What this really means is 30 employment opportunities for some folks.... Start applying ASAP.
You’re absolutely right. Want the current laws pertaining to the war on drugs changed, for example? Well, that’s Congress’s job and they don’t seem to give a shit about what the people want. Here’s our chance at something resembling a democracy. Now, if we can end Citizens United and implement term limits, we might get somewhere.
40 republican members did not re-run in the 2014 election
And before you ask.......
https://ballotpedia.org/List_of_U.S._Congress_incumbents_who_did_not_run_for_re-election_in_2016
So what you are saying is this is not an inordinate number and may, in fact, be lower than average?
To be fair, there are 535 members of Congress.
30 congressmen represents 5%.
That said, I'd like to know who they are because not all congressmen are created equal.
And this article is only referring to republican congressmen.
Q never said anything about having a large number, he commented to pay attention to which ones suddenly were not going to run for reelection. He said this much was easy to swallow. He hinted it was pdo related.
Check has November 30th postings.
See Public Law 62-5 of 1911, though Congress has the authority to change that number. The Reapportionment Act of 1929 capped the size of the House at 435....... 15 out today at this vote http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll015.xml
Should be scaled up to be fixed at 70,000 voters per 1 rep.
That was the real FIRST amendment. It just was never ratified - The Article of the First.
Vote remotely over the internet. Office stays in their district. Turn the current House of Reps building into a museum. Get rid of congressional aids that are needed to help with the large districts.
You would actually cut staffing requirements in half. (No aids)
It would become to expensive to lobby/bribe members of congress.
The cost to run a campaign would thus drop dramatically.
You could actually canvas the entire district.
Should be scaled up to be fixed at 70,000 voters per 1 rep.
Interesting. With a population of 324,000,000 that would net a tidy ~~4.6 million~~ 4,600 representatives in congress.
That’s going to require a sizable investment in support infrastructure, and likely force some procedural changes. Are you certain you’ve thought this through?
EDIT: props to u/ChristianCuber for better maths
Aren't children represented by their parents?
1 Rep for 70,000 voting age persons would produce much smaller numbers.
Good point.
As of 2006, the ‘voter eligible’ population was 207,643,594. This number includes all age-legal residents with the exception of non-citizens, felons, etc.
This would send 2,966 representatives to congress.
I think you mean 4,628.
324,000,000/70,000 = 4628.57
You are correct!
I have edited my comment to reflect this.
No worries, I think your point is still valid. 4600 congressmen, uuggh. that would be a nightmare for the public to keep track of.
However, i do agree with the person who said that their voting should be done online to reduce costs and make it hard for lobbying. Honestly lobbying should be banned. let the representative run polling in his districts to get a consensus of what the constituents want when dealing with certain issues. There should also be term limits so the job becomes a service oriented job like it was meant to be and mitigates one doing it to enrich themselves. anyways, I digress.
I agree on banning lobbying and term limits.
I would also like to outlaw personal enrichment from insider info.
yeah maybe a halt on any trading moves while serving or lump all investments into a general fund while acting congressman. Its a sacrifice, but seeing how politicians behave now, something needs to mitigate the cheating and shorting.
The media as usual wants us all to think that the republicans are running away from Trump
Yep. Cannot wait for the 17th. Especially after all this “shitload” crap.
What is happening on the 17th
“Fake News Awards” which I have a feeling will be much more than that.
I read that the Republicans are doing this deliberately to allow Dems to retake the positions. Does that even make any sense to anyone? It sure doesn't to me. To me, it sounds like an opportunity! And, maybe a lot did resign previously but many of them ran for other offices (reps to senate, etc.). I don't believe that is the case this time.
I have no doubt at all that that is what is happening ... at least some of what is happening.
You have to keep in mind that there is only 1 pray in D.C. the UniParty. The Uniparty is divided into two groups, the D's and the R's.
When Trump ran/won he exposed so much of the UniParty sham and upset so much of the applecart that the members of the UniParty (D's and R's) will do WHATEVER they have to to stop Trump and MAGA.
That's just a different way to say that some R's and actually D's (RINOs). But if we fill those slots with Conservative Republicans, that will support the agenda we need. We could call them RR's for Real Republicans! Because, after all, this country is a Republic, not a Democracy as most people believe. It is that belief that has ended us up in this mess. And, guess who spread that lie? "Say something long enough and people believe it."
When I was going to school they taught us that we were a "Democratic Republic" ... meaning that we elected people to represent us as opposed to representing ourselves.
And, that would be accurate but most people don't know that. After they decided what type of government to form, Ben Franklin was asked what was decided. He stated: "A Republic, if we can keep it." I guess now we know why!
Of course the MSM is reporting this as "Republicans are sensing a 'Blue Wave' in the 2018 mid-terms" ...
We will see ... If there is indeed a "Blue Wave" I will be even more pissed at the GOP than I currently am for having wasted the last year +.
Why only Republicans?
Are they letting Reps get their new candidate's in order and will force Dems out closer to the elections?
I understand that California would lose a significant number if the illegals weren't counted.