A way to make dramatic change to the process (and I think it can be done just by changing the process) without changing the Constitution in order to create a people's party and to hope for representatives that work and represent the people and not corporate interests is to rally forces to bring about the expansion of the House of Representatives. Presently, we have 435. A number that was arbitrarily determined in the 1910's when our population was about 93 million. It is now over 300 million and we have the same number of representatives.
I personally and informally met with my representative and pleaded with him to tell me how many signatures on a petition would I need to give to him to support Kucinich in impeaching the President. He had the audacity to joke and put words in my mouth that I would think 500 (the exact number of signatures on a petition he had just received from vets) was a lot, haw, haw, and he boasted he represented over 700,000 people and that somehow it wouldn't matter because his mind was made up and would not change it. Does this sound like representation? This man has been in public office since he was 25 (this includes the State government). I believe he thinks he is entitled to live as an aristocrat and disregard those who placed him there.
My interest in this came right after Kerry's loss. I looked up every state, its population and its number of representatives. I found that the electoral numbers would not have changed if the ratio of representative to population were to be reduced to say 1:200,000 as oppose to the 1:600,000 average. But what I did find is that the worse representation exists in Montana with a ratio of 1:1 million and Wyoming the best at 1:550,000. In either case one could see how this condition leads to corruption due to fact that there is less scrutiny by constituents because of their numbers and because of the vastness of the land the district encompasses and to the distance (from represented state to Washington, DC) that the mischief can occur.
How to solve this? The Constitution states that no representative of the House can represent less than 30,000.
Representation in France and England is around 200,000 per member of their legislature, and hey, they can demand that their foods are labeled (GMO or not), can prevent the use of Prosilac (Monsanto's artificial bovine growth hormone) in their dairy cows and even lets meat processors test all beef for mad cow, things our government won't let us do here!). In Canada, their legislature grows as their population grows and is thinking about changing to a set number. Hope they don't!
How can they all these new representatives fit into the Capitol? Split it up! Have regional houses connected by video, e-mail, video mail. Have them live in their own homes in their own districts or at least close enough to go home easily on weekends. That way their constituents can see how they live and whether they appear to be making more than they should and they could be more able to make their needs and wants more effectively understood. Make the houses separate targets if the government is so sh** scared of terrorists. Right now all they need to do is destroy DC and they all go!
An added advantage would be more representation of the cities. Due to recent rulings by the Supreme Court redistricting can be as gerrymandering as possible, but not when it applies to those districts where it would be of a disadvantage to constituents of color. I believe that I probably have more in common with people of color than aristocrats in Washington DC and perhaps more progressive legislation would be presented and promoted by those who represent those populations.
In all cases, the increase in the number of representatives would increase the chances that we can populate that House with the voices of the people!
More information can be found at www.thirty-thousand.org!
By the way, I intend to vote, help me here, gag, vote for a Republican just so that my representative is voted out. Hopefully they can find a better man or woman for the job!
A way to make dramatic change to the process (and I think it can be done just by changing the process) without changing the Constitution in order to create a people's party and to hope for representatives that work and represent the people and not corporate interests is to rally forces to bring about the expansion of the House of Representatives. Presently, we have 435. A number that was arbitrarily determined in the 1910's when our population was about 93 million. It is now over 300 million and we have the same number of representatives.
I personally and informally met with my representative and pleaded with him to tell me how many signatures on a petition would I need to give to him to support Kucinich in impeaching the President. He had the audacity to joke and put words in my mouth that I would think 500 (the exact number of signatures on a petition he had just received from vets) was a lot, haw, haw, and he boasted he represented over 700,000 people and that somehow it wouldn't matter because his mind was made up and would not change it. Does this sound like representation? This man has been in public office since he was 25 (this includes the State government). I believe he thinks he is entitled to live as an aristocrat and disregard those who placed him there.
My interest in this came right after Kerry's loss. I looked up every state, its population and its number of representatives. I found that the electoral numbers would not have changed if the ratio of representative to population were to be reduced to say 1:200,000 as oppose to the 1:600,000 average. But what I did find is that the worse representation exists in Montana with a ratio of 1:1 million and Wyoming the best at 1:550,000. In either case one could see how this condition leads to corruption due to fact that there is less scrutiny by constituents because of their numbers and because of the vastness of the land the district encompasses and to the distance (from represented state to Washington, DC) that the mischief can occur.
How to solve this? The Constitution states that no representative of the House can represent less than 30,000.
Representation in France and England is around 200,000 per member of their legislature, and hey, they can demand that their foods are labeled (GMO or not), can prevent the use of Prosilac (Monsanto's artificial bovine growth hormone) in their dairy cows and even lets meat processors test all beef for mad cow, things our government won't let us do here!). In Canada, their legislature grows as their population grows and is thinking about changing to a set number. Hope they don't!
How can they all these new representatives fit into the Capitol? Split it up! Have regional houses connected by video, e-mail, video mail. Have them live in their own homes in their own districts or at least close enough to go home easily on weekends. That way their constituents can see how they live and whether they appear to be making more than they should and they could be more able to make their needs and wants more effectively understood. Make the houses separate targets if the government is so sh** scared of terrorists. Right now all they need to do is destroy DC and they all go!
An added advantage would be more representation of the cities. Due to recent rulings by the Supreme Court redistricting can be as gerrymandering as possible, but not when it applies to those districts where it would be of a disadvantage to constituents of color. I believe that I probably have more in common with people of color than aristocrats in Washington DC and perhaps more progressive legislation would be presented and promoted by those who represent those populations.
In all cases, the increase in the number of representatives would increase the chances that we can populate that House with the voices of the people!
More information can be found at www.thirty-thousand.org!
By the way, I intend to vote, help me here, gag, vote for a Republican just so that my representative is voted out. Hopefully they can find a better man or woman for the job!