tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20372724.post6993856047970563125..comments2023-09-01T09:38:54.262-04:00Comments on Dumb Looks Still Free: The failings of the volunteersA Jacksonianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07607888697879327120noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20372724.post-12632205618596623082007-10-13T08:37:00.000-04:002007-10-13T08:37:00.000-04:00Will have to hunt it down... I tend to be a 'drive...Will have to hunt it down... I tend to be a 'drive-by' commentator or late. But should be able to do so... mind you I'm just working off of a number of previous postings on that material. Easy to pick off the refence material once done in previous posts...A Jacksonianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07607888697879327120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20372724.post-27222777948740222842007-10-13T08:32:00.000-04:002007-10-13T08:32:00.000-04:00Off-topic (I couldn't find an email address)Please...Off-topic (I couldn't find an email address)<BR/><BR/>Please post your lengthy comment at Megan McArdle's blog on Iraqi infrastructure as a post here. I'd like to nominate it as best post of the week for the Watcher's Council.Dave Schulerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06932517048962562233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20372724.post-83835848086506170982007-10-11T15:43:00.000-04:002007-10-11T15:43:00.000-04:00Simon - Strange as it may sound, Congress gets to ...Simon - Strange as it may sound, Congress gets to set its own size! By law!<BR/><BR/>The Constitution sets the maximum size by the 1:30,000 limit, so nothing bigger than that... and the anti-federalists went to town pointing out that America needed *more* representation, not less... still, the States signed onto the Constitution...<BR/><BR/>Of course getting Congress to change that is like pulling teeth against a great white shark in a feeding frenzy.<BR/><BR/>Strange to think that all of the House plus its *staff* gets you to 1:29,000 and change. Thats right, the entire space to house all of that staff could *house the House*. An amendment to make the representation portion 'equal to' 30,000 and setting House staff to zero would do it.... but you can't get that by Congress now, can you?<BR/><BR/>The question is: how to lobby Congress to get it to change this? No idea save popular referendum with threat of State called Constitutional Convention. That is a nasty can of worms everyone would love to avoid. And since the States no longer get to send Senators directly, the States can't hold back either Senators or funds for the government. Thank the 'progressive era' for that...<BR/><BR/>That this must change is becoming self-evident, and not just in 'term limits' because that still diminishes the individual vote. District size is key... the constitution obviously envisioned a proportional system, not a fixed size House, but arguing *that* before any court will be damned difficult.<BR/><BR/>Check the 1:30000 folks for other ideas.A Jacksonianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07607888697879327120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20372724.post-86105601591185443222007-10-11T15:32:00.000-04:002007-10-11T15:32:00.000-04:00I think you have a point. When member districts ge...I think you have a point. When member districts get too large people think - my vote doesn't count, why bother? <BR/><BR/>It is obvious if the districts were at the 1,000 voter level small shifts can make a big difference. One vote could be the difference between a win and a loss. Every vote counts. <BR/><BR/>I have no idea how to change this. It doesn't even seem to be on the radar.M. Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09508934110558197375noreply@blogger.com