would you join? The basic platform of this party is a return to all of the Constitutional amendments, including a House of Representatives with REAL representation. Currently we have one House member per 700,000 people. Jefferson wrote it 1-30,000. Our population has tripled in the last 100 years, but NOT ONE new Representative has been added.
To bring new life and new perspectives to our country, and to get away from the lobbyists, and the same old rich Democans and Republicrats view of the world, a change is needed.
Do you agree?
2006-11-15 04:42:45 · 5 answers · asked by imask8r 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Third parties are a bad idea. With a three party system, the winner is usually elected with a less than majority vote. Clinton won in 96 with a majority of people voting against him.
2006-11-15 04:49:28 · answer #1 · answered by boonietech 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Would I join? No. Even though I subscribe to Jeffersonian principles, these principles belong in the parties we already have. They are, after all, the principles upon which our nation was founded. For example:
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as they are injurious to others.”
Then why is the government making laws regarding things that have no effects on anyone except the person commiting the act - like drug use?
“Information is the currency of democracy.”
Then why do we have the most secretive government in history, classifying documents that were declassified 20 years ago?
“Never spend your money before you have earned it.”
Then why do we keep skyrocketing the federal debt?
“In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.”
Then why does religion play such a large part in the current administrations policy-making?
“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
And yet, we have our tax dollars going to support tyranical regimes around the world and the destruction of nations.
Jefferson was a genius, far above the level of intelligence we see in Washington today, but America in 1776 was much different from the America we live in today. Jefferson had no way of knowing that the population density in the US would skyrocket like it has. The 1:30000 number is unrealistic and would require 10,000 representatives according to the latest population figures.
2006-11-15 05:29:53 · answer #2 · answered by john_stolworthy 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Horrible idea... the larger the body the less gets done. Jefferson had a good vision for a plan, yet even as brilliant as he was, he could bot have conceived the current state of the US. The constitution is an amazing document, written by brilliant men, and allows for change, even over two centuries later. Let it work.....
2006-11-15 04:47:11 · answer #3 · answered by jh 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Jefferson and his pals also realized that a body of too many men would not get anything done. The House is already unweildy, to have 1 for every 30,000 (it says not more than one for every 30,000) would make it virtually impossible to get anything done. You would need a house of representatives for the house of representatives.
I agree that changes need to be made and we need to strip the federal government down to the basics that the forefathers stood for.
2006-11-15 04:49:27 · answer #4 · answered by Chris J 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'll join ...
i don't like the name...
it makes me think of sex with slaves
2006-11-15 04:46:44 · answer #5 · answered by ken y 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋