|
|
|
Reply
| | 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
| |
JUST GIVE ME YOUR MONEY NOW CODIFY AND GET IT OVER WITH! |
|
Reply
| |
Lap dances. money. What's going on around here? |
|
Reply
| |
Gunnies porn collection will be the next thing to go up on the board James! |
|
Reply
| | From: codify | Sent: 11/11/2008 5:47 PM |
Depends Noserose.....how do you intend on earning it? HA! Man lap dances? I missed it? |
|
Reply
| |
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
| | From: codify | Sent: 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
| | From: govols | Sent: 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
| | From: codify | Sent: 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
| | From: govols | Sent: 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
| | From: codify | Sent: 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
| | From: govols | Sent: 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
| | From: codify | Sent: 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
| | From: codify | Sent: 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
| | From: codify | Sent: 11/20/2008 3:44 PM |
Found this site. Its a good one. |
|
First
Previous
2-16 of 16
Next
Last
|
|
|