Discuss how we can hasten progress towards enlarging representation. There are two primary components to this: 1) educating others in order to gain the necessary public support; and, 2) ensuring implementation via a constitutional amendment or other legal means.
Forum rules
This forum is only for discussion related to achieving the vision of a much larger House. All other discussion will be moved or deleted. No incivility or partisan advocacy allowed.
Post Reply
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 9:34 pm
First Name: Steven

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

Post by sedwards »

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


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

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

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

Post by Paul »

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).
Post Reply