Thread got locked.
Someone said it as I thought. To represent my beliefs. Wasn’t it so they could take the beliefs of the people in area they represent and vote for them? My guess is they didn’t want 1000’s of people showing up at the state capitols. But this was 200 years ago.
We have the internet today. All Americans can vote and be instantly counted.
Seems they are really no longer needed. We can now represent ourselves much easier.
I actually disagree on this, to a point.
The structure of the US in conjunction with the states is a republic. The structure of governmental action in conjunction with the public will is representative democracy.
You can make the argument that we could replace the legislature with individual plebiscites, but I'm not sure that would be an improvement and it very well could be an absolute failure.
Have you ever seen a tax bill? The thing is massive and complex. ****, if Reps/Senators don't read it, why would we think that individual voters would read it? And who would draft it?
Not to mention the fact that most people would QUICKLY become bored with monitoring/reading/voting on legislation.
It may be fair to criticize Congress, but I really don't think that 328 million people want to do that job, in addition to their day jobs.
One thing to consider though.
In the originally DRAFTED Bill of Rights (and in one version that actually passed a vote), there were additional Amendments that didn't make it into the original Constitution (one passed much later, the Congressional pay-raise Amendment).
One of the approved (but subsequently lost) Amendments was to set a numerical framework for the size of Congressional districts. Obviously, at the time, this would have been based on white male land-owners, so we may have needed to tinker with the number a bit. But if the Amendment had passed, and the numbers had held, it would have effectuated the ORIGINAL INTENT of smaller homogenous districts that could more easily be represented by one person. It would have made it very difficult to create (at least on the national level) these ridiculously gerrymandered Congressional districts. And if it had happened, we would have, literally, thousands of Congresspersons today. It would have also made it much easier to have more than 2 political parties, and would have likely led to more of a "parliamentary" style of selecting a House Speaker, with multiple political parties forming a coalition to elect a Speaker.
And...it would be closer to what you are proposing.
It is undeniable that 435 legislators (with massive incumbency advantages at election time) are not very effective representatives for 328 million people. We are about to reach the point where (roughly) one House member "represents" one MILLION people. Some Congressional districts already do include one million people.
Maybe having 4,350 reps, or 8,700 reps, wouldn't immediately "fix" the problem, but it would certainly help us to stay "more representative" of 328 million diverse people.
Anyhow, just a thought. I'd love to see this Amendment revived and revised. We need something done, on a Constitutional level, that makes Congress more representative, and cuts down on the power of any ONE Member of Congress.
