The vetting process should happen before they become a court judge at any level. The idea that the federalist society was allowed to manipulate our legal system is insane. You can’t be in cahoots with other judges.
But I like 18 years solely because of the generational argument. I would like a constitutional convention every 17 years too. Expand the house to represent every 30k people and political parties and super pacs will start to lose power. We could enter a multi-party system and start to have a government that actually reflects the will of the people.
Why is this bad, if it proportionally represents the population of each state? But in general, I also would not the electoral college to continue either.
Well, eliminating the EC requires a constitutional amendment (so unlikely). At 11,000 it would need a chamber 22x the size of the current chamber (thus a new building requirement). If they were to pass bills at the same rate the VAST majority of the representatives would never get to speak on a subject. The opportunity for corruption would be vast, and would shift power to corporations and staff. I don’t know what issue you’re trying to fix, but it would create many more.
Thanks for the clarification! In this model, the reps would solely be responsible for voting on behalf of their constituents. They would live in their districts and have other jobs. They are still part of committees for advocacy and investigations. Policy and bills are put forth by other parties (think tanks, universities, senate, the committees, etc) but reps just need to vote and can do it over Zoom. Corruption would be much more difficult when you have to pay off too many reps, parties would fall apart, PACs lose power, and you’re held accountable by your neighbors.
See, I would see it as just the opposite. PACs and corporations would have an inordinate influence because with 30k people to represent you would never be able to raise enough money to campaign without “sugar daddys.” Voting sounds like it currently is in terms of responsibilities. Not writing the legislation seems odd. That definitely shifts power to staff and outside entities. I’m not sure how one person out of 11,000 can change the verbiage that gets put in by staff.
Not that I agree with the proposal on this scale, but one of the core points of increasing the size of the context is to fix the EC. If you increase the number of representatives, you greatly reduce the overwhelming influence of the two extra EV's each small state gets from their senators.
I do agree that this is taking the idea too far, but we definitely need to significantly increase the size of the house, but I would say increase the representation by closer to 3x, not 25+x. It is the only fix for the EC problem that does not require a constitutional amendment.
I would say a few things. First, I’m not convinced that the EC is broken. It was built that way by design and itself is considered to be a “fix” to issues around the popular vote.
Second there’s a very reasonable “fix” for the perceived issue that doesn’t require more Congressmen. That’s if the States awarded EC votes based upon Congressional districts, with the two extras going to whomever wins the popular vote in a he State. Likely to help Republicans, but most proposals do.
Two of the last 7 presidential elections have been won person who lost the popular vote. How is that not broken?
It was built that way by design and itself is considered to be a “fix” to issues around the popular vote.
So? While this is true, that doesn't mean it isn't broken. Just like lifetime appointments to the supreme court, what might have made sense 250 years ago doesn't necessarily make sense today.
Second there’s a very reasonable “fix” for the perceived issue that doesn’t require more Congressmen.
Sorry, you are correct, I shouldn't have said "the only fix that doesn't require a constitutional amendment."
That said, fixing the EC is not the only reason why increasing the size of the congress makes sense. It also increases representation and potentially (though not inherently) can help reduce the effectiveness of gerrymandering.
That’s if the States awarded EC votes based upon Congressional districts, with the two extras going to whomever wins the popular vote in a he State. Likely to help Republicans, but most proposals do.
First off, how EV's are allocated is decided by the states, so this WOULD require a constitutional amendment, unless all states independently chose to do it.
Second, this makes the problem WORSE, not better. If we used this system, we would have had a president that lost the popular vote THREE times in the last 7 presidencies, because Mitt Romney would have been elected over Barack Obama in 2012. if we go back further, Nixon defeats Kennedy, and Carter deadlocks, so his election is thrown to the House (though Dems controlled it).
And remember, congressional districts are drawn by the state representatives. This would only give them far more incentive to gerrymander.
Seriously, this is a terrible idea. It makes a bad problem worse, and literally guarantees permanent Republican control.
Well, that’s assuming permanent republican control is a problem.
Yes, States for the most part can fix everything if they were so inclined. We have seen just in this past year they tend to make matters worse, not better. As long as States like CA and NY bleed population to the red States democrats will continue to struggle. 2028 and 2030 might be the last time in a decade that the House is controlled by democrats.
6
u/know_your_anemone Aug 29 '26
The vetting process should happen before they become a court judge at any level. The idea that the federalist society was allowed to manipulate our legal system is insane. You can’t be in cahoots with other judges.
But I like 18 years solely because of the generational argument. I would like a constitutional convention every 17 years too. Expand the house to represent every 30k people and political parties and super pacs will start to lose power. We could enter a multi-party system and start to have a government that actually reflects the will of the people.