That’s easy: it’s not our guy! It’s those other guys! We’re wonderful and they’re terrible!
That’s how incumbents can maintain their edge whilst Congress as a body is untrusted.
I’m convinced that capping the House of Representatives at 435 was a mistake, and Federalizing most laws even more of a mistake. The question isn’t whether democracy can scale, but whether ours can within its present constraints. The reforms I would want to see are mechanical; not social, economic or judicial. A Continental-sized nation with hundreds of millions and growing probably needs thousands—not a few hundred!—of legislators if representation is to be meaningful. Short of that, my Representative has 700K+ constituents, so any one individual holding her accountable without other connections is a pipe dream at best.
> That’s easy: it’s not our guy! It’s those other guys!
I mean, that has certainly been true for me, and many other people. I sent someone to Congress I liked. Congress then has a wide spectrum of people who end up doing whatever a small group decides (this term, whatever Manchin and Sinema want). It's pretty easy to like your guy but not the end results of the process or the body as a whole that produced it.
> It's pretty easy to like your guy but not the end results of the process or the body as a whole that produced it.
This is the biggest argument against my ideas of reform: this is compromise actually working even with all the flaws I think are there. In the absence of consensus the consensus is to do nothing at all, which drives the people who want to do a lot and quickly crazy.
That said, Federated States in a Union with a weaker Federal government than we presently have would have fewer compromises they would have to make at the cost of also having to live with the fact that others who are ostensibly as much a part of the nation as you are are going to live differently; and as people, humans really, we tend to hate that. C’est la vie.
> others who are ostensibly as much a part of the nation as you are are going to live differently
I don't honestly think that most people care about people "living differently". They care because people affect each other. And the rules in your state affect me living in my state quite a bit.
They do. It can be expressed through many different means but the end result is the same: people want to exert control over each other, especially people they consider “their own”. Having a representative legislature with members on equal footing is a bulwark against this. Which is why in the absence of consensus the consensus is to do nothing at all.
> And the rules in your state affect me living in my state quite a bit.
So two things about this: you’re not exactly wrong, but as far as humanity goes: the Earth is a closed system which means as far as we go there’s no limit to this line of thought except those we impose upon ourselves. Recognizable borders are a compromise, even internal ones.
What I do might affect you, and things my State does might change conditions in your State in the abstract, but in the absence of a damages claim or a legitimate grievance, we are not automatically entitled to effect the lives of others as we see fit. Which is why we have representative legislatures and governments: these are chambers and actors which are vested with powers to negotiate amongst themselves on behalf of their constituents and diplomatically engage with other governments.
1. Wyoming Rule. No district should be larger than the least populist state.
2. Make DC a Museum. With modern technology there is no need to "send" legislatures to Washington DC, they can vote, meet, etc all remotely. This will make lobbying more expensive, and put the representatives back in their actual communities, because lets face it most of them represent Washington DC not Local Communities.
3. Expand the Term to 4 Years, with a 2 year offset to the president Election. So every 4 years the entire house is elected as a Mid Presidential term Election
I'm entirely in favor of making lobbying as expensive as possible, but I disagree that there isn't something to be gained from having people be in the same physical location to achieve a common goal. Some things just can't be done very well over Zoom.
I do wish that more federal functions would be spread out throughout the country, in the same way that Germany does; many of their federal agencies are headquartered in places far away from Berlin. There's no reason why the USDA shouldn't be headquartered in Kansas City, the Fed in New York, and the Department of the Interior in Wyoming.
>but I disagree that there isn't something to be gained from having people be in the same physical location to achieve a common goal.
So then I assume you also reject Full time work from home?
I can not think of a single reason why Congress needs to be in the same physical location to read a bill, take public comment on a bill, then vote on if that bill is good for their community or now. That is the SOLE and ONLY function of the US House of Representatives.
If they are doing other things, well that is beyond their scope of work and should be curtailed.
Full time remote work can be done for a lot of jobs, but even those you would agree that occasional in-person time helps. I'm not taking an absolute position one way or another.
> that is beyond their scope of work and should be curtailed
That’s how incumbents can maintain their edge whilst Congress as a body is untrusted.
I’m convinced that capping the House of Representatives at 435 was a mistake, and Federalizing most laws even more of a mistake. The question isn’t whether democracy can scale, but whether ours can within its present constraints. The reforms I would want to see are mechanical; not social, economic or judicial. A Continental-sized nation with hundreds of millions and growing probably needs thousands—not a few hundred!—of legislators if representation is to be meaningful. Short of that, my Representative has 700K+ constituents, so any one individual holding her accountable without other connections is a pipe dream at best.