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

[Yawn]

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?

 

[spnited]

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.

 

[Yawn]

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.

 

[gospringboks]

The Senate itself is an outdated organ and, like the House of Lords in Great Britain, should fade away to nothing more than a ceremonial body.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 It's an outdated way of thinking.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.

 

[Ace]

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.

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

It's the American way.

 

[Yawn]

How about to Baghdad?

 

[Football_Bat]

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

 

[EStreetJoe]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[The Big Ragu]

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?

 

[wickedwritah]

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.

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.

 

[Gold]

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.

 

[Herbert Anchovy]

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.

 

[Starman]

It's not so much that we have too many legislators, but too many bad ones.

 

[Yawn]

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.

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.

Well gee, uh, it's a mess and it would be so much trouble, just forget it. I mean, why get involved with it? I guess we should take Bobby Knight's advice, if rape is evitable, relax and enjoy it.

That kind of attitude is what's wrong with this country. We don't demand accountability. They think we're too stupid to know or indifferent to care what they do. Like sheep to a slaughter....

 

[DanOregon]

We have had cutbacks at the federal level - its called the military.
Just be grateful they aren't adding more congressmen and congresswomen, think how much the population has increased and they are serving more constituents than they used to, since the number has remained fixed at 435 (or whatever the number is).

 

[wickedwritah]

That kind of attitude is what's wrong with this country. We don't demand accountability. They think we're too stupid to know or indifferent to care what they do. Like sheep to a slaughter....

No, we don't demand accountability, no matter who is in office. All I'm saying is that your plan for mandatory staffing in the districts creates another layer of bureaucracy, one which the Libertarians who'd favor a smaller Congress surely would disapprove.