We the People Your Voice

[tude dog]

I was a short time ago I learned of We the People Your Voice

It was on a site where it was noted that a lot of people were adding signatures that the Great State of Texas, among others succeed from the Union.

This really stuck me as all wrong on so many levels.

The real great wrong is that any citizen would petition the President and expect any real consideration.

I must credit President Obama with this idea, get a petition of 20,000 signatures, then a consideration his office means something?

The real shame is that long ago Our Federal Government turned its back on the concept of federalism. And We The People let it Happen.

How often do we hear some becry that third parties have no voice in government? We are a two party system, etc.

It wasn't met to be, not what the founders of our nation had in mind a two party system, lack of the ability of the average citizen to petition the government.

By lack of ability, I mean the expectation that the person petitioned gives a darn, like what if I just ignore the petition.

This has been a long road I've hoed, so bare with me.,

The House of Representatives has only 435 member for 300,000,000 people.

That is not nearly enough.

I first became aware of that not long ago,

Congress just isn't big enough

In 1910, when America's population was 92,228,496, the ratio of representatives to citizens was one for every 212,999. The House has been 435 members since 1912 (except briefly after Alaska and Hawaii became states in 1959, when there were 437 representatives until after the 1960 census).

The first Congress had 65 representatives for about 3.9 million Americans, one for every 60,000. Not until 1860 did the ratio top one for every 100,000. Today the ratio is one for every 646,947. In 1790 only Virginia had that many residents (692,000). Today, four states (Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming) do not have that many. So now representatives, whom the Founders intended to represent smaller numbers than senators, represent more people than most senators did in the Founders' era.

If there were 1,000 representatives today, the ratio would be one for every 281,000, about what it was in 1930. Candidates could campaign as candidates did in the pre-broadcasting era, with more retail than wholesale politicking, door to door, meeting by meeting. Hence there would be less need for money, most of which now buys television time. So enlarging the House can be justified in terms of the goal that nowadays trumps all others among "progressive" thinkers -- campaign finance reform.




Here is another commentary on the subject,

What's wrong with Congress? It's not big enough

In this age of bitter partisanship, it is not surprising that congressional approval ratings are at an all-time low. But how did our national legislature get to the point where only 10% of Americans approve of its actions?

The answer: Congress no longer represents the will of the people, and it hasn't for a very long time. The House of Representatives has become another U.S. Senate where a rarefied few supposedly represent the needs of the many. And that's the main reason that hyper-partisanship and special interests seem to control the legislative agenda. We have all been disenfranchised.


No kidding.

[Accountable]

I agree that Congress isn't big enough. I'm sure the old rationale had something to do with having to build the capitol building bigger and bigger as more representatives were needed, but that's not the case today. With telecommuting, we don't need the House of Representatives chamber at all. Same with the offices. The representatives could stay home, maintain offices within the districts, keep in better touch with their constituents ... I think it would be better all around.