Our government is based on the British model, so let's compare.
The US now has 300 million people. There are 435 representatives in the House. That comes to one representative per 700 000 people (689 655 to be exact).
The UK has 60 million people. There are 646 representatives in the House of Commons. That comes to one representative per 93 000 people (92 879 to be exact).
I CRY FOUL! Why are we not represented better? Aside from having to build a new congress building, I see no excuse for this.
If we had one rep per 93 000, there would be 3226 members of the House of Representatives.
AND running for office would be cheaper since you'd have to reach less people.
Something to think about.
OLD American Century / White Rose Society message boards > Political Discussion forums > Politics In General
QUOTE(Pinget @ Saturday, 14 October 2006, 12:05 pm) [snapback]75721[/snapback]
Our government is based on the British model, so let's compare.
The US now has 300 million people. There are 435 representatives in the House. That comes to one representative per 700 000 people (689 655 to be exact).
The UK has 60 million people. There are 646 representatives in the House of Commons. That comes to one representative per 93 000 people (92 879 to be exact).
I CRY FOUL! Why are we not represented better? Aside from having to build a new congress building, I see no excuse for this.
If we had one rep per 93 000, there would be 3226 members of the House of Representatives.
AND running for office would be cheaper since you'd have to reach less people.
Something to think about.
OKThe US now has 300 million people. There are 435 representatives in the House. That comes to one representative per 700 000 people (689 655 to be exact).
The UK has 60 million people. There are 646 representatives in the House of Commons. That comes to one representative per 93 000 people (92 879 to be exact).
I CRY FOUL! Why are we not represented better? Aside from having to build a new congress building, I see no excuse for this.
If we had one rep per 93 000, there would be 3226 members of the House of Representatives.
AND running for office would be cheaper since you'd have to reach less people.
Something to think about.
I'm thinking now. Good point Ping.
Oy.
More of the cockroaches?
More of the cockroaches?
At first glance, Pinget, your numbers look OK, BUT...those 435 representatives actually are representinting the interests of a relatively small number of corporations. An even smaller number if those entities are grouped by industry/business rather than individual company. I would say, sadly, that corporate America is getting more than their money's worth of representation. Oh, I'm sorry...did you mean us?
MORE representation would require MORE citizens to be ACTIVE and INFORMED.
Todays political reality is pretty much the same as with all things,
20% of the people do 80% of the work, and as long as that 20% are good people, all runs smoothly.
Todays political reality is pretty much the same as with all things,
20% of the people do 80% of the work, and as long as that 20% are good people, all runs smoothly.
the current house would not be so bad if there were some counterbalance to the federal government.
my high school civics teacher had been involved with efforts to evaluate a new level of government that was to be between the states and the federal level, call it a province or region. this would consist of a group of states in close geographical proximity. these regions would then have many of the powers of the federal govt, except the ability to conduct foreign policy and wage war.
the reasoning behind this was that the us was gaining population too rapidly, the federal govt was distracted more and more by international events and there was no entity to focus mainly on domestic concerns which had enough power to do anything. this idea had some popularity in the early 60's and again in the 80's.
i have mixed feelings about it, but it would establish some balance of power and might be the location for better representation. would hate to see more of those vermin in d.c.
my high school civics teacher had been involved with efforts to evaluate a new level of government that was to be between the states and the federal level, call it a province or region. this would consist of a group of states in close geographical proximity. these regions would then have many of the powers of the federal govt, except the ability to conduct foreign policy and wage war.
the reasoning behind this was that the us was gaining population too rapidly, the federal govt was distracted more and more by international events and there was no entity to focus mainly on domestic concerns which had enough power to do anything. this idea had some popularity in the early 60's and again in the 80's.
i have mixed feelings about it, but it would establish some balance of power and might be the location for better representation. would hate to see more of those vermin in d.c.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.