Increase the # of congressman?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Salty, Dec 29, 2007.

  1. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,093
    Likes Received:
    218
    The orginial Constitutional called for one Congressman for every 30,ooo citizens.

    Currently, the number is set at 435. With a population of some 300 million, that is one rep per 690,000 citizens.

    I propose that we increase Congress to 500. That would be one rep per 600,000. Increasing the number to 600 reps would have a ratio of 1 to 500,000

    Thoughts
     
  2. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am all for your proposal provided that I get to be one of the new Congressmen. :)
     
  3. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    72
    No way. We don't need to increase our spending.
     
  4. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,093
    Likes Received:
    218
    If we cut the pay of Congress by 30 %,:thumbs: then we could eaisly afford it.

    Pay is about $160,000 -30% (48,000) = 1122,000 per year:applause:
     
  5. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    72
    The salary is only a small portion of the overall cost. We'd have to construct new facilities to house the Congressional offices, and we'd have to pay to run those offices.
     
  6. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,093
    Likes Received:
    218
    I would still like to have a smaller ratio of population to congresman.
     
  7. PastorSBC1303

    PastorSBC1303
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    15,125
    Likes Received:
    0
    No thanks, we got enough spending going on now. And there is no way they will go for a decrease in salary.
     
  8. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    We need a smaller ratio. As far as the cost is concerned, take one of these bases in the Washington area for their offices and house them and their families in base housing, just like the units they voted to keep our armed forces housed in. Then for health care, scrap their present system, and give them cards to get into the VA system, the same system they voted to take care of our veterans with. The cost would be minimal.
     
  9. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,093
    Likes Received:
    218
    I like the ideal of Congressman being put in the VA system! Then they would have a good ideal of what vets go thru.

    As far as new offices, they could just use the Dept of Education, when that is deactivated.:thumbs:

    Salty
     
  10. Bob Alkire

    Bob Alkire
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2001
    Messages:
    3,134
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sounds good to me!
     
  11. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would agree with your thesis, but there's no way in Alabama this could work. Govt spending would escalate. Districts would be gerrymandered to the hilt. It would just be another futile exercise.

    Would to God we had the citizen congress the framers intended.
     
  12. SBCPreacher

    SBCPreacher
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't like the idea. Then we'll be paying more people to get nothing done!

    I think we ought to put the ones we have on commission - they get a % of the waste they cut.
     
  13. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    The "original Constitution" (whatever that pejorative slam is supposed to mean) :rolleyes:

    does not say this.

    Ed
     
  14. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,093
    Likes Received:
    218
    Ahhh, yes it does Article I, Section 2 - Paragraph 3 Sentence # 3

    Salty
     
  15. Bro. James Reed

    Bro. James Reed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2002
    Messages:
    2,992
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, if one wants to get nitpicky, it actually says "the number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand..."

    There would be benefits to increasing the number of reps, but there would also be increased problems. Think of Congress as a gang. One who first enters as an "innocent" will not typically remain that way long. There are, of course, exceptions to the rule, but it is true for the most part. If you increase the number to 500, you will just have 65 extra people with new ideas on how to spend your money.

    We could just eliminate Congress altogether. All the real power seems to lie with the President and the Supreme Court anyway.
     
  16. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,093
    Likes Received:
    218
    Thus the need for term limits
     
  17. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    72
    As long as they are sensible. In Arkansas, we have very strict term limits, so every session ends up being on the job training.
     
  18. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    I could (and would) support increasing the number of Senators by 2, and the number of Representatives by 10, to 445, if it were done by a combination of the normal process for the admission of a state, and a Constitutional Amendment, or two, if needed.

    The state to be admitted would be the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. By current population, as a state, PR would have 5 (I believe, but it possibly could be 6) Representatives. Those added to the current 435 would increase that number to 440 (or 441).

    By Constitutional Amendment, I would favor (and support) a "mini-state" status, with full House of Representative membership, for the organized territories of American Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the District of Columbia. Added to the new 440 member figure of the House of Representatives, we arrive at the new number of 445 Representatives.

    This now would give an "Electoral College" total of 549 - (102 Senators, 445 Representatives, and the additional two of three electoral votes granted the District of Columbia by Amendment XXIII to the US Constitution) with 275 votes necessary for the election of the President and Vice-President of the United States.

    Inclusive with this, would have to be a provision that would grant full citizenship to the population of American Samoa, as well, by law. It is far beyond time, IMO, that we have one classe of American citizens with full citizenship privileges (the residents of the 50 states) other classes of American citizens with varying sub-classes, with varying privileges, in varying orders and categories, the residents of D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, and a third class of non-citizen "American Nationals" in American Samoa.

    This all together, I would definitely support, and full citizenship for the American Samoa residents in any case.

    Ed
     
  19. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bro. James Reed is the one correct, here. It says "shall not exceed one for every 30,000"!

    However, contrary to what he posted, I don't consider that to be "nit-picky".

    That idea of 30,000 does hold a bit of intrigue, however. Just think about a Congress of 10,000 members. By the time that number finished arguing and posturing, they would have far less time in which to drum up and enact legislation that would take away more of our freedoms.

    And the noise of 10,000 politicians all wanting to be heard at the same, might even reach the level of six Baptists, all arging among themselves, at the same time. :laugh: [​IMG] [​IMG]



    Ed
     
  20. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    We already HAVE term limits! :BangHead:

    It's called an "Election", for those who failed to receive a passing grade, in "civics" class, when they were in school!

    And if I recall correctly, the people of two different Congressional districts in your home state of New York, imposed "term limits" on two Members of Congress in the Election of November 2006, while your neighboring states of Connecticut and Pennsylvania did the same to the tune of 4 in PA, and 2 In CT, as well. ,in other states, my own state of KY did the same in the 3rd. District, and our neighboring state of IN, in the 8th District, did so for the 7th time since 1958. (Now that's REAL "term limits"!) The 9th District of IN, had previously imposed a three term limit on its Congressman in 2004, but in 2006, decided that it had made a collective mistake, and imposed a one-term limit on the new incumbent, and returned the previous office holder back to Congress. BTW, KY imposed a one-term limit on our previous Governor, just a month ago, as well.

    (Language Cop says He will help anyone with the spelling of the word "election", if needed.)

    There is no such thing as a legislator or governor or President who is (or can be) appointed in any way for anything beyond a partial term under certain circumstances. That is why they call them "elected" officials. :rolleyes:

    ANd if "WE, the People" choose to send some undeserving individual or individuals back for one or more additional term(s), why should we ask that this responsibility be "pre-emptively" removed from us, to start with?

    Take a lesson from the 8th and 9th Districts in Indiana. They have shown us exactly how it should be done!

    Ed
     
    #20 EdSutton, Dec 30, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 30, 2007

Share This Page

Loading...