I am not in favor of 'enlarging the house'

Discuss how the website, forum or blog can better implemented (e.g., ideas, suggestions, comments, etc.).
Forum rules
This forum is only for the discussion of how the TTO forum, website or blog can be better implemented. Unrelated discussion threads will be moved or deleted.

I am not in favor of 'enlarging the house'

Postby Paul » Sun Jun 28, 2009 8:29 pm

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.
User avatar
Paul    
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 2:46 pm
Location: Morgan Hill, CA
Stance: Pro-Enlargement

Re: I am not in favor of 'enlarging the house'

Postby JEQuidam » Sun Jun 28, 2009 9:40 pm

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!!
User avatar
JEQuidam    
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:45 pm
Location: Dunwoody, Georgia
Stance: Pro-Enlargement

Re: I am not in favor of 'enlarging the house'

Postby Paul » Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:57 am

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.
User avatar
Paul    
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 2:46 pm
Location: Morgan Hill, CA
Stance: Pro-Enlargement

Re: I am not in favor of 'enlarging the house'

Postby Paul » Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:14 am

Oh, and what about this one? (o;

http://enlargethehouse.blogtownhall.com/
User avatar
Paul    
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 2:46 pm
Location: Morgan Hill, CA
Stance: Pro-Enlargement

Re: I am not in favor of 'enlarging the house'

Postby JEQuidam » Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:20 pm

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.
User avatar
JEQuidam    
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:45 pm
Location: Dunwoody, Georgia
Stance: Pro-Enlargement


Return to Feedback on TTO's Website, Forum or Blog

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron