Turn Off Ads?
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 58 of 58

Thread: Enlarge Congress?

  1. #46
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    The Bush Leagues
    Posts
    9,158

    Re: Enlarge Congress?

    You would think differently if you understood the demographics of this aging country.
    I do understand and I don't think differently. We took care of the "boomer" problem back in the 80s. The small shortfalls will amount to one-half of one percent of GDP. The best way to prepare for that is to reduce the nation's debt.
    The widow is gathering nettles for her children's dinner; a perfumed seigneur, delicately lounging in the Oeil de Boeuf, hath an alchemy whereby he will extract the third nettle and call it rent. ~ Carlyle

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #47
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Huntington WV
    Posts
    622

    Re: Enlarge Congress?

    ts real simple -- the smaller the districts, the greater the diversity.
    But, nothing has been brought forward to sufficiently support that claim. Sure, if Congress was expanded the number of minorities and independents would expand, but those numbers would be diluted by expansion of the parties. Any change would be marginal at best.

    The only way to create diversity would be to create specific districts that would send minorities and independents. I am as disgruntled with Washington as anybody, but that is just way to panoptic. It is also the real point behind the facade of enlarging Congress and is simply a tool to leverage a specific interest.

    Sometimes...things really donít change.

  4. #48
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    The Bush Leagues
    Posts
    9,158

    Re: Enlarge Congress?

    I don't get the "dilution" argument. Right now the two major parties have a near total lock on Congress. Doesn't adding more seats, and thus more independent/third party voices, "dilute" the Republicrat's power?

    It is also the real point behind the facade of enlarging Congress and is simply a tool to leverage a specific interest.
    To which "specific interest" are you refering?
    The widow is gathering nettles for her children's dinner; a perfumed seigneur, delicately lounging in the Oeil de Boeuf, hath an alchemy whereby he will extract the third nettle and call it rent. ~ Carlyle

  5. #49
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Huntington WV
    Posts
    622

    Re: Enlarge Congress?

    I don't get the "dilution" argument. Right now the two major parties have a near total lock on Congress. Doesn't adding more seats, and thus more independent/third party voices, "dilute" the Republicrat's power?
    No, the size will change, but the percantages will not. 1 in 100 is no different than 10 in 1,000. Heck, I may even be understating my own case.

    To which "specific interest" are you refering?
    The flavor of the day that wants something from the taxpayers.


  6. #50
    A Little to the Left Redsfaithful's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Bexley, OH
    Posts
    7,466

    Re: Enlarge Congress?

    1 in 100 is no different than 10 in 1,000.
    In voting power? Maybe not. But it's not all about votes.
    We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
    --Oscar Wilde

  7. #51
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    The Bush Leagues
    Posts
    9,158

    Re: Enlarge Congress?

    No, the size will change, but the percantages will not.
    They most assuredly would change. Back to my hometown. Under the current system, San Francisco gets one Rep who's always a Democrat. If we got 7 reps, we'd probably send 2 Greens, 4 Democrats and 1 Republican or Libertarian. That's a Democrat-to-Green ratio of two to one. As it stands now, the ratio is one to sombrero.

    Sure a lot of new seats would be sucked up by the Republicrats, but a lot of them wouldn't, and that's a step forward in my book.
    The widow is gathering nettles for her children's dinner; a perfumed seigneur, delicately lounging in the Oeil de Boeuf, hath an alchemy whereby he will extract the third nettle and call it rent. ~ Carlyle

  8. #52
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Huntington WV
    Posts
    622

    Re: Enlarge Congress?

    They most assuredly would change. Back to my hometown. Under the current system, San Francisco gets one Rep who's always a Democrat. If we got 7 reps, we'd probably send 2 Greens, 4 Democrats and 1 Republican or Libertarian. That's a Democrat-to-Green ratio of two to one. As it stands now, the ratio is one to sombrero.
    And, as I said earlier West Virginia would send a passel of Democrats. Even if the percentages changed, and that is a big if, you are playing in some seriously small margins. Would 1,000/15 be any better than 100/1.... not really.

    In fact, you may even empower the two big parties. So, San Fran gets a couple of Greenies. Then the Greenies cannot get enough leverage to get pork, the Democrats spend money to show them as ineffective, and you are back to square one.

    Or, the 'beltway effect' sets in and your Greenies realize they have to play the game to get enough goodies to send back to Cali and they lose that cool outsider luster they once had.

    I cannot see any logical reason as to why an expansion would make any noticeable difference. Unless, you specifically target districts to enhance one side or the other, and that is far more bad than good.

    Free trips to the Bahamas for allÖdonít worry we will issue bonds to pay for it.

  9. #53
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    The Bush Leagues
    Posts
    9,158

    Re: Enlarge Congress?

    So now your take is that, while there would be some change, its not enough and it will be co-opted by beltway insiderness anyhow. But its still improvement and you've not shown me one reason why that change, incremental it might be, is a bad thing.
    The widow is gathering nettles for her children's dinner; a perfumed seigneur, delicately lounging in the Oeil de Boeuf, hath an alchemy whereby he will extract the third nettle and call it rent. ~ Carlyle

  10. #54
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Huntington WV
    Posts
    622

    Re: Enlarge Congress?

    So now your take is that, while there would be some change, its not enough and it will be co-opted by beltway insiderness anyhow.
    I qualified my redirect to counter your toying with margins. No, need to blow hot air.

    But its still improvement and you've not shown me one reason why that change, incremental it might be, is a bad thing.
    No it is not an improvement any way you slice it. I have shown that it would be either A. ineffective or B. power brokerage.

    Any who, the burden of proof is not on me. I have provided sensible reasons as to why this would not be a good thing, to which you cannot rebut other than simply restating it is an improvement.

  11. #55
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    The Bush Leagues
    Posts
    9,158

    Re: Enlarge Congress?

    I have provided sensible reasons as to why this would not be a good thing
    No, you've thrown a lot of vague notions at the wall to see which ones stick. So far, none has.

    And I've been pretty clear as to why smaller districts means more political diversity.
    The widow is gathering nettles for her children's dinner; a perfumed seigneur, delicately lounging in the Oeil de Boeuf, hath an alchemy whereby he will extract the third nettle and call it rent. ~ Carlyle

  12. #56
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Huntington WV
    Posts
    622

    Re: Enlarge Congress?

    No, you've thrown a lot of vague notions at the wall to see which ones stick. So far, none has.
    You throw out a theory with little more than hope to support it. I counter with a logical reason it would be ineffective (size dilution), a reality of outsiders in Washington (the beltway effect), and the probable downside of the theory in practice (extensive gerrymandering), and I am being vague?

  13. #57
    A Little to the Left Redsfaithful's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Bexley, OH
    Posts
    7,466

    Re: Enlarge Congress?

    Quote Originally Posted by MuEconRedLeg
    You throw out a theory with little more than hope to support it. I counter with a logical reason it would be ineffective (size dilution), a reality of outsiders in Washington (the beltway effect), and the probable downside of the theory in practice (extensive gerrymandering), and I am being vague?
    And you do all that while ignoring the fact that a larger lawmaking group has usually helped to create much stronger third parties in other countries.

    The point of this isn't to stengthen a party to the point that it's as big as the Democrats and Republicans. The point is to give a voice to parties that currently have none.

    Would one seat in the House be better than none? Which is greater:

    0/435
    1/870

    Which is more representative, a House with a member for every 100,000 or a House with a member for every 25,000 or 10,000?

    I think you're reflexively against this because you think it's going to create more government spending, but I think it would be pretty good for the country.
    We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
    --Oscar Wilde

  14. #58
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Huntington WV
    Posts
    622

    Re: Enlarge Congress?

    And you do all that while ignoring the fact that a larger lawmaking group has usually helped to create much stronger third parties in other countries.
    Show me a country where the third parties have done little more than become tokens of centrism and I will concede the dillution point.

    The point of this isn't to stengthen a party to the point that it's as big as the Democrats and Republicans. The point is to give a voice to parties that currently have none.
    The point of the Iraq war was not to occupy a country and dispose of a dictator it was to find WMD's.

    We all have wonderful ideal and goals but often times they do not work out. This is particuarly true in government.

    Would one seat in the House be better than none? Which is greater:

    0/435
    1/870
    1/434

    I see you point and yes the percentages may change. But, you cannot account for the idealism dulling effect of the belt way or the guarenteed gerrymanding.

    I think you're reflexively against this because you think it's going to create more government spending, but I think it would be pretty good for the country.
    How is it not going to create more government spending? It will cost alot. Also, more districts and more reps mean that many more districts to please with pork and that many more special interests to protect.

    I react because those who want change need to figure out it is not going to happen in Washington it can only happen in the states. And, no amount of restructuring of Washington will mean a thing if the States cannot live without federal monies.


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25