Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

September 17, 1787: "A Republic, If You Can Keep It"

nps.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 87 posts

Re: September 17, 1787: "A Republic, If You Can Keep It"

#11

Post by readthenotes1 »

bobthepanda wrote: post #7
relaxing wrote: post #5

A couple interesting references in this article- - The constitutional debate with Elbridge Gerry (MA), the name behind Gerrymandering - The proposal to increase the size of the House of Representatives from one representative for every 40,000 people to one for every 30,000, which if continued today would make it much harder to gerrymander, among other things.

Right now it’s not even one for every 40,000. The size of the house is capped at 435 by an act of Congress. One for every 40,000 might be overkill given that would result in 8,500 reps in the House.

A friend of mine suggested that one for every 40,000 would be exactly the right amount of representation.

Not only would there be much more accurate representation, and much more accountable representation, it would also be much more difficult to bribe enough

Re: September 17, 1787: "A Republic, If You Can Keep It"

#12

Post by saulpw »

kiba wrote: post #8
bobthepanda wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right now it’s not even one for every 40,000. The size of the house is capped at 435 by an act of Congress. One for every 40,000 might be overkill given that would result in 8,500 reps in the House.

I am not sure if that's overkill. It might be a logistical issue with the current building though. 1 per 40,0000 is like the mayor of a town.

What if it were a two-tiered system, in which 8500 local representatives elected their set of ~435 national representatives?

Re: September 17, 1787: "A Republic, If You Can Keep It"

#13

Post by linguae »

bobthepanda wrote: post #7
relaxing wrote: post #5

A couple interesting references in this article- - The constitutional debate with Elbridge Gerry (MA), the name behind Gerrymandering - The proposal to increase the size of the House of Representatives from one representative for every 40,000 people to one for every 30,000, which if continued today would make it much harder to gerrymander, among other things.

Right now it’s not even one for every 40,000. The size of the house is capped at 435 by an act of Congress. One for every 40,000 might be overkill given that would result in 8,500 reps in the House.

This is very interesting to think about, though. What if there were many more representatives? It doesn't have to be one for every 40,000, but suppose there were 2,000 representatives. Of course there are logistical challenges to increasing the number of representatives, such as needing an increased budget for legislators' salaries, as well as having sufficient space for all of the legislators to meet.

I do see potential benefits to having more representatives, though I'm not a political scientist and these may just be educated guesses and aspirational hopes:

1. Since each representative's constituency would be smaller, we may see a greater mix of political reviews reflected in the House of Representatives, since larger constituencies may have an "averaging" effect.

2. It may be harder for special interests to exert their influence on 2,000 representatives compared to 435. Simultaneously, it may be easier for everyday people to influence their representatives since each district is smaller in population. Consider the impact somebody living in a small town has on government there, compared to someone living in a large city.

3. Related to #2, it may be harder for political parties to impose their will on representatives since they have a lot more people they have to influence.

4. If there were more opportunities for everyday people to serve as elected officials, then perhaps people may feel more invested in their government rather than seeing government as a distant entity that runs counter to the well-being of society. This could serve as an effective counter to the disaffectedness we see in modern American society.

Once again, though, these are just educated guesses.

Re: September 17, 1787: "A Republic, If You Can Keep It"

#14

Post by mullingitover »

This is very timely, and reminds me of George Washington pleading for Americans to beware party politics in his farewell address[1], where he willingly surrendered power and went home:

> The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.

> ...It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

He could've written this last week.

[1] https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/W...

Re: September 17, 1787: "A Republic, If You Can Keep It"

#15

Post by IncreasePosts »

relaxing wrote: post #5

A couple interesting references in this article- - The constitutional debate with Elbridge Gerry (MA), the name behind Gerrymandering - The proposal to increase the size of the House of Representatives from one representative for every 40,000 people to one for every 30,000, which if continued today would make it much harder to gerrymander, among other things.

We have legislated racial gerrymandering which that would do nothing to combat. The simple fix against gerrymandering is to get rid of the concept of districts and just let people vote on house members at the state level, and have enough representatives that one populous locale couldn't dominate the reps

Re: September 17, 1787: "A Republic, If You Can Keep It"

#16

Post by vkou »

readthenotes1 wrote: post #11
bobthepanda wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right now it’s not even one for every 40,000. The size of the house is capped at 435 by an act of Congress. One for every 40,000 might be overkill given that would result in 8,500 reps in the House.

A friend of mine suggested that one for every 40,000 would be exactly the right amount of representation. Not only would there be much more accurate representation, and much more accountable representation, it would also be much more difficult to bribe enough

The reps actively seek bribes, because they need campaign warchests.

Whether there are 8,000 of them, or 400, that dynamic isn't going to change.

Also, at the moment the problem isn't bribes, the problem is that the tail is wagging the dog, and the Party will destroy anyone in it who dares to push back on the glorious leader.

Re: September 17, 1787: "A Republic, If You Can Keep It"

#17

Post by kiba »

saulpw wrote: post #12
kiba wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure if that's overkill. It might be a logistical issue with the current building though. 1 per 40,0000 is like the mayor of a town.

What if it were a two-tiered system, in which 8500 local representatives elected their set of ~435 national representatives?

I am not sure why you think thousand of representatives are inherently difficult to manage.

Re: September 17, 1787: "A Republic, If You Can Keep It"

#18

Post by unyttigfjelltol »

saulpw wrote: post #12
kiba wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure if that's overkill. It might be a logistical issue with the current building though. 1 per 40,0000 is like the mayor of a town.

What if it were a two-tiered system, in which 8500 local representatives elected their set of ~435 national representatives?

You're almost describing the Senate as originally configured.[1]

[1] https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/electing-ap...

Re: September 17, 1787: "A Republic, If You Can Keep It"

#19

Post by yibg »

mullingitover wrote: post #14

This is very timely, and reminds me of George Washington pleading for Americans to beware party politics in his farewell address[1], where he willingly surrendered power and went home: > The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.…

Unfortunately people as a mass, don’t tend to learn from history. Or at least forget the lessons from history fairly easily. Maybe we are doomed to repeat the same historical lessons.

Re: September 17, 1787: "A Republic, If You Can Keep It"

#20

Post by klipt »

IncreasePosts wrote: post #15
relaxing wrote: post #5

A couple interesting references in this article- - The constitutional debate with Elbridge Gerry (MA), the name behind Gerrymandering - The proposal to increase the size of the House of Representatives from one representative for every 40,000 people to one for every 30,000, which if continued today would make it much harder to gerrymander, among other things.

We have legislated racial gerrymandering which that would do nothing to combat. The simple fix against gerrymandering is to get rid of the concept of districts and just let people vote on house members at the state level, and have enough representatives that one populous locale couldn't dominate the reps

Proportional representation as used by many parliamentary democracies solves gerrymandering.
Post reply on HN