JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
So which country has a better democracy. It appears that a true democracy is a.n impossibility so which country is better at it than the US?
That doesn't matter to me, our Republic is better than any "pure" democracy I know of.

Another reason for keeping the EC is that I don't trust the commie states to not fake the vote. At least now the damage is confined to those states, I don't want a few states to be able to skew the entire vote.
 
Biggest argument for increasing House size, and ergo Electoral college; the Bundestag, it has 734 Seats, for a population of 84,607,016; over 84 million. The Federal Parliament of Germany (Bundestag + Bundesrat, consisting of 69 Seats) has better representation for its citizens than the US Congress does.
 
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" Ben Franklin

I'm all for keeping the electoral college! Without it the simple majority could steamroll any candidate they wanted. As imperfect as our system is I'm not a believer in making big changes.
 
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" Ben Franklin

I'm all for keeping the electoral college! Without it the simple majority could steamroll any candidate they wanted. As imperfect as our system is I'm not a believer in making big changes.
Sorry man, but this is another spurious quote attributed to the founding fathers. The internet abounds with them.
 
Can you imagine just how much better represented Oregon, Washington State and Idaho would be in a House 3x the current size, with 18 Congressional Districts in Oregon and 30 in Washington State, and 6 in Idaho?

This would mean in theory, Oregon, Washington state and Idaho would have a more significant split of Party districts and a more realistic % of Party votes by district versus what we have.
 
In a way, yes but it means smaller staff groups. More representation, smaller Congressional Districts. Ergo, less dependence on using Federal executive agencies to "legislate" through rulemaking changes and end runs around Congress.
I have been on very few projects where adding head count was productive
I feel the same about more government
 
Back to the point. Based on the current Congressional District map of Oregon, Idaho would gain 1 EC vote, 1 Representative from the Greater Idaho movement, and Oregon would lose the same, but seeing as Oregon does the "winner takes all" format, its a moot point if its 5 or 6 EC votes in Oregon being "all Blue/Dem" because of the majority thing (Portland, Salem, Eugene). However, Idaho would politically gain a third more, by having 3 EC votes to throw behind whoever the Republicans want.
The Democratic Party do not want to entertain the possibility of that 1 EC vote moving to Idaho, and I don't think they want to consider the "implications" if also, east WA successfully votes to secede/join Idaho and give Idaho 2 more EC votes, bringing total to 5 EC votes from Idaho against Oregon's 5 and WA State's 8 (-2 from 10 currently)

To say nothing of State Of Cascsdia/Jefferson which could put 2 Senators plus 3 Reps into the mix
 
So, lets just keep the same number of Reps with enormous Districts where they only have to get reelected every 6 years and not answer to over 700,000 citizens per Rep?
It is the same for dems and republicans alike. I see nothing wrong with this. The fact that they aren't answering makes them a one timer. That is if people are paying attention.
 
The problem is not the elected officials it's those doing the electing. Columbia county had around a 33% turn out last Tuesday
It is the electors who are allowing this to happen.
 
All this talk of getting rid of the Electoral College and going with a popular vote. Look at what's happened to Oregon in the last thirty years and then ask yourself if that's such a good idea. Taken to its extreme, you have as examples, California, New York and Washington. 'Nuff said.
Biggest argument for increasing House size, and ergo Electoral college; the Bundestag, it has 734 Seats, for a population of 84,607,016; over 84 million. The Federal Parliament of Germany (Bundestag + Bundesrat, consisting of 69 Seats) has better representation for its citizens than the US Congress does.
In a way, yes but it means smaller staff groups. More representation, smaller Congressional Districts. Ergo, less dependence on using Federal executive agencies to "legislate" through rulemaking changes and end runs around Congress.
Can you imagine just how much better represented Oregon, Washington State and Idaho would be in a House 3x the current size, with 18 Congressional Districts in Oregon and 30 in Washington State, and 6 in Idaho?

This would mean in theory, Oregon, Washington state and Idaho would have a more significant split of Party districts and a more realistic % of Party votes by district versus what we have.
These Reps and Senators don't represent us. They represent themselves.
Think about how useless and constipated government is so far. Now make it 3x as useless and constipated.

When Reagan took office, his economic advisors knew what needed to be done with the economy to turn it around. There were many years of hardship as a result. This set it up for Clinton, who, by today's political measure, would be considered conservative. A lot of today's Democrats came of age in the Clinton years, and attribute the prosperity to him and his policies, which you have to look back at Reagan for teeing them up.
Looking at the cluster-foobar that education and health care are today, including the disastrous state of mental health, you can look right back to Clinton and their (his and her) policies.
 
On average apparently, each House Member has 15 Staff members working for them, so you have 6,525 people working for 435 Representatives.

Tripling the size of House, while concurrently cutting the number of staff positions they have.. might do a lot to streamline the "work" of Representatives.. and might make it easier for them to "deal" with having a smaller population of Constituents to answer to.


It'll never happen without significant changes in culture/people voting/actions
We are getting way away from the thread topic anyhow :rolleyes:

It'll also never happen since Federally, either Party stands to gain and lose at least 1 EC vote and a Representative, and 1 party don't want to lose, the other party wants to gain. The votes are not there. On a State level, Oregon doesn't want to "give" Idaho any chance of gaining tax revenues and land
 
Every time anyone 'gets serious' or 'really means it this time' or any other flamboyant and hyperbolic declaration on this idea I just hear it as
"Dang, we dun'gone and run out of any actual ideas, time to fire up the old fake outrage machine"

How utterly embarrassing that we can't get better and more effective representation
 

Upcoming Events

Teen Rifle 1 Class
  • Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
  • Springfield, OR

New Classified Ads

Back Top