MSN Home  |  My MSN  |  Hotmail
Sign in to Windows Live ID Web Search:   
go to MSNGroups 
Free Forum Hosting
 
Important Announcement Important Announcement
The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
The American ExperienceContains "mature" content, but not necessarily adult.[email protected] 
  
What's New
  
  General  
  Ask Management  
  Member's Place  
  Coffee Breaks  
  Members Recipes  
  Pictures  
    
  Backup Group  
  Links  
    
  
  
  Tools  
 
General : Federalist Paper #10
Choose another message board
 
     
Reply
 Message 1 of 16 in Discussion 
From: codify  (Original Message)Sent: 11/11/2008 4:00 PM
 
Last 3 paragraphs -
 

Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic,--is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.

In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.


A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.      - - from above

Evil or wicked deeds described:

1. Rage for Paper Money

Obviously, this warning has not been heeded.

2. Abolition of Debts:

What do bailout plans really do?

3. Equal Division of Property:

Obama's spread the wealth mean anything?



First  Previous  2-16 of 16  Next  Last 
Reply
 Message 2 of 16 in Discussion 
From: NoseroseSent: 11/11/2008 4:12 PM
JUST GIVE ME YOUR MONEY NOW CODIFY AND GET IT OVER WITH!

Reply
 Message 3 of 16 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nicknameftjames857Sent: 11/11/2008 4:15 PM
Lap dances. money. What's going on around here?

Reply
 Message 4 of 16 in Discussion 
From: NoseroseSent: 11/11/2008 5:26 PM
Gunnies porn collection will be the next thing to go up on the board James!

Reply
 Message 5 of 16 in Discussion 
From: codifySent: 11/11/2008 5:47 PM
Depends Noserose.....how do you intend on earning it?   HA!
 
Man lap dances? I missed it?

Reply
 Message 6 of 16 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameBadBobTxSent: 11/11/2008 5:49 PM
Codify I don't think the Framers had the foresight or could have had the foresight to envision the possibility of some to organize millions into one think alike party like the Dems and the Reps have been able to do. As far as they could tell it would be a few hundred across one state, The vision of millions across a nation as vast as ours oganized into two big goverment parties was just untinkable.
Bob  

Reply
 Message 7 of 16 in Discussion 
From: codifySent: 11/11/2008 5:54 PM
Bob....
 
I think they did actually. If you read the entire paper, it is more about factionalism and majoritarianism.
 
What they decided on as a remedy has been lost by the non-growth of representatives per population. The few representatives that we now have are able to factionalize.

Reply
 Message 8 of 16 in Discussion 
From: govolsSent: 11/12/2008 3:39 AM
codify, do you think, then, that an expansion of the number of members in the House would help expand the number of viable parties?

Reply
 Message 9 of 16 in Discussion 
From: codifySent: 11/12/2008 3:46 AM
I think so. It would make whoever gets elected more likely not to vote 'yes' on things unless there was considerable support in his district.
 
 

Reply
 Message 10 of 16 in Discussion 
From: govolsSent: 11/12/2008 3:49 AM
Maybe double or triple the number, and reduce the pay per Representative by half or 2/3? What was it when established? One rep. per 35000 population, up to 435 members? That took us up to about 15 million population. Each member now represents around 20 times more people than the original plan called for. That's what? 700,000 per member?

I guess that does make it tough to give a shit about a single constituent... It also means a big city might get 10 congressmen, while a single congressman has to try to represent the varied interests of an entire State, or a region of a dozen or more small towns...

I see what you mean, I think.........................

Reply
 Message 11 of 16 in Discussion 
From: codifySent: 11/12/2008 3:50 AM
It would pit daily friend against daily friend. A closer knit district and therefore an aversion to really do a lot to piss off their neighbors.

Reply
 Message 12 of 16 in Discussion 
From: govolsSent: 11/12/2008 3:58 AM
Even if you double the membership, you'd have each one with 350,000 constituents. To get it down to 35,000 again we'd need almost 9000 congressmen. Madam Speaker would have her damned hands full, wouldn't she. But you may be on to something. It would be damned hard to organize a majority, much less a consensus.

Reply
 Message 13 of 16 in Discussion 
From: codifySent: 11/12/2008 4:01 AM
So be it....
 
More independent too. Couldn't really garner majorities against largess minorities.
 
I would hope anyway.

Reply
 Message 14 of 16 in Discussion 
From: codifySent: 11/12/2008 3:51 PM
House size
Ratio of representation in the House, 1789�?923
Years Source Constituents per Representative
1789�?793 U.S. Constitution 30,000
1793�?803 U.S. Census of 1790 30,000
1803�?813 U.S. Census of 1800 33,000
1813�?823 U.S. Census of 1810 35,000
1823�?833 U.S. Census of 1820 40,000
1833�?843 U.S. Census of 1830 47,700
1843�?853 U.S. Census of 1840 70,680
1853�?863 U.S. Census of 1850 93,425
1863�?873 U.S. Census of 1860 127,381
1873�?883 U.S. Census of 1870 131,425
1883�?893 U.S. Census of 1880 151,912
1893�?903 U.S. Census of 1890 173,901
1903�?913 U.S. Census of 1900 194,182
1913�?923 U.S. Census of 1910 212,407

The United States Constitution requires that

The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative (Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 3)

Prior to the twentieth century, the number of representatives increased every decade as more states joined the union, and the population increased.

In 1911, Public Law 62-5 set the membership of the U.S. House at 433 with a provision to add one permanent seat each upon the admissions of Arizona and New Mexico as states. As provided, membership increased to 435 in 1912, where it has remained since, with a brief exception from 1959 to 1963 following the admissions of Alaska and Hawaii, during which House membership was 437.

If the ratio floor as specified by the Constitution of one representative for every 30,000 people were maintained, the House of Representatives currently would have about 10,000 members. Instead, the present size of 435 seats means one member represents on average about 650,000 people; but exact representation per member varies by state. Four states �?Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska and North Dakota �?currently have populations smaller than the average for a single district, resulting in over-representation for residents of those states.

Proposals have been made to add voting representation for the District of Columbia, now represented only by a non-voting delegate, who is not counted as one of the 435 House representatives. Recent bills, such as the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007, would resolve the issue by permanently increasing House membership to 437. One of the new members would be from the District of Columbia; the other would be from the next state in line to receive another House seat (as described below), presently Utah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment


Reply
 Message 15 of 16 in Discussion 
From: codifySent: 11/20/2008 3:44 PM
Found this site. Its a good one.
 
 
Chart: Number of Representatives and Total Population

Reply
 Message 16 of 16 in Discussion 
From: codifySent: 11/20/2008 3:45 PM

First  Previous  2-16 of 16  Next  Last 
Return to General