1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Since every company is cutting back in employees.....

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by Yawn, May 16, 2007.

  1. Yawn

    Yawn New Member

    I think it is time to start a movement to cut back the number of Congressmen.

    Do we really think that having 100 senators vs. 50 that more gets done?

    How about bigger districts for house members? As workers have to take on more responsibility, so should these guys and gals. After all, what's good for America is good for Congress. Right?

    How about it?
  2. spnited

    spnited Active Member

    I think 100 in the Senate is fine.
    The House needs to be cut to about 250 and the term needs to be extended beyond two years because all these asses do is get elected and start running for relection a month later.
    It's also time to say good-bye to the electoral college. Institute a uniform National election process...all the voting machines in every district in every State are the same, provided by and monitored by the federal government.
    No more paper ballots, no more hanging chads, no more manipulating for electoral votes in states like Fla. and Ohio and Illinois... one person, one vote, we're all equal.
  3. Yawn

    Yawn New Member

    You're missing the point, spirited.

    Small government. These bastards don't have to worry about job cutbacks.

    Obviously they think it's good for America unless it's close to elections and makes for a good stump appeal. But action? Hell no, not them.

    Give them a taste of our medicine.

    I say 50 in the Senate too.

    We also should be able to enforce staff cutbacks in each of their offices. Fewer in Washington, the majority being located on the home front in their specific areas of representation.
  4. gospringboks

    gospringboks Member

    The Senate itself is an outdated organ and, like the House of Lords in Great Britain, should fade away to nothing more than a ceremonial body. The House of Reps was designed to represent the average man (well, at least the average white, land-owning male) and the Senate was designed to protect the aristocracy. It's an outdated way of thinking.

    And, for people so upset wit the electoral college in 2000, it skews power towards smaller states in two ways. First, since each state has equal representation, California, Texas and New York have the same power as Montana, North Dakota and Rhode Island. And the number of electors is determined by the number of members of the House of Representatives a state has plus its two Senators. Take away the Senate, and the electoral college suddenly looks much more like a one-person, one-vote organ. (And, indeed, had this been the case in 2000, Al Gore would have won the presidency.)

    Off-topic, yes, but worthy of discussion.
  5. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    Can't we keep 100 and 435 but outsource half the jobs to India?

    It's the American way.
  6. Yawn

    Yawn New Member

    How about to Baghdad?
  7. Football_Bat

    Football_Bat Well-Known Member

    We could hire 218 Mexicans for the House and pay them a tenth as much.
  8. EStreetJoe

    EStreetJoe Well-Known Member

    Damn.. and I believe the history books that say the Senate/House system was the compromise between the big states and the small states when the Constitution was written. The small states got their wish of equal representation in the Senate, with each state having the same number of representatives. While the big states got their wish in the House, with the number of representatives being based on population of that state.

    I think it would be easier to pass a Constitutional amendment modifying the Electoral College than it would be to pass an amendment that eliminated the senate. However your suggestion for the electoral college is a good one.
  9. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Ha. The dolt gets fed mantras like "small government" and simple-mindedly believes it means we have too many legislators.

    Yeah. Our democracy would benefit from fewer elected representatives. Great idea! In fact, why not just have one Congressman represent the entire northeast? More efficient that way. We can call him a czar, or something. In fact, why bother with the election? Too costly to run one. We can just appoint him. Or let the guy who can round up the biggest militia have the seat.

    You do understand that the United States is a Republic and a democracy, right? And you do understand how democracies work, right?
  10. wickedwritah

    wickedwritah Guest

    Who is going to enforce this limitation on Washington staffers? Are we gonna set up another bureaucracy to make sure that Sheldon Waterhouse or Jim Webb keeps at least X amount of their staffers back in the district? Sounds like a big ol' mess.
  11. Gold

    Gold Active Member

    Well gee, reductions in employees have worked so well in newspapers why not spread the practice around.

    If anything, there should be more people in the House of Representatives so we would have a more representative democracy.

    And any savings from Yawn's idea would be spent in a couple of hours in Iraq.
  12. Herbert Anchovy

    Herbert Anchovy Active Member

    Reapportioning needs to be given a hard, serious look by the foederal government. Gerrymandering is as old as the hills, but it's so outlandish now that it's disgraceful.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page