5L7Y

Of course combined with the increase in the number of congresspeople as advocated on this site, which I fully agree with, the multi-seat districts will be much smaller than the examples given in the video.

Re: One rep per 50,000 AND Proportional Representation :: Reply by Paul

no_email@example.com (Paul) — Fri, 18 Jul 2014 02:25:57 +0000

There are many issues with fair vote that are actually in opposition to the concept of representation.

The first is direct accountability. Since there are several individuals elected in a district, none of them are truly accountable. They can just point fingers all day long. When one representative is responsible for all votes, their is clear accountability.

The second major conflict is that it places power in parties instead of people. Again, completely counter to the concept of representation.

The issue with getting the district size right is more based on the interest level of the office, among other factors. For example, most geographic areas with 30.000 people will have relatively homogenous views on national issues. However, on state issues this size would be much too huge. Probably 3,000 people per state lower house district would be more reasonable, and on a municipal level something like 300 people.

The general issue of never having a representative that represents 100% of a voter's opinions actually leads more to question the concept of representative democracy vs. pure democracy, anarchy, etc.

Re: One rep per 50,000 AND Proportional Representation :: Reply by Epicurus

no_email@example.com (Epicurus) — Fri, 18 Jul 2014 03:16:50 +0000

"Since there are several individuals elected in a district, none of them are truly accountable. They can just point fingers all day long."

People elected in a multi-seat district are just as accountable for the votes each casts as someone elected in a single member district. They don't cast their votes anonymously as a group.

"it [fair voting] places power in parties instead of people."

To the contrary, it allows minority views to have representation in the government--people who aren't acceptable to the two major parties: non-interventionist conservatives, fiscally conservative social liberals, etc. If anything, party affiliation would become less important.

"most geographic areas with 30.000 people will have relatively homogenous views on national issues."

An assumption on your part. I suspect empirical evidence would show that people residing on one city block don't agree on national issues. Nonetheless, the key word is "relatively." Even if someone wins with 80% of the vote, why should the other 20% of the voters be denied a voice in government?

I can't decipher your last comment.

Re: One rep per 50,000 AND Proportional Representation :: Reply by Epicurus

no_email@example.com (Epicurus) — Mon, 22 Sep 2014 19:58:18 +0000

Paul wrote:"most geographic areas with 30.000 people will have relatively homogenous views on national issues."

I doubt you can find relatively homogenous views on national issues within one city block anywhere in the country, anthropogenic climate change and whether or not we should be fighting Middle East wars, to name two.

If your congressperson was diametrically opposed to almost everything you believe in, I don't see how you can conclude that you have representation, regardless of how many constituents he or she has.

Arguments for smaller district size :: Author dsoeg

no_email@example.com (dsoeg) — Sun, 19 Oct 2014 17:34:49 +0000

While I have long recognized that the 17th Amendment effectively led to the destruction of the 10th Amendment, it was not until late last year that I had an epiphany and realized that the size of an electorate for a public office is directly proportional to the ability of special interest groups/politicals to fool the electorate. The larger the population for a particular elected office, the less the chance for the electorate to accurately assess the qualities of the candidates and the more they are susceptible to the tools of the media: sound bites, misleading advertising, etc. Thus, the larger the district population, the more the tools of manipulation reign supreme.

Once this realization hit me, I searched the Internet, especially in regard to Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution regarding "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand..." This seemed incomplete. In my search, I stumbled upon the Thirty-Thousand.org and read of Article the First, which if ratified correctly would have completed the Constitution by encapsulating the representation within the 30,000 to 50,000 range of population per congressional district.

I have not read anything about it--not for lack of searching--but I am guessing that the American Colonies had extensive experience in electing representatives prior to the War for Independence, and that they learned that there was a direct relationship between the size of the electoral base and the ability for the people to select a suitable representative. To be workable, they believed it ranged from 30,000 to a max of 50,000 to 60,000.

Now TTO has a good article relating to Freedom indexes versus District Population size, which provides some pretty good research -- but I would be willing to bet that the reason small districts are more effective in promoting freedom is not just because of size, but also because the media cannot so readily be used to manipulate the results. It is hard to fool the public when you actually know who the candidates are.

In general, I hold politicians in contempt--and the entire existing political process in contempt. I believe in Statesmanship in contrast to politicians.

I once heard (I believe it was Glenn Beck) who cited that in the days of Samuel Adams in Massachusetts, anyone who promoted themselves for public office was immediately disqualified. I have not yet been able to verify this, but it seems a good practice. People who want to promote the public good ought to be discussing in detail their thinking and ideas and not trying to promote themselves. As I see it, we have a scarcity of considered thought and an abundance of politicians trying to promote themselves with sound bites and carefully crafted statements geared to maximizing their vote count. I view such people with contempt.

I have a lot of ideas on how the Constitution has been corrupted, but I would place highest on my list the 17th Amendment (which destroyed the purpose of the Senate to safeguard State interests) and the Apportionment Act of 1911, which froze the House at 435 members and effectively transformed the people's house into one controlled by the forces of political manipulation. These two acts were bad enough of themselves, but the evolution of the primary election process further undermined the ability to select candidates. Now, with very little exception, it is the candidate with the most backing by special interests--which means money--who is going to get selected as the candidate for public office. Money reigns.

Do you really think someone as inept as Meg Whitman would have been the Republican candidate for Governor of California if it were not for the fact of her money? That is what the primary process generates. While there are downsides to conventions selecting candidates, it is far more likely that a candidate representing the public interest be selected at a convention than through the existing primary election process.

Senators are elected by a statewide election and thus the size of the population precludes the ability of the public to really know the candidate--the forces of political manipulation mostly via the media reign supreme. In every State, the electorate for Senator exceeds the upper limit (say 60,000) for an informed electorate. Thus, candidates are elected based on sheer politics. And, especially in California, the same is the situation for House membership.

We need statesmen in our government, people who stand for something, people who articulate honestly their beliefs--and people who truly are representative of the people they are supposed to represent. We should select from our midst such people and promote them as candidates to represent us for a term in office.

Pandering politicians will never fill that bill. However, we will never be able to escape from the world of special interest manipulative politics so long as we have population sizes that exceed a workable limit. The trick is: how do we educate people to the fact that as district size increases, the harder it is to know the person running for office and the easier it is to fool the public come election time.

If the public truly understood the situation--that the larger the district population the more the forces of mass media manipulation reign supreme--they would demand that for all elections, federal, State, and local -- that population sizes for a district be kept within reasonable bounds.

I would like to see compelling articles developed (and hopefully videos) which educate the general public to this concept.

Your House of Representatives :: Author TheTrucker

no_email@example.com (TheTrucker) — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 03:41:45 +0000

Most people don't even know how many seats there are in the House. Most people graduating high school do not know how their government is constructed and how it was intended to function. Many believe that the president is the emperor who dictates the laws and the federal budgets. And many of these are college graduates. But I want to focus on the House of representatives in this particular presentation.

The House is divided into a legislative branch and a representative branch. The legislative branch is composed of the committees of the House. And the committees do the legislating. There are about 200 committee members. The entire membership forms the representative branch that will vote on the legislation created by the legislative branch. This concept is important when we talk about expanding the membership of the House so as to create better representation. We are _NOT_ expanding the legislative branch of the House, only the representative branch.

The legislative branch of the House of Representatives is appointed by the caucus of the two parties where the majority party is privileged to appoint more legislators then the minority party and the chairs of the committees and the speaker are members of the majority party. The members of the legislative branch are not elected by the people. They are elected by the representatives of the people. This is much like the members of the Senate were, prior to the 17th amendment, indirectly elected by the state legislatures.

People DO NOT UNDERSTAND THIS. They think that increasing the House membership would result in increasing the number of legislators.

I am of the opinion that this is the PRIMARY stumbling block to increasing the membership of the House.

Re: Your House of Representatives :: Reply by JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 12:53:51 +0000

Mike, you're correct that most people, even otherwise well informed people, don't know there are only 435 members of the federal House. If they do know, ask them why it is 435 instead of any other number. Few have any idea why! Some will even suggest that’s the number required by the Constitution.

Our fellow citizens will not understand our pernicious deficiency of representation until they are aware that this situation exists.

Next, people need to understand the relationship between the amount of representation and the quality of representation. This is not a concept that is in most people consciousnesses. What if we had 60 Representatives? What if we had 600? What if we had 6,000? How differently would we be governed under those scenarios? Or would it make absolutely no difference at all? This should be the subject of a national debate!

In addition, most people don't know what "one person one vote" means -- they don't realize it means that the electoral districts are supposed to be equal-sized, and that we're in egregious violation of that constitutional principle on a nationwide basis. This is explained in section 9 of Taking Back Our Republic, and is also the subject of the Apportionment.us lawsuit.

Part of our job is to explain these fundamental concepts to our fellow citizens so that they can begin to understand the need for representational enlargement.

I understand the distinction you are trying to make between representatives and legislators: you are calling those representatives who serve on committees "legislators". (That terminology will confuse many because the "legislative branch" is commonly understood to be the Congress.) I prefer to call all of them "Representatives" and I avoid using the term "legislators". We certainly need more representatives, not more legislators!

Re: Your House of Representatives :: Reply by TheTrucker

no_email@example.com (TheTrucker) — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 17:22:35 +0000

JEQuidam wrote:Part of our job is to explain these fundamental concepts to our fellow citizens so that they can begin to understand the need for representational enlargement.

I understand the distinction you are trying to make between representatives and legislators: you are calling those representatives who serve on committees "legislators". (That terminology will confuse many because the "legislative branch" is commonly understood to be the Congress.) I prefer to call all of them "Representatives" and I avoid using the term "legislators". We certainly need more representatives, not more legislators!

You are making a very grave mistake in your purposeful disregard for the distinction between legislators and representatives. When I suggest the expansion of the representation a common reaction that I see form most otherwise aware individuals is one of "what a circus that would be". These individuals are aware of the "houses of congress" but do not understand how the House currently functions. And once it is understood that there is a true difference between legislators and representatives then this reaction abates. The idea that representatives can do a better job of selecting and controlling legislators in the House than can the general populous is the same sort of rationale that was employed in the selection of state senators by the state legislatures.Direct democracy is not a good system in any event. And the 17th amendment was the most egregious act of "progressive" foot shooting in history.

http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/quotes ... anings.php

The following is an excerpt from "Original Meanings - Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution", a Pulitzer Prize winning historical account authored by Jack N. Rakove - pg 205:

"Was representation simply a device to replace the impracticable meeting of the people at large, in which case representatives should resemble their constituents as closely as possible? Or should representatives possess an independence of mind and a breadth of experience or knowledge that would provide a capacity for deliberation that ordinary citizens lacked? Did the "sympathy" desired of lawmakers require reinforcing the ties that bound them to the voters; or could it be attained, in adequate measure, through some act of imagination? The answers to these questions in turn reflected divergent definitions of the essential duties of representative institutions. Did they exist primarily to protect the people at large against arbitrary power by preventing government from acting without the expression of popular consent? Or did they not provide as well a mechanism whereby the people could authorize government to make law in the positive sense, actively adopting policies that contribute to the prosperity of the society and the happiness of its citizens?"

Again quoting from Jack N. Rakove's "Original Meanings":

"At the Convention, the framers struggled to move beyond their preoccupation with the mechanics of representation -- especially the dilemma of apportionment in both houses -- to secure the qualitative improvement in the character of deliberation and legislation they desired. Once the Constitution was published, however, Federalists were hard pressed to defend this conception of representation against more traditional norms to which Anti-Fedralists clung when they worried that a small and elite Congress would lack the sympathy and local knowledge needed to protect the people at large against the abuse of power."

It is tempting to make too much out of the current "tea party" phenomenon. On the one hand we can understand the frustration of some of the people with a government out of control. But on the other side of this argument we find that too much democracy is not such a good thing:

http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/quotes ... aradox.php

Progress and Poverty --- Henry George

"To turn a republican government into a despotism the basest and most brutal, it is not necessary formally to change its constitution or abandon popular elections ....

.... forms are nothing when substance has gone, and the forms of popular government are those from which the substance of freedom may most easily go. Extremes meet, and a government of universal suffrage and theoretical equality may, under conditions which impel the change, most readily become a despotism. For there despotism advances in the name and with the might of the people. The single source of power once secured, everything is secured. ....

And when the disparity of condition increases, so does universal suffrage make it easy to seize the source of power, for the greater is the proportion of power in the hands of those who feel no direct interest in the conduct of government; who, tortured by want and embittered by poverty, are ready to sell their votes to the highest bidder or follow the lead of the most blatant demagogue; or who, made bitter by hardships, may even look upon profligate and tyrannous government with the satisfaction we may imagine the proletarians and slaves of Rome to have felt, as they saw a Caligula or Nero raging among the rich patricians ....

Where there is anything like an equal distribution of wealth - that is to say, where there is general patriotism, virtue, and intelligence - the more democratic the government the better it will be; but where there is gross inequality in the distribution of wealth, the more democratic the government the worse it will be; for, while rotten democracy may not in itself be worse than rotten autocracy, its effects upon national character will be worse ....

.... but in a corrupt democracy the tendency is always to give power to the worst. Honesty and patriotism are weighted, and unscrupulousness commands success. The best gravitate to the bottom, the worst float to the top, and the vile will only be ousted by the viler. While as national character must gradually assimilate to the qualities that win power, and consequently respect, that demoralization of opinion goes on which in the long panorama of history we may see over and over again transmuting races of free men into races of slaves."

Re: Your House of Representatives :: Reply by Jims65

no_email@example.com (Jims65) — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 22:05:42 +0000

Wow, I’m getting quite an education reading these forums. I didn’t know that there were only 200 representatives out of 435 representatives who served on committees. I assumed every representative in Congress served on at least one committee or sub-committee. This post comes many months after your original post and comments but I’m hoping can enlighten me further.

Currently, committees and particularly the chairman are extremely powerful and can have great influence on how a bill appears before the House of Representatives - if the bill is allowed to appear at all. How would having a larger house size improve this process? I’m having a tough time visualizing how the House could produce any legislation much less legislation reflective of the people.

Re: Your House of Representatives :: Reply by Paul

no_email@example.com (Paul) — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 22:56:49 +0000

This type of governance only works when special interests control the governing body. By eliminating or making negligible special interest influence, the rules would become much more equitable. Each branch of Congress sets its own procedures and it is highly unlikely that a majority would vote to put themselves into the minority. I also think it is unlikely that so much power would ever be granted to so few people, specifically in the cases of the Speaker and the Committee Chairs.

Re: Your House of Representatives :: Reply by silverpie

no_email@example.com (silverpie) — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 19:00:33 +0000

TheTrucker wrote: There are about 200 committee members.

On what source do you base that claim? According to the House website, the only member of the House without at least one committee assignment is the one from Oregon 2.

Re: Your House of Representatives :: Reply by HouseSizeWonk

no_email@example.com (HouseSizeWonk) — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 15:47:58 +0000

silverpie wrote:
TheTrucker wrote: There are about 200 committee members.
On what source do you base that claim? According to the House website, the only member of the House without at least one committee assignment is the one from Oregon 2.

Even OR-2 has a committee assignment (Energy and Commerce), but he is on leave because he was tabbed to chair the "Majority Transition Committee."

I really have no idea where Trucker got this notion that only a subset of members sit on committees. The arrangement has been forever that everybody gets at least one committee assignment. If they add more members, I guarantee you that they will create more committees (and, consequently, narrow the subject matter jurisdiction of each of them).

Here's a source for the notion that everybody sits on a committee:
http://clerk.house.gov/committee_info/oal.html

Re: Your House of Representatives :: Reply by HouseSizeWonk

no_email@example.com (HouseSizeWonk) — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 15:44:03 +0000

Paul wrote:I also think it is unlikely that so much power would ever be granted to so few people, specifically in the cases of the Speaker and the Committee Chairs.

This sort of power already belongs to the Speaker and the Committee Chairs. Not only is it wrong to say it's unlikely, it has already happened.

Re: Your House of Representatives :: Reply by Paul

no_email@example.com (Paul) — Sun, 21 Nov 2010 02:12:27 +0000

HouseSizeWonk wrote:
Paul wrote:I also think it is unlikely that so much power would ever be granted to so few people, specifically in the cases of the Speaker and the Committee Chairs.
This sort of power already belongs to the Speaker and the Committee Chairs. Not only is it wrong to say it's unlikely, it has already happened.

I was speculating about if special interest influence were eliminated, and that has not already happened.

Re: Your House of Representatives :: Reply by dsoeg

no_email@example.com (dsoeg) — Tue, 14 Jun 2016 20:19:38 +0000

I am not sure where you get your facts, such as: The House is divided into a legislative branch and a representative branch. The legislative branch is composed of the committees of the House. And the committees do the legislating. There are about 200 committee members.

If the legislative branch of 200 members is accurate, then that is a factor of an internal House organization. It is not dictated by the Constitution, and it represents internal House rules that can be changed by the House membership.

I would suggest that much of the House (and Senate) rules should be scrapped and we start afresh.

Re: Your House of Representatives :: Reply by Wilmott

no_email@example.com (Wilmott) — Tue, 03 Jan 2017 07:44:42 +0000

Jims65 wrote:Wow, I’m getting quite an education reading these forums. I didn’t know that there were only 200 representatives out of 435 representatives who served on committees. I assumed every representative in Congress served on at least one committee or sub-committee. This post comes many months after your original post and comments but I’m hoping can enlighten me further.

Same here Jim. I'm learning lots.

Re: Your House of Representatives :: Reply by JDChambers

no_email@example.com (JDChambers) — Mon, 13 Feb 2017 21:58:26 +0000

I wrote a blog -- ON THIS VERY SUBJECT -- and a reader pointed me to you.

Delighted to make your acquaintance!

Reducing district size is necessary to "drain the swamp", see
https://www.learntheconstitution.com/bl ... it-drained

Our problem is marketing. Find something that resonates, like "drain the swamp", and show that increasing representation is the solution.

I've been talking about this for years ... part of my video series on the Constitution
http://whoownsyoujoco.com/videos.php

Wonderful to find I'm not alone!

Created a C# Program :: Author StriderV

no_email@example.com (StriderV) — Thu, 02 Jun 2022 20:34:46 +0000

I'm surprised that I never posted this here, as it's related to this discussion... But, maybe I just can't find it.

Anyway, this was a continuation of my C program that I mentioned a while ago. But, now it's on my website so others can also use it.

http://www.emeraldesia.com/Login.aspx

Then, click on the "Apportionment Tool" link.

I just updated the data to include data from the 2020 census and thought about this forum again.

Pick a census date, then select one of the two radio buttons ("Apportionment Data" and "Actual Population"), then click the "Load Census" button.
Then, you have the option of changing the number of seats to whatever you like.
THEN, click on the button of the Apportionment Type and it will run a new apportionment for that data.

It's very interesting to me to see how increasing the number of seats impacts these things.
Also, if you select "Actual Population" in the data, you can see what sort of impact it would make if we were to give, say Puerto Rico and Washington DC, statehood, while leaving the seat number at 435.

Historical US Eligible Voter data project :: Author JEQuidam

no_email@example.com (JEQuidam) — Fri, 07 Apr 2023 20:49:11 +0000

This posting will be updated as new information becomes available.
Updated May 10, 2023

See description below.
Inquires can be directed to Jeff at: Quidam at Thirty-Thousand.org

Thirty-Thousand.org, a small nonprofit & nonpartisan organization, is looking for researchers or scholars who are developing (or interested in developing) credible estimates of the number of ELIGIBLE VOTERS in the U.S. going back to the beginning of the republic, starting with the first federal elections in 1788-89, and then biennially after that (for all federal elections).

Having such estimates would be very helpful in understanding how the expansion of suffrage (expanded democratization) over the decades correlates with other societal and political factors. In addition, credible eligible voter data would provide an essential context (denominator) for voter turnout data, with respect to actually understanding turnout trends over time.

At the highest level, relative to the earliest decades, this analysis would start simply by having the number of voting age free men. Even that is problematic as, for example, the census of 1790 delineates between those under 16 years old, versus those 16 and older. Therefore, to estimate the number who were of legal voting age, some quantitative assumptions would have to be made relative to the likely age demographics. Next, these estimates would have to decremented to approximate those restrictions which further disenfranchised this demographic, such as property ownership, religious requirements, etc. And, over time, the estimates of eligible voters would then be increased to reflect the effect of those constitutional amendments that expanded suffrage (i.e., 15, 19, 23, 24, 26).

Preferably these estimates would be by state, but even national totals would be very helpful.

The primary focus of the initial phase is to build a sound conceptual framework using plausible assumptions which can, in time, be fine-tuned based on deeper analysis.

Hopefully there are others who are interested in developing these estimates. If so, perhaps there could be some kind of collaboration in order to do so.

It’s quite surprising that these estimates do not already exist! When I began seeking this information years ago, I thought for sure it was simply sitting somewhere that I had not yet looked. I never dreamed that such basic data would be so elusive.

Listed below are miscellaneous resources that have been (or could be) used to possibly help inform this project.

=====================================================================
So far, in doing this research, the following books have been acquired:

A Statistical History of the American Electorate (Jerrold G. Rusk). This book appears to have been developed from the data being sought, so I contacted its author, who is now 82, and long ago disposed of his notes and calculations.

Voter Turnout in the United States 1788-2009 (Curtis Gans)

United States Congressional Elections, 1788-1997 (Michael Dubin)

The Historical Atlas of Political Parties in the United States Congress, 1789-1989 (Kenneth Martis)

=====================================================================
Suffrage information:
Voting Rights Milestones in America: A Timeline

Suffrage amendments:
15th Amendment – extending suffrage to the former slaves
19th Amendment – extending suffrage to women (several states extended suffrage before that)
Women’s Suffrage in the U.S. by State
Wikipedia women’s suffrage:
23rd Amendment – DC
24th Amendment – eliminated poll tax
26th Amendment – reduced voting age to 18 (prior to that, four states had a minimum voting age below 21: Georgia, Kentucky, Alaska and Hawaii per Wiki article

=====================================================================
Michael McDonald at the US Elections Project has current information related to this subject. However, he reports that he “cannot estimate the pre-1980 state eligible populations due to data availability”.

=====================================================================
From Census.gov: “We started collecting voter data in the 1960s and have produced publications and tables with estimates of voters and often the voting eligible population since then, including tables for more recent elections. For these estimates, from the Current Population Survey, we specifically look at the citizen voting-age population as those eligible to vote.”

Voting estimates are available for the CPS voting supplement starting in the 1960s:
Voting and Registration Tables

In later years the tables are in excel files, but if you go back far enough all of the tables that are available are in PDFs. If you select 1960, you'll find a set of such tables. For instance, this table which contains estimates of the voting age population in both 1960 and 1964:

=====================================================================
Suggestion from Emory Professor Doner (Emeritus):

Look through the articles in various journals, including those focusing on American political development, those specializing in electoral studies, and in the history of southern politics (e.g. Georgia Historical Review) and specific pre-Civil War elections. For example, the following analysis of the 1789 presidential election, Presidential Election of 1789: A Resource Guide, has several tantalizing sources. Also A New Nation Votes: American Election Returns, 1787-1825, searchable collection of election returns from 1787 to 1825. The data were compiled by Philip Lampi. The American Antiquarian Society and Tufts University Digital Collections and Archives have mounted it online with funding from the National Endowment for the Humanities.

=====================================================================
Voting-Age Population (VAP) estimates developed by Walter Dean Burnham (available from Thirty-Thousand.org).

Book: Presidential ballots, 1836-1892 by Walter Dean Burnham

=====================================================================
UPDATE

Suggestions provided by the Library of Congress via email:

Voting and Registration Tables
https://www.census.gov/topics/public-se ... ables.html

National General Election VEP Turnout Rates, 1789-Present
http://www.electproject.org/national-1789-present

Statistical Abstracts Series
https://www.census.gov/library/publicat ... racts.html

Gans, Curtis. Voter turnout in the United States, 1788-2009 / Curtis Gans ; with Matthew Mulling. Washington, D.C. : CQ Press, 2011.
https://lccn.loc.gov/2011378891

Rusk, Jerrold G., 1941- A statistical history of the American electorate / Jerrold G. Rusk. Washington, DC : CQ Press, 2001.
https://lccn.loc.gov/00067453

ICPSR
University of Michigan
Institute for Social Research
P.O. Box 1248
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1248
734-615-8400
ICPSR-help@umich.edu
https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/pages/