People in Urban Areas are not being Represented.

[ck4829]

Where do Terrorist Attacks occur?

In Urban Areas.

So, why do we have Upper Class Conservatives who are afraid to enter these Urban Areas (Because they're Racists or afraid of the Poor or something like that) decide what our policies against Terrorism will be?

The number of Representatives in Congress has not changed for a long time.

We need more Representatives.

Our Government needs an Upgrade.

Or, it will be justifiable to make that famous claim of "Taxation without Representation!".

[MildyRules]

1. How are they NOT represented?

They are represented at the same rate as people in rural areas...just ask those in Wyoming and Montana.

[ck4829]

2. Do you really think that 435 Reps is still properly representative of us?

Representatives exist to act for the People based on the population of an Area.

We have not had that number increased for a long time.

1 Representative representing a greater and greater amount of people means that less people are being Represented.

[MildyRules]

7. No, it doesn't.

The number of people being represented has NOT decreased. The number of people being represented by ONE representative has increased, but that in NO way means that fewer people are being represented.

[TechBear_Seattle]

10. Entirely untrue

Representatives exist to act for the People based on the population of an Area.

Incorrect. Representatives exist to act for the State they represent. Representatives are chosen to represent the state by district within the state, by the people who live within the district. That is not the same as asserting that Representatives represent the people; by design, the people have no direct representation in any branch of the federal government.

That said, there is no Constitutional limit to the number of representatives. I see no reason why Congress should not increase the size of the House by, say, 50.

[crispini]

12. I don't get it.

How is that not direct representation? Maybe I don't understand the meaning of the term as you are using it. In pratical terms what's the diff?

[TechBear_Seattle]

13. The US is a republic, not a democracy

That, essentially, is the main difference. Apportionment in the House of Representatives is based on state population, with each state getting at least one Representative. Apportionment is not done based on the population of the country as a whole.

Second, election by district is not mandated by the Constitution. The manner of electing Representatives is set by the state, with Congress having the authority to override by law any state rules. It would be entirely legal to do as we do with Electoral votes: vote on a slate of candidates prepared by the political parties, with the winning slate all heading to Congress. If the Framers had intended to secure equal representation for the people, they certainly would have mandated it.

Third is the fear of the Framers in allowing mob rule. By and large, most did not want the people to have ANY voice in government, but a few hardcore democrats and populists managed to get a few concessions. Delving into that topic would mean a history essay, and I don't have time to write one right now :hide:

[crispini]

14. Ok, from a strict language (and history) standpoint, I get it.

But from a sheerly practical point of view don't you think it's reasonable to say "my representative represents me" -- they certainly ARE accountable to the voters in their district from an elections standpoint. Even if theoretically that system could change.

[TechBear_Seattle]

18. From a practical point of view...

A Representative in Congress only represents the people who voted for said person. I have lived in many places where my Representative -- and and Senator, Governor, state legislators, President -- most certainly did not.

But I will agree that we are discussing semantics. We are looking at the same wall and arguing over whether it is painted ecru or eggshell :yoiks:

[crispini]

21. Isn't that what message boards are for? :)

I know what you mean, though, my previous representative was a real POS and did not represent my viewpoints at all. I got gerrymandered into a Dem district, though, and now I am represented by a member of the Democratic Congressional Black Caucus. I call her office regularly to tell them how much I adore her. I agree with 95% of what she does! :D

[SoCalDem]

19. Wyoming is a prime example.. It has TWo senators and One congressperson

the whole state population is about 550,000

That works out to one rep per 183,333 people..

California has about 37.5 MILLION with 2 senators and 56(I think) congresspeople... That works out to One rep per 636,610 people..

compare california's monetary contribution, vs Wyoming's.. Fair representation??

I think NOT

[MildyRules]

23. Well except for that fact that a US Senator

is not a representative...

[SoCalDem]

26. representative in the generic sense

but then you knew that :P

[TechBear_Seattle]

27. Again, because we are a republic of states

As the Framers designed it, each branch of Congress has different powers and different purposes.

The Senate was appointed by state legislatures (until 1913 and the 24th Amendment.) It, in effect, represented the landed gentry. That is why most of the power in Congress rests with the Senate: ratification of treaties, consenting to presidential appointments and trying impeachments: the Founders believed that only the aristocracy had the learning and philosophical basis to make thoughtful decisions. In the Senate all states have equal representation, which was to pacify smaller, less populous states such as Massachusetts and Delaware.

The House of Representatives was elected directly by "the mob." It was to consist of farmers and other ill-educated riff-raff as a sop to the democratic rhetoric used in the revolution. That is why Representatives are elected to terms of only two years, to allow them to represent the ever-changing winds of public opinion, and why they have only two powers: to draw up bills of impeachment, and to control the purse-strings of government (all financial bills must originate in the House.) In the House, representation is proportionate by population, which was what the larger, more populous states wanted. That led to another compromise on who would be counted; at the end of the Revolutionary War, South Carolina's population was some 90% slaves. South Carolina wanted ALL people to count, while New York and other northern states with few slaves objected. That resulted in the infamous "slaves are only 3/5th of a person" compromise found in the Constitution.

Again, it is the states who are represented, with a great many compromises made in the Constitution to get all of the former colonies on board. That was by design.

[SoCalDem]

28. Times change..

:hi:

[TechBear_Seattle]

29. Indeed they do

I refer you to the question I posted elsewhere in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5000157#5000809

If you can suggest how the Constitution could be amended to get what you would consider a more equitable representation, I am all eyes :think: Please post under that filament. Or would it be threadlet? Sub-thread? Anyway, you get the picture.

[Ediacara]

3. That's 100% not true

Wyomingites are TWICE as represented as Montanans. There are almost one million people in Montana, yet just one representative. In Wyoming, there are only 450,000 people and one representative. Nationally, the average district should have around 650,000 people, but rural districts do have some extremes.

[ck4829]

5. That's exactly what I'm trying to get at.

"The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand."

Wyoming needs a lot more Representatives then.

[MildyRules]

6. I was comparing the rural areas

to urban ones. Not rural to rural where the relatively small populations do lead to some "extremes."

As you point out, it does average to about 650,000 per district

[TechBear_Seattle]

11. So how would you change the Constitution?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

You would need to amend Article I, Section 2, para. 3, as amended by the 14th Amendment (which removed the distinction between "free persons" and "all others.")

As currently in force, representation in the House is apportioned among the states according to the population of the state, with the two provisos that all states shall have at least one Representative, and that a Representative may not represent fewer than 30,000 people.

The actual number of Representatives is set by law, not by the Constitution. Since 1790, representation was divvied up by first alloting each state a seat in the House, then distributing the rest based on relative proportion. If the most populous state holds 20% of the country's population, it will get the nearest whole number to 20% of the seats. Then the second most populous state, with 18.5%, gets 18.5% of the seats. And so on down the line, until there are no more seats.

It would be a simple matter of increasing the number of Representatives, but that would not address the imbalance of two states, each with their one required Representative, having a different population count.

So: You are making noise about a perceived injustice. You can see for yourself why that perceived injustice exists. How do you propose it get fixed?

[Ediacara]

15. Well ideally....

I would change the makeup of both houses of Congress drastically. I would increase the number of representatives by greater than 4x, and have each district represent roughly 150,000 people. Additionally, I would scrap the Senate entirely, as it greatly overrepresents rural areas. Instead I would replace it with a 100 member body whos members were decided based on the national party totals for the House as a whole. For instance, if the House has a slim majority of Republican seats, but Democrats actually got more votes nationwide, this ammended Senate would have a majority of Democrats etc. Each seat would represent roughly 1% of the vote.

[TechBear_Seattle]

16. It sounds like you want a parliamentary national government

That won't necessarily be a bad thing, but such drastic changes would require throwing away the Constitution as it exists now and starting over from scratch.

For one thing, the Constitution establishes a federation of states, and every aspect of the Constitution takes this in to consideration. It is the states who elect the head of the Executive Branch using a weighted vote based on a given state's representation in Congress: how would that have to be changed? What about Article IV of the Constitution, which establishes the rights and obligations of the states? Should the very concept of state be eliminated, or can it be kept but changed? What powers, if any, should belong exclusively to a state?

Also, what about the division of powers between the House and Senate? As originally written, Representatives had only two unique powers: the purse (ie all financial bills must originate in the House) and impeachment. All other Congressional power -- consent of Executive appointments, ratification of treaties, trial of impeachment -- rests exclusively with the Senate. Would this still hold? Why or why not?

You have set yourself a task no smaller than the one we have forced on Iraq: the creation of a new government. Given the culture and political make-up of the United States at this very moment, would you really want a group of people to get together and create a new system of government?

Interested in taking a less drastic, more realistic stab at the issue?

[Ediacara]

20. I said ideally, not realistically :-)

A less drastic stab: Set the "standard" population of a congressional district at something like 400,000 people and increase the size of the House as the nation's population increases. Right now, that would make the House a little over 700 members. Because there is now a set number of seats (435) everyone in the nation is underrepresented in the House save for the 0.16% of us that live in Wyoming. Oddly, the most underrepresented district is right next door in Montana's at large district, which has 0.32% of the nation's population.

[TechBear_Seattle]

30. That might be doable

I've seen the idea floated before of having the House have one seat for every X number of people, with the seats allocated to each state based on the state's population (guaranteeing, of course, that each state had at least one Rep.) That would be pretty fair and would not need any changes to the Constitution. However, the idea mmediately slams in to several annoying realities.

The first is emminently practical: Office space. Since the last state, Hawaii, was admitted to the Union in 1959, we have had 435 seats in the House. There is office space for each one of those 435 Representatives, although most offices are very cramped and a fair distance from the House chamber. Increasing the set number by even a few would overwhelm existing office space and there simply isn't anywhere left to build in DC, certainly not within walking distance of the Hill. Increasing it by almost 300... impossible, without tearing everything down and rebuilding a vast highrise. And making that number variable every decade would be even worse, as there would be an ever increasing number of offices.

With office space comes a second challenge: Cost. Each Representative needs to be paid. Each Representative needs to have a staff and they need to be paid. There is a need to feed the Representatives and staffers. Add in the costs associated with building new offices. Then, each office will need electricity, ventilation, janitorial services, mail distribution, and so on. Then consider the traditional perqs of being a Representative, such as "franking" (being able to pay for postage merely by signing the envelope), medical insurance, health club facilities and dry-cleaning. Who would foot the bill? And how could current Representatives (and Senators) justify doubling the expense of running Congress to the people at home who will likely see very little practical benefit?

Then, there is the reality of group dynamics. The more people you put in a group, the more difficult it is for that group to work as a team. Congress gets around this (somewhat) by organizing in to formal committees and informal caucuses. Doubling the number of Representatives would throw that system in to chaos. Doubling the number of people on a committee would make the committee much less effective; doubling the number of committees would increase the number of turf wars and greatly prolong the amount of time needed for the House to deal with its business. Small increases, a few seats at a time, can be accomodated to existing procedures; suddenly doubling the number of seats would require a total restructuring and I wouldn't trust that no matter what party held power.

[Xithras]

22. The problem is in deciding who get appointed.

The US originally had a system where Senators were appointed, and we threw it out because experience showed us that appointed politicians invariably become corrupt.

I don't disagree with the basic idea that seats could be divvied up according to vote totals, but the idea of the "party" picking the representative is completely unacceptable. We vote for leaders, not parties, in this country.

[TechBear_Seattle]

32. Actually...

Changing Senators from appointed by state legislatures to elected by the people took place in 1913, with the ratification of the 17th Amendment. There was some corruption, but the main reason was the development of the party system. It would happen that a closely balanced state government would not compromise, and so Senate seats were left unfilled. Or there would be a change of controlling party and the new party would recall the old party's appointees and replace them, then start squawking that the new Senators had been appointed to full six year terms.

By the turn of the century, the idea of direct election of Senators was catching on as a way to avoid the political in-fighting. Some states, mostly in the west, started to hold referenda where the people would elect Senators and the Legislatures would appoint the Senator-elect pro forma. It is out of those referenda that the 17th Amendment was born.

[Southpaw Bookworm]

4. Compare the per capita amount

Of Homeland Security funds sent to Wyoming with those sent to New York and Washington. There is a huge difference.

And let's not forget the fact that a portion of the U.S. with a population larger than several states (including Wyoming) has NO voting representation in Congress. I speak, of course, of the District of Columbia, whose residents indeed are victims of taxation without representation. But because it's a majority minority city that leans 90 percent Democrat, that situation is unlikely to change anytime soon.

[MildyRules]

8. Well since DC is not

a state, they would need a Constitutional amendment. Agree; it's not likely to happen soon.

[readmoreoften]

24. Bullshit

The electoral college ensures that urban areas are less represented than rural areas. That's why you can win the POPULAR vote and not win the ELECTION. Because the POPULATION is in the POPULATED areas.

[MildyRules]

25. Once again

another person confuses Senators with representatives.

[TechBear_Seattle]

31. Umm... you have that backwards

The number of Electoral votes a state has is based on the state's total representation in Congress, not the other way around.

Also, the popular vote is irrelevant in a presidential election, as it is not the people who elect the president. It is the states who elect the President and always has been.

[pop goes the weasel]

9. true

In Texas, the gerrymandered districts have sliced up blue cities in order to outnumber them with red suburbs. The truly rural areas aren't properly reflected in such districts, either.

[Skidmore]

17. People no where are being represented now.

[TechBear_Seattle]

33. Found something VERY interesting

The original Bill of Rights actually contained 12 proposed amendments. Numbers 3-12 were ratified very quickly, and became the first 10 Amendments that we all know and love. Number 2 was ratified in 1992 as Amendment 27 (seeing as the Bill had no expiration date.) Number 1....

After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

This Congressional Apportionment Amendment is still alive. Twelve states have taken action on it (New Jersey, Maryland, N. Carolina, S. Carolina, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Vermont, Kentucky, Delaware) with 11 votes for ratification and one (Delaware) against. If 26 more states voted to ratify, there could be as many as 6,000 Representatives. :wow: