Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - [internetworkers] Representation [was Candidate Match for Pres]

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: James Dasher <jdasher AT ibiblio.org>
  • To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [internetworkers] Representation [was Candidate Match for Pres]
  • Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 05:41:01 -0500


On Wednesday, Feb 11, 2004, at 10:42 US/Eastern, Shea Tisdale wrote:

This whole affair is an embarrassment to the state. The state legislature
and the republicans who drew these crazy boundaries should be ashamed.

Republicans didn't invent gerrymandering. They weren't even the first to use the tactic in drawing electoral districts in North Carolina.

The problem stems from limiting the number of Representatives to the U.S. House; and both Senators and Representatives in the General Assembly.

IIRC, the Constitution originally mandated one Representative for every 60,000 people. Today, the number is capped at 435. Thus, each citizen matters less as the population grows. It ain't quite taxation without representation, but it's certainly taxation with less and less representation.

I'm familiar with arguments against removing the limit, and they all boil down to "it wouldn't work". But telling citizens that they're too dumb to figure out how to manage to govern themselves is hardly worthy of a government supposedly of, by, and for those same citizens.

With almost 300,000,000 people in the U.S., we'd have almost 5,000 Representatives. North Carolina, with roughly 8,000,000 people, would have more than 100 Representatives. Socialists, Greens, Libertarians, Conservatives, Reformists, and others would all have a chance to elect someone to represent them.

If you think 5,000 (or more) people can't figure out how to get anything done, then don't take the easy way out. How *could* they get things done (assuming you actually want them to ;) ? Besides, with more Representatives, the legislative branch wouldn't have to cede so much regulatory (i.e. lawmaking) authority to the executive branch The government-as-jobs-program (for rich and middle-class bureaucrats alike) could shift to the legislative branch, where citizens can actually do something about it.

So: smaller government, more effective government, more representative government - what's not to love?

We need a constitutional amendment to lift the ban on representation.

--
James Dasher
misterdasher dot com
IM misterdasher





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page