During a recent discussion, a Friend suggested adding a 3rd House to Congress, consisting of Members elected by the Populace at-large. Admittedly, Whoever serves as President (or Vice-President) sort of tends to play this role in an informal way. However, is it time to formalize this role in American politics? if so, what should this Chamber be called? How would/should the number of Members in this new House effect Presidential (and Vice-Presidential) elections?
2007-12-29 11:49:54 · 9 answers · asked by Winkerbean 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I think that is what our current House of Representatives is, isn't it?
2007-12-29 12:38:49 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. You must be a neolib. Under the criteria you suggest just a few states would control that body. Those states being NJ,NY
2007-12-29 12:01:28
·
answer #2
·
answered by Brandon A 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
What useful purpose would a third house serve? What effect would it have on the executive branch that the two existing houses don't already have. It would add one more interminable layer of bureaucracy to the already overblown system. And are you willing to agree to the tax increases to pay them, their staffs and the quarters they occupy? No, I don't believe it is time for anything else. What we have now is hard enough for the average American citizen to grasp and fight. Why don't we all just vow to fight to make congress as it is now adhere to the rules of that founding document that the founding fathers left us?
2007-12-29 12:05:44 · answer #3 · answered by Mike S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The common hoi polloi can't quite grasp a butterfly ballot, and you want them directly electing a few hundred members of Congress at large?
What's so great about electing at large? Popular representation already happens in the Houise.
2007-12-29 12:01:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The populace at large? That's what the House is. Where members of larger states have more votes because of population. Basically, it would be more people from highly populated states.
2007-12-29 11:54:26 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is dumb let's just repeal the 17th Amendment then your State legislator has a say in federal politics.
2007-12-29 12:14:16 · answer #6 · answered by MP US Army 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We need to reduce the size of the political houses, not increase their size.
They are out of control as it is.
2007-12-29 11:52:37 · answer #7 · answered by lestermount 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Good grief!! You actually want to send MORE worthless bureaucrats to Washington, DC?
We need less government, not more!
2007-12-29 11:53:56 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Are the other two not destroying the country fast enough.
2007-12-29 11:57:43 · answer #9 · answered by MY NAME MICHELLE I HATE AMERICA 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋