Gerrymandering in Virginia

#1,104
#1,104
hog88 said:
Increase
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Summary of point 1. Increasing reps increase the chances of having more thorough representation which is what they are sent there to do.

Point 2:
Increasing the number of reps increases the gridlock inherent in a bureaucracy. Much harder to get 12,000 politicians in line compared to 400. That would slow down legislation which is the primary way our government expands. Additionally, it is much harder for a close vote to be held hostage by a small number of Reps who, under our current system, are allowed to put their pork in a bill in exchange for their vote.
 
#1,105
#1,105
McDad said:
Agreed.

Summary of point 1. Increasing reps increase the chances of having more thorough representation which is what they are sent there to do.

Point 2:
Increasing the number of reps increases the gridlock inherent in a bureaucracy. Much harder to get 12,000 politicians in line compared to 400. That would slow down legislation which is the primary way our government expands. Additionally, it is much harder for a close vote to be held hostage by a small number of Reps who, under our current system, are allowed to put their pork in a bill in exchange for their vote.
Click to expand...

I’m not opposed to govt gridlock.

I just have to wonder how much having 12000 representatives will impact inflation. The cost for buying enough votes will increase and that will need to be passed on down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rikberry31
#1,106
#1,106
hog88 said:
I’m not opposed to govt gridlock.

I just have to wonder how much having 12000 representatives will impact inflation. The cost for buying enough votes will increase and that will need to be passed on down.
Click to expand...
Slowing down the mechanism by which the government grows is a benefit.

Can you explain how the cost of buying votes increases?
 
#1,111
#1,111
McDad said:
Agreed.

Summary of point 1. Increasing reps increase the chances of having more thorough representation which is what they are sent there to do.

Point 2:
Increasing the number of reps increases the gridlock inherent in a bureaucracy. Much harder to get 12,000 politicians in line compared to 400. That would slow down legislation which is the primary way our government expands. Additionally, it is much harder for a close vote to be held hostage by a small number of Reps who, under our current system, are allowed to put their pork in a bill in exchange for their vote.
Click to expand...
While your in idea seems logical in theroy..in application it would require an entirely different government style and a societal trait that we are so far from it not possible...but it is intriguing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#1,112
#1,112
hog88 said:
Lobbying 6001 lawmakers to vote your way would be extremely expensive.
Click to expand...
Exactly! That is actually point 3. It is actually much easier and more cost effective to lobby 400 compared to 12000. At that point, the cost / benefit ratio is likely to disintegrate. And since the rep is in such close proximity to their voters, if they are somehow corrupted to vote against the wishes of their district, they will pay the ultimate price of losing re election. It requires far less money to market yourself to 30k people compared to 800k. Not only would the candidate have to "beg" for less money which means less opportunity for a lobby to get their hooks in them, it would increase the odds of normal people (like us) of running a campaign and defeating a corrupticrat.
 
#1,113
#1,113
whodeycin85 said:
While your in idea seems logical in theroy..in application it would require an entirely different government style and a societal trait that we are so far from it not possible...but it is intriguing.
Click to expand...
To be fair, it isn't my idea. I am sharing something I gleaned from another.

I disagree it would require a different style. The country was founded on this ratio of reps to people. It was designed to function this way.
 
#1,114
#1,114
McDad said:
To be fair, it isn't my idea. I am sharing something I gleaned from another.

I disagree it would require a different style. The country was founded on this ratio of reps to people. It was designed to function this way.
Click to expand...
It was designed imo for a lower developing style...the plan of increasing the size of government to slow the growth of government power is counter to each other as they go hand in hand...never has a small government had power.
 
#1,115
#1,115
whodeycin85 said:
It was designed imo for a lower developing style...the plan of increasing the size of government to slow the growth of government power is counter to each other as they go hand in hand...never has a small government had power.
Click to expand...
You are making the same mistake I originally made. Equating the size of a representative body with the size of government. There is no doubt that certain socialist districts would always be in favor of government growth and would elect reps who want that. But that is offset by those districts where they are adamant government must retain its constitutional parameters.
One of the main problems with runaway growth and spending is we have violated the "all politics is local" rule of thumb. It is very challenging to "stay local" at the ratio we have. Like hog agreed yesterday, he doesn't feel like he is adequately represented in government. I do not either.
 
#1,124
#1,124
rikberry31 said:
Before Reagan there was very little difference between the Rs and the Ds. Reagan painted the difference with no pastels.
Click to expand...

No, there was quite a bit of difference. There was also a lot of difference between Southern and Northern Democrats.
Huey Long and George McGovern would have never been Republicans.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top