I asked a similar question earlier but I think I phrased it incorrectly, so I'll try again: the original rule for the house of representitives was "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand", however the number of representitives became fixed at a rate of 435 in 1911, and currently we have one representitive for every 690,000 people. It seems to me that the forefathers of the country did not expect our country to get this big, and how can we justify watering down our democracy due to population increase?
2006-09-09 05:53:57 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
to yahoohoo: my point is that the country, as designed, was probably not meant to get as big as it has, not that there are not enough representatives in the house. The reality is that each representative is now representing 23 times beyond the ultimate maximum number of people that was set by the founding fathers...This is disgusting and I can't believe anyone would defend this policy...As for this country being set up as a republic, that really is a separate issue (and is pretty much one that is more over semantics than anything else) arguable in a different debate and pretty much has nothing to do with this argument...
2006-09-09 06:26:27 · update #1
to rondosxx: I am not saying all the other states aside from the original 13 colonies are illegal, and I am not saying there should be 5,000 members in the house of reps, and I am not saying anything about cars or trains. I also have to add that I find your classic strawman argument to be unfair and actually kind of pathetic. My original point, that you so eloquently crapped on, is that the founding fathers did not design our government with the idea of 300,000,000 citizens...This brings to light alot of information on what the founding fathers envisioned, maybe this country is too big and maybe division would not be a bad thing if one wants to stay in line with the original vision. As for the democracy/republic debate, that is one that is over semantics and generally has very little to do with this argument.
2006-09-09 06:44:17 · update #2
Hand power over to the states. The federal government should play a lesser/supportive role.
2006-09-09 05:56:34 · answer #1 · answered by blamurfen 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Let's see, when the constitution was written, there were 13 states. Are you sayhing that since the writers only knew about 13 states, the rest are illegal and should be dissolved and the population returned to the 13 original states and/or Europe? In order to maintain the 1 rep to 35000 population, should the house of representatives contain 5000 members? Then why didn't the founding fathers build a large enough hall to hold them all? The founding fathers also did not envision a party system, until 1800 the US had a one-party goivernment (factions developed quickly). Also there were no cars and trains or planes; should we also abandon them?
Finally your last point about watering down "our democracy". They didn't create a democracy, they created a republic. The democracy developed over time. In many ways we express that democracy within the framework of the republican ideas of the founding fathers. But the country has changed profoundly. In all likelihood a 5000 member house of representatives would not be more democratic, but infinitely more chaotic and more likely to be in gridlock due to the sheer number of members. I suggest that rather than bemoan the limiting of the size of the house of representatives, you consider the marginalization of congress by the executive branch currently underway.
2006-09-09 06:15:14 · answer #2 · answered by ronw 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I could not agree more with you.
When this country was created, the Founding Fathers barely knew about the Ohio River and absolutely NOTHING beyond that natural border. They created the center of Power in Philladelphia and later New York City and eventually, the capital was established in Washington, DC. ''
Since this country was founded, the population has moved wesward. But the center of power in the government has stayed in Washington and it's the East Coast types that are dictating to the rest of the country how to live, act, think and exist.
The best thing that could happen would be for Washington, DC to be wiped out, completely, by some natural catastrophy... it MUST be natural means, if it's a country that does it the reprocussions would be enourmous... so it MUST be destroyed by a meteror or a hurricaine or a fire or an earthquake, etc.
Once Washington D.C. is wiped out, the center of Government could move to the facility that has existed for YEARS and is locate at the Denver Federal Center. That would put the seat of Government in the middle of the country where it belongs and would do away with the washington establishment and the East Coast influence.
2006-09-09 05:59:13 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, I think I get your question. I believe the original intent was to not have a very big government no matter the size of the population.
The larger the population should have no difference in how we are governed, yet this is not the case in America. Our government has decided to legislate many things taking an ethical or morale stance that would have appalled our forefathers.
For example, the push for medicinal marijuana use in San Francisco got a favorable vote. Immediately the government said no! I was astonished. Happily local law enforcement has simple backed off and just won't bother with someone who has medicinal marijuana.
So -- I don't think our forefathers were concerned with population so much as designed a much less involved government.
2006-09-09 06:13:31 · answer #4 · answered by wrathofkublakhan 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would be interesting, if those "founding fathers' original intent" purists out there would suggest to STOP allowing US citizenship to anyone because "is was not the founding fathers' original intent" to become a heavily populated nation.
A better question might be: Should the US Constitution be overhauled completely? And do the US Citizens trust their own elected officials to do the job effectively?
2006-09-09 06:03:48 · answer #5 · answered by Teacher Man 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We justify it because it's necessary. If we had held to the original formula, the House of Representatives would have been so big, that "we" would have been watered down there, too. The USA never was a democracy. It was designed to be a republic.
2006-09-09 06:08:46 · answer #6 · answered by yahoohoo 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The key word if you know it or not is WATER,when we start to run out of our natural resources it will be to late to reduce the population.
2006-09-09 06:05:18 · answer #7 · answered by kman 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hire more representatives, lower their wages. Have congress start meeting in an arena. Problem solved. :)
2006-09-09 06:00:01 · answer #8 · answered by F T 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋