Pepper Spray IS a vegetable!

[Draco Tanos]

Considering the Republicans aren't even open to the slightest form of compromise, I think that if they actually debated such things, it'd actually be a better use of their time.

Because the Democrats are?  When did this happen?  Ever?

Vote for Ron Paul!

Voting for crazy doesn't fix things either. >.>

Also:  http://www.debtclock.ca/

While not as bad as ours, the fact that it's so high isn't a good sign either.

[DoctorHarte]

Also:  http://www.debtclock.ca/

While not as bad as ours, the fact that it's so high isn't a good sign either.

Psh, they haven't even hit their first billion. CA is doing just fine


Rick Perry is obviously our best bet considering he's the Governor of Texas, great political background, and.. uh.. err.. ah.. can't think of the third one. Oops!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uvmKnFY4uk

That's how great are our Republican candidates!

[fodder]

anyone read newt's historical fictions? i've been meaning to read them (because forstchen is the co-writer)

vote newt.. he writes fiction XD

[vonGenf]

Psh, they haven't even hit their first billion trillion. CA is doing just fine

[Vellos]

You can't compare numbers like that. If Ireland had the same ratio as the US, it would only have ten MPs. That's just not enough to have a functioning legislature, that's a junta.

I know. Naturally, it'd be something like an S-curve (though it would begin at the origin). So that any group over a thousand or so probably needs at least 5-10, and you reach the 50-100 range very quickly.

But there is no reason the number should decline again. Many nations smaller than the US have more national representation. The issue is significant, because it meaningfully increases the incentive for corporations to finance politicians, and meaningfully decreases the ability of politicians to connect to a constituency.  The US is a bigger nation, so will naturally have a "higher" constituents/representatives ratio. But there's no reason for it to be SO much higher.

Lucky you. In India, counting *both* houses of parliament, we have one MP per 1509000 citizens.

I was counting both houses in most of those examples, if both houses were elected.

But yeah, that is pretty crazy. Though, of course, a larger nation is going to be less personally represented (hence the need for functional regional legislatures), but that still is a rather big leap.

[vonGenf]

I know. Naturally, it'd be something like an S-curve (though it would begin at the origin). So that any group over a thousand or so probably needs at least 5-10, and you reach the 50-100 range very quickly.

But there is no reason the number should decline again. Many nations smaller than the US have more national representation. The issue is significant, because it meaningfully increases the incentive for corporations to finance politicians, and meaningfully decreases the ability of politicians to connect to a constituency.  The US is a bigger nation, so will naturally have a "higher" constituents/representatives ratio. But there's no reason for it to be SO much higher.

In the canton of Geneva there are 100 MPs for a total population of 191'000 people. When I first arrived here I thought that was ridiculous, but then I realized they were part-time workers. At some point my old boss was elected and he didn't have to give up his day job, and all the councils were held on thursday nights.

I think it makes more sense to have 100 people working part time to have a real representation of the diversity of opinion, then 8 people working full time.

But I agree with you, it needs to be a S-curve. Somewhere above 200 people it probably doesn't make to increase it at all.

[Vellos]

Somewhere above 200 people it probably doesn't make to increase it at all.

Errr..... I disagree. I'd say somewhere above 1000-2000 it doesn't make sense to increase it at all.

I think it makes more sense to have 100 people working part time to have a real representation of the diversity of opinion, then 8 people working full time.

Generally agreed. The US has a mixed record on this. Nationally, our politicians are full-time but, at the state level, different legislatures do it different ways. Different studies have concluded different things about part-time legislators. On the one hand, they are more connected to their constituents, and so you would expect a more democratic and responsive system, and there seems to be some real confirmation that this is the case. On the other hand, a part-time legislator is financially dependent, and may be more susceptible to bribes and special interests.

[vonGenf]

Errr..... I disagree. I'd say somewhere above 1000-2000 it doesn't make sense to increase it at all.

The way I see this, you need to have a reasonable number of people in a committee so that everybody knows each other and can hold a meaningful discussion, i.e. without necessarily working through the Robert's Rules of Order or its local equivalent. I've see research stating that the max number is seven, but we don't need every decision to be taken in a single day either. A dozen people seems right to me.

12 committees with 12 members each  should be enough to address meaningfully the pertinent legislative questions, or ~150 people. This is not exact science, of course.

On the other hand, a part-time legislator is financially dependent, and may be more susceptible to bribes and special interests.

Yes, but it's harder to secretly bribe a large number of people with small sums of money than a few people with a large sum of money.

In other words, the more people there are, the more likely at least one of them will be honest, and even more so if the gravy is spread thin.

[Vellos]

The way I see this, you need to have a reasonable number of people in a committee so that everybody knows each other and can hold a meaningful discussion, i.e. without necessarily working through the Robert's Rules of Order or its local equivalent. I've see research stating that the max number is seven, but we don't need every decision to be taken in a single day either. A dozen people seems right to me.

12 committees with 12 members each  should be enough to address meaningfully the pertinent legislative questions, or ~150 people. This is not exact science, of course.

Yes, but it's harder to secretly bribe a large number of people with small sums of money than a few people with a large sum of money.

In other words, the more people there are, the more likely at least one of them will be honest, and even more so if the gravy is spread thin.

In a country of, say, 300,000,000 people, it is easy to bribe 150 politicians. Having a total legislature of 150 people in a country of that size would be quite easy to manipulate, and constituencies would be huge, meaning politicians would have no real ability to connect to their constituents.

[vonGenf]

In a country of, say, 300,000,000 people, it is easy to bribe 150 politicians. Having a total legislature of 150 people in a country of that size would be quite easy to manipulate, and constituencies would be huge, meaning politicians would have no real ability to connect to their constituents.

Large countries are usually federations for a good reason.

Whatever you do, the needs of a functioning legislature and the needs of connecting to your constituents are orthogonal. They may be made to fit each other in special cases, and it's great when it's the case, but if the size of the country makes such alignment impossible then it just is and you'll have to choose.

[Vellos]

Large countries are usually federations for a good reason.

A federal system in which final authority on most issues of significance rests in the central government does not resolve the issue; it makes many lower-level legislatures redundant. Federalism would only meaningfully reduce the number of "needed" representatives if many significant issues were reserved exclusively to subsidiary legislatures. I am not familiar with other federal systems but, in the US, this is not the case. Very few things are definably outside the authority of the federal government, but within the authority of a state government. The two that immediately come to mind are corporate charters and school curricula, but even those are not wholly independent.

[Chenier]

Here I reveal myself. I think campaign spending regulations are foolish, and am firmly on the side of corporate personality. Yes, in a system like Canada's, it could create incentives for criminality to have a large legislature. But in the US, our legislature is actually very small compared to the size of our nation. We have 535 directly elected representatives in our legislature compared to 300 million people. That's 585,000 people per rep. Canada has 113k per rep, France 71k, UK 95k, Spain 75k, Italy 64k, Ireland 27k, and Germany 132k.

Now why would you think it foolish? Companies finance these elections from their profits, which they make from their sales. Really, they are just using the consumers' money to buy out politicians that will work against the consumer.

The money per vote system also helps to correct a system that drastically skews everything in favor of the big and pro-rich parties.

[Vellos]

Now why would you think it foolish? Companies finance these elections from their profits, which they make from their sales. Really, they are just using the consumers' money to buy out politicians that will work against the consumer.

The money per vote system also helps to correct a system that drastically skews everything in favor of the big and pro-rich parties.

Because nobody has ever been able to demonstrate to me, in a developed country, the mechanism by which an election is bought. Ads don't force people to vote. Nor do get-out-the-vote efforts. And the problem with special interests is not primarily about money, but term length and extent of government authority.

[Chenier]

Because nobody has ever been able to demonstrate to me, in a developed country, the mechanism by which an election is bought. Ads don't force people to vote. Nor do get-out-the-vote efforts. And the problem with special interests is not primarily about money, but term length and extent of government authority.

Money buys visibility. Visibility earns credibility. Credibility grants confidence. Confidence produces votes.

It's simple psychology. The more visibility candidates have, the more "serious" they appear as contenders. Voters then tend to vote for their favorite candidates among those who appear to seriously have a chance to get elected.

In addition, greater visibility allows gives you an upper hand if you wish to discredit your competitors, because you can multiply your ads in much greater proportions than what they can retort to.

Obviously, visibility isn't *everything*, but it's pretty damn important.

As for "extent of government authority", sure, the more power the government has, the more interest there is in corrupting it. However, the less powerful it is, the less such corruption becomes necessary, because those who would do it can then easily do it other ways.

[egamma]

Because nobody has ever been able to demonstrate to me, in a developed country, the mechanism by which an election is bought. Ads don't force people to vote. Nor do get-out-the-vote efforts. And the problem with special interests is not primarily about money, but term length and extent of government authority.

Ever hear of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaddeus_McCotter? No? He was running to become the Republican Party candidate. The problem is, he didn't have the money to purchase national ads to increase his visibility.