Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: Schulson Reads Fustakrakich? 87
Is It Time to Take a Chance on Random Representatives?
I happen to think that making the House more representative would be a good place to start. Oh, and maybe move it out West, say, around Umatilla.
I happen to think that making the House more representative would be a good place to start. Oh, and maybe move it out West, say, around Umatilla.
Growing Government... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've been in favour of doing the same as picking jurors - more-or-less random selection, if only because random people are more likely to be satisfied with smaller perks, etc., and have less of a sense of entitlement.
So that in itself would make government smaller.
And pay them the average salary of the average citizen. It's not like paying them much more than the average has made them less immune to special interests. If they have to live on what everyone else is making, they'll feel the pain same as ev
Re: (Score:2)
I've been in favour of doing the same as picking jurors - more-or-less random selection, if only because random people are more likely to be satisfied with smaller perks, etc., and have less of a sense of entitlement.
I recall hearing Lewis Black make a similar argument for selecting the US President. On a serious note though it would be a stronger resemblance to the original Greek democracy than what we currently do. I think part of the problem may actually be in term length currently, as 2-year house terms encourage these continuous election cycles and only very minimal actual governance (that is of course why other elected officials have longer terms, but the election cycle ultimately comes up at the highest freque
Re: (Score:2)
Consider it a social and political statement (which it is).
It also discouraged a certain troll (APK - the HOSTS file troll) from crap-flooding every discussion by trying to embarrass me with it.
So, what's the problem again?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
You can make it staffing-neutral by going after various agencies with a cleaver, e.g. the EPA.
Typical mass media troll, singling them out, in repetition of the raggedy rags you read on the internet...
Re: (Score:2)
It's within the original scope.
That's a weasely way to try to weasel your way out of this.
You can make it staffing-neutral by going after various agencies with a cleaver, e.g. the EPA.
Do you have any idea how few people work for the EPA? You'll need a much longer list than that. Just picking blindly on agencies that you love to hate won't get you there. It also wouldn't be budget neutral as congressional officials and their staffers make a lot more money than people who work for the EPA. For that matter, congress (the building) would need to be physically expanded to add more of everything that would be needed for more memb
Re: (Score:1)
That's a weasely way to try to weasel your way out of this.
How, weasely? Given total lack of support for your point, I declare your point über-weasely. The nicest thing I have to say about your point is that it's just another example of how you roll.
Do you have any idea how few people work for the EPA? You'll need a much longer list than that.
There is plenty of Executive Branch bloat from which to choose.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a weasely way to try to weasel your way out of this.
How, weasely?
I was asking why the contradiction of your stated desire to reduce government and this new aspiration to add more members to congress does not bother you. Claiming it is within "original scope" is quite weasely. What is the original scope you are referring to? Why is it relevant here? You have claimed before that the government was "always supposed to be small" yet here you are trying to grow it significantly.
Given total lack of support for your point, I declare your point über-weasely.
You can't add members to the house without growing government and increasing the cost of runn
Re: (Score:1)
What is the original scope you are referring to? Why is it relevant here?
Why, the Constitution, of course. It's kind of relevant in light of the systematic effort to overturn it in the name of Progress, which is just a used-care sales pitch for authoritarianism.
You can't add members to the house without growing government and increasing the cost of running it. There is no way around that.
None. Whatsoever. Not even by shifting Civil Servants from the Executive branch. "Inconceivable".
as long as you don't actually bother to do real math to try to address the added costs of your proposal. You might as well propose to just fire all the unionized teachers in the school district closest to your house as a "solution" it would be roughly off by the same number of orders of magnitude and would make the same statement you are after.
Teachers are people, too. It's their union goon bosses that are the troublemakers. But you know that, do you not?
Re: (Score:2)
What is the original scope you are referring to? Why is it relevant here?
Why, the Constitution, of course.
Is there a part where the constitution strictly defined that one member of the house should represent only an exactly specified number of people? You can shout "scope" until you're blue in the face but if it isn't actually in the document then it is conjecture.
You can't add members to the house without growing government and increasing the cost of running it. There is no way around that.
None. Whatsoever. Not even by shifting Civil Servants from the Executive branch. "Inconceivable".
First of all, how many members do you want to add to the house? Presumably enough to bolster your party's lead, of course, but what would that number be? And as the country's population continues to grow, will you keep adding them, or will you st
Re: (Score:1)
Is there a part where the constitution strictly defined that one member of the house should represent only an exactly specified number of people?
Yes, for 1787. Look it up, putz. Now, that was not held constant over time. My argument remains that the systemic issues besetting the country are rooted in events occurring a century past, of which the freezing of the House representation ratio as of 1910 is one input.
I understand that this is a fact, and therefore a target for mutilation, ignoring, and/or air brushing for your ilk, so at least you're in character.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, that was not held constant over time
Thank you for reinforcing my point that this was not a constant ratio before. So what ratio do you want to set it to, in ignorance of the fact that it was not set constant in the past?
Even with that, you are still completely ignoring the billions of dollars that would be invested in order to expand congress by any meaningful number of votes. But of course those would be billions of dollars well spent if they accelerate your agenda, right?
Re: (Score:1)
So what ratio do you want to set it to
Is it OK if I think that there should be a healthy debate, considering where we are, how we got here, and where we should go, before we just go throwing out a figure?
Re: (Score:2)
So what ratio do you want to set it to
Is it OK if I think that there should be a healthy debate
We used to have healthy debates between us. Then you decided that was not what you sought here.
considering where we are
You have already stated where you think "we are".
how we got here
You have already told us who you blame for how we got "here".
and where we should go
You've said many times where you think "we should go".
before we just go throwing out a figure?
Being as you don't want to listen to what I have to say, you might as well save us the time and go ahead and just share your figure, since you've stated your side many, many, many, times.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure if it is even physically possible to expand the building enough to accommodate that. Even if those 1000+ new critters and all their staffers were paid at EPA wages (which, of course, they wouldn't - congre
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You want your thousand cockroaches? Conscription, just like the military. Let's draft them into service and house them in military barracks. Let them eat K-rations Pay them whatever a non-commissioned officer might get, maybe some combat pay when they have to talk to the press.. They can vacation on Parris Island. They can do their tour of duty(you know that is how the job should be seen), then toss them out with six month's pay, and maybe a new suit. I've decided to make it a short straw raffle...
Re: (Score:2)
Since each of them now represents 1/4 the number of people, they need much less staff. And there is no reason we need to pay representatives as much as we do.
Nor would that number be all that unusual. The German Bundestag, for example, has 631 seats for a population that
Re: (Score:2)
That number can easily be reduced.
Many of those expenses ought to be proportional to the number of people represented, so they don't increase.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure if it is even physically possible to expand the building enough to accommodate that. Even if those 1000+ new critters and all their staffers were paid at EPA wages (which, of course, they wouldn't - congress is paid much better)
Since each of them now represents 1/4 the number of people, they need much less staff. And there is no reason we need to pay representatives as much as we do.
Staff for congressional representatives don't do much in terms of actually communicating with constituents. The main job of the congressional staffer is getting the congressperson reelected.
And being as congress sets their own pay rate, you would be asking for them to vote for a pay cut in order to reduce the amount we spend on their salaries. Good luck with that.
Nor would that number be all that unusual. The German Bundestag, for example, has 631 seats for a population that's about 1/4 of ours. France's Assemblee Nationale has 577 seats.
Those are parliamentary republics, which are managed a bit differently than ours. And frankly if you suggest to an American conservative
Re: (Score:2)
"Official resources of the House must, as a general rule, be used for the performance of official business of the House, and hence those resources may not be used for campaign or political purposes."
Even if this was the job of staffers, it still scales with the size of the district.
Re: (Score:2)
You want to add roughly one thousand representatives. A quick check shows that costs the US taxpayer $174,000 in salary per year each [wikipedia.org] .
That number can easily be reduced.
In the US, congress votes on their own salaries. The only way to reduce their salary is to get them to vote for their own pay cut.
That of course isn't counting the additional expenses which put the average total at $1.4M per year per member [wikipedia.org].
Many of those expenses ought to be proportional to the number of people represented, so they don't increase.
They might flatten out but it is highly unlikely that they would go down. Much of what a congress person's office spends relates to getting the person enough exposure to improve their chance at reelection, and scheduling meetings with donors.
Hence you are looking at increasing the congressional budget by roughly $1.4 billion dollars per year at a minimum, before you include the costs of expanding the building, adding security, adding parking, etc...
It's money that we'll likely get back quickly
"Quickly"? I don't think we're talking about the same government, here. Quickly is not a word that is generally appropriate for the U
Re: (Score:2)
Marketing anything to a smaller group of people is less expensive.
More specifically, it drives up costs for the people trying to do the influencing, since they now have three times as many people to influence. That's a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
How? Just because there would be more campaigns doesn't mean they would be less expensive.
Marketing anything to a smaller group of people is less expensive.
It is not the number of voters that made 2014 the most expensive elections in the history of the United States.
There would still be plenty of room for outside influence which would continue to drive up campaign costs.
More specifically, it drives up costs for the people trying to do the influencing, since they now have three times as many people to influence. That's a good thing.
That is a good thing only if you support the idea of buying power in DC. Right now with the relatively smaller house (smaller in comparison to smitty's proposal) it is possible to have some influence in the process by just getting direct time with one congressperson. If you triple the number of representatives, the largest PACs will just spend more money to drown out the influence of the smalle
Re: (Score:2)
I know it's a complex concept, but there are actually several independent factors at work in determining the cost of elections.
That's utter nonsense. Right now my congressman sits far away in a part of the district that has very different concerns and doesn't g
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Nah, the short walk to the mess hall and the latrine will be sufficient.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
From the overseers. We'll still hang the Sword of Damocles over their heads. You should see plenty of blood and guts. You'll get your show.
Re: (Score:1)
:-) You sound like that roman_mir guy... and please, stop trying to obfuscate basic motivations with "complex concepts" and "independent factors". You use them as a fig leaf to hide your naked desires, and to misjudge what I say (which is nothing more than the advocacy of open markets with strong public oversight) for the same reasons. What you had in your 'communist' countries was simply closed market capitalism. You still have to pay the executioner if you want him to swing the axe away from you. So, you
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea who that is.
You are a blithering idiot.
Re: (Score:1)
:-) I shall take that as a compliment, and a "victory!" But, at the same time a defeat. You refuse to see the fundamentals right there in front of you, and therefore choose to remain ignorant. You're one of those people who don't look past 'better'. You have it better than before, and that's good enough for everybody.We're better than the Soviets! We only killed 10 million! There is a one or two syllable word to describe it, but it escapes me right now.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
My argument remains that the systemic issues besetting the country are rooted in events occurring a century past
Who you jivin'? Your argument only looks to middle management as the cause. For political expediency, of course. It fits pjmedia's 'narrative' more comfortably.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, whoever the ranting lunatics that precede them are then. It's all very old stuff, goes back to the 60s. You are definitely in lockstep.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
What you post is not liberty. I'll mark ya thrice!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Nope, due to what you post in black and white. You just like to use that 'hedonism' thing as your cop-out. In your line thinking 'liberty' means controlling who has it. Plain and simple fact.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
He's just doing his Great Gatsby and distaste for "jazz musicians" schtick... The typical reactionary who fears the risk of change. It's still early, but a 2000 year old religious empire is nothing to sneeze at. They really know how to work the G-spot of crowd control. Their powers of illusion are matched by none so far.
Re: (Score:1)
No union members == no union bosses. You know that. If you want to kill the union you need to drive membership to zero so they can't afford to exist. Granted, you'll get an even bigger labor revolt a couple decades later but perhaps you'll be dead and counting your money in heaven by then.
I would never consider stripping private citizens of the right of free assembly. I have no interest in driving membership of any organization of lawful, freely associating people to zero. Public sector unions, of course, are a variation on the theme of mutiny, whose conflicts of interest are so blatantly obvious to even the most casual observer that even the generally daft FDR himself understood that they were not in the general public interest.
Re: (Score:2)
No union members == no union bosses. You know that. If you want to kill the union you need to drive membership to zero so they can't afford to exist. Granted, you'll get an even bigger labor revolt a couple decades later but perhaps you'll be dead and counting your money in heaven by then.
I would never consider stripping private citizens of the right of free assembly. I have no interest in driving membership of any organization of lawful, freely associating people to zero. Public sector unions, of course, are a variation on the theme of mutiny, whose conflicts of interest are so blatantly obvious to even the most casual observer that even the generally daft FDR himself understood that they were not in the general public interest.
You just contradicted yourself there, buddy. You pretended at the start of that statement to care about allowing people to join a union if they want to. Then you barely finished exhaling before diving into your primary assault on organized labor, taking away that very same right from a particular group of people who you hold in particular disdain.
While we're talking about public sector and organized labor, what are your thoughts on the military pay scale? You said you were in active service; you were
Re: (Score:1)
You just contradicted yourself there, buddy. You pretended at the start of that statement to care about allowing people to join a union if they want to. Then you barely finished exhaling before diving into your primary assault on organized labor, taking away that very same right from a particular group of people who you hold in particular disdain.
Can you elaborate on how you think the distinction between public and private sector is a contradiction? This is wholly novel thinking on your part.
While we're talking about public sector and organized labor, what are your thoughts on the military pay scale? You said you were in active service; you were therefore most likely on the federally-set pay scales for your service. Those are set for the largest labor organization in the country, are you opposed to that as well? Should different troops performing the same jobs with the same qualifications in the same environment be paid differently just because one is on better terms with a particular officer?
So, you're losing the public/private sector discussion, and you need to change the subject?
Even with that, you are still completely ignoring the billions of dollars that would be invested in order to expand congress by any meaningful number of votes. But of course those would be billions of dollars well spent if they accelerate your agenda, right?
And so the next component in your smoke screen is to conflate public spending with "investment"? I'm not sure whether that's "racist" or "fascist" of you, to go for a term demolition trifecta.
Re: (Score:2)
You just contradicted yourself there, buddy. You pretended at the start of that statement to care about allowing people to join a union if they want to. Then you barely finished exhaling before diving into your primary assault on organized labor, taking away that very same right from a particular group of people who you hold in particular disdain.
Can you elaborate on how you think the distinction between public and private sector is a contradiction?
Go back and read what I said before you reply to it. Seriously, go back to the comment [slashdot.org] and read what is in it.
While we're talking about public sector and organized labor, what are your thoughts on the military pay scale? You said you were in active service; you were therefore most likely on the federally-set pay scales for your service. Those are set for the largest labor organization in the country, are you opposed to that as well? Should different troops performing the same jobs with the same qualifications in the same environment be paid differently just because one is on better terms with a particular officer?
So, you're losing the public/private sector discussion, and you need to change the subject?
How can you possibly support that conclusion when you aren't reading what I write? As I said before, go back and read the comment. You've walked so far away from the discussion that you attempted to start that you might as well just stop writing altogether.
Even with that, you are still completely ignoring the billions of dollars that would be invested in order to expand congress by any meaningful number of votes. But of course those would be billions of dollars well spent if they accelerate your agenda, right?
And so the next component in your smoke screen is to conflate public spending with "investment"? I'm not sure whether that's "racist" or "fascist" of you, to go for a term demolition trifecta.
The semantics here are not important. You would be putting a lot of money into a building regardless. If you don't consider it an inves
Re: (Score:1)
The semantics here are not important.
No, no: with you, the semantics ARE the argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It is easy to make that claim when you make a point of not reading anything that I write.
But I sure am a mother with copy/paste, no?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the number was kept small in order to boost the "strong federal government" party. The anti-Federalists had the same objections then as now. Here is Madison's summary:
Re: (Score:1)
Union bosses are just CEOs in the labor commodities market. What makes them any worse, or any different than any other CEO? You know, you can invest, just like in December wheat, or orange futures, It's capitalism, baby! Take the plunge! Right now it's best to short the stock while you still have time. You know, 7 billion people begging to wipe your..uh..windshield for a dollar and all. Yooo tooo can be rich beyond your wildest dreams!
Re: (Score:2)
Public sector employment isn't a "labor commodities market" because neither public sector employment, nor union membership, nor public sector services operate according to market forces. And even private sector unions usually do not operate according to market forces.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh stop, money is money. Things aren't so neatly divided the way they taught you in your grade school social studies. All organizations operate on the same principles. Don't try to tell me something is different just by the people doing it.
Looks like you followed me here, gonna hang around? You'll find lots of friends who read and believe the same propaganda as you do.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not. Free market advocates aren't saying that corporations are run by better people than public sector unions, but that greed compels each group of people to behave differently.
Well, you are clearly a victim of propaganda. Having experienced socialism, European welfare states, and the US first hand,
Re: (Score:1)
Nope, you just just got comfortable with the indoctrination. That socialism stuff will do that to ya, damn near as good as American TV. Like with Mr. Smith here, your observations are distorted by your cultural attachments. Watch animal planet for a week, than maybe you'll understand. It is quite arrogant for you to claim you're above any of that.
Re: (Score:2)
So you are saying that I oppose socialism and the European welfare state because I was (according to you) indoctrinated by them? That's not how indoctrination works.
What is "arrogant" is that you accuse people of ignorance over things you yourself appa
Re: (Score:1)
:-) Uh huh... You are a true testimony as to why an eye witness is the worse evidence. Please, do tell me alllll about *first hand knowledge*, as you seem to believe you are the sole purveyor...
Re: (Score:2)
There are several centuries of post-Enlightenment philosophy and economics that explain why free markets and individual liberties are both good and just. Large parts of the US and European electorate agree as well. The real question is why people still cling to the kind of silly beliefs you cling to, despite centuries of scholarship, experience, and history.
Re: (Score:1)
The real question is why people still cling to the kind of silly beliefs you cling to...
See, this is the part I love best about you people. You can twist simple observations of basic principles into this weird 'conspiracy' and advocacy on my part. In fact you don't see anything about my beliefs anywhere. That's just you, like him, projecting your own biases, making up bullshit. Eh, have at it..
Re: (Score:1)
You can twist simple observations of basic principles into this weird 'conspiracy' and advocacy on my part.
Ah, yes, the final position of people like you: "My views are so complex that you don't understand them".
What the hell is that? Ah, screw this, now I know this is a gag... Nobody can be that dumb and still remember how to breath.
Re: (Score:1)
Union bosses are just CEOs in the labor commodities market.
It's worth noting that union bosses have a negative product.
Re: (Score:1)
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The only negatives and positives in this business are payables and receivables respectively. That is the only thing on the minds of the CEOs the world over and the people you vote for. The content of the product or service are totally irrelevant, food, energy, labor, drugs, weapons, whatever... It's all capitalism, working in a perfectly natural way, with the strong dominating the weak.
Oh, and I noticed your favorite telecom lapdog pulled off a good one the other day. Y
Re: (Score:1)
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Product is in the hand of the non-crapflooder.
The only negatives and positives in this business are payables and receivables respectively.
These are so pencil-whippable, like BLS statistics.
The content of the product or service are totally irrelevant, food, energy, labor, drugs, weapons, whatever... It's all capitalism, working in a perfectly natural way, with the strong dominating the weak.
You really, really are sounding like damn_registrars here. Would that you were going for a substantial point, rather than trolling.
Oh, and I noticed your favorite telecom lapdog pulled off a good one the other day. Yeah, and these are the kinds of people you consider viable alternatives. I think that word 'daft' that you like to throw around applies better to the person in your mirror, even if it does make you look fat..
Can you be less specific? Your cup of credibility overfloweth when you couch your arguments so realistically.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, pay no attention to the people who actually make your 'product'.. Gotta love your 19th century thinking. It's all good. I know why you think this way. Your ambitions are very typical, and sinful. You promote the hedonism of gluttony in hopes of achieving their levels of the same. You put it on display with every post. You so vicariously want to be Rhett Butler. The thought arouses you. You have simply chosen sides. You choose the strong over the weak. It's only natural. It just sounds funny when you cl
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Are you Sirhan Sirhan?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
So, you don't deny that you are Sirhan Sirhan?
Re: (Score:1)
The house would be more representative (Score:1)
But not of the money congress represents now. You only fear the possible loss of privilege. Deny it all you want, it's the simple truth. You don't want liberty for all. You want the power to grant liberty to specific phenotypes and biological proclivities that you find personally palatable. You can't get that with random selection, can you? You are only fooling yourself if you think it goes unnoticed. Your only complaint about power is its distance and that you don't have control of the wheel.
BAH! Here I am
Re: (Score:1)
You only fear the possible loss of privilege. Deny it all you want, it's the simple truth.
The simple truth is that I fear God, and precious little else. But thanks for telling me what I feel. It's so cheerfully authoritarian of you.