…isn’t that called representation?
If you bought 1 of 435 Representatives you need to go out and buy three and a half more before you’ve accomplished as much (or damaged the country as much) as it you’ve bought 1 senator.
But the point is that the smaller the constituency the easier a time me and my fellow voters should have realizing that this congressman has been bought and to throw them out of office.
It is when you selectively quote me to misleadingly avoid the actual point I was making. 
I don’t in any way expect any of my representatives to specifically try to advance the causes of Western Washington to the exclusivity of all else. They will mostly serve as another vote for a party, or another voice on a committee, but for the party. So for the large part, I vote on party lines.
When I’m voting for local elections, then I pay a lot more attention to the person, because then it will matter more.
Me neither, but that’s because my best interests in the federal government’s actions is for it to act in a way that’s beneficial to the country as a whole. So I want my federal representative to act along the lines of what I view as the best path forwards. And if they don’t act that way, I want to call them up and tell them so, and I want them to be accountable to a small enough number of voters that me doing so actually motivates them.
That’s what I mean by “represent”, not that they will write federal bills that are targeted at benefiting my small California town. That’s why I quoted your post, not in an attempt to misrepresent you.
Understood. In that way, sure, but often time there is rhetoric that “so-and-so understands me because they are from here” or whatever. That isn’t going to matter very often in Congress.
(I’m not saying it won’t matter at all; a specific issue might matter more to a constituency, and a scandal can sink someone, but that mostly plays out in the primaries anyway.)
More reps and proportional representation also enhances the chances of minor party representation. Some of those parties may not be desirable but multi-party governments in advanced democracies generally work better more often than they work worse.
Yes, I agree, and I am fairly hostile to that rhetoric myself. I think it would be better if that was not part of the consideration at all, only federal policies.
Spoilered for somewhat irrelevant political philosophy musings:
On an occasional late night filled with intoxicating substances and political debate, I’ve played with the idea of a system built from scratch using modern technology to more accurately capture the will of the people. It occurred to me that the grouping of constituents into geographic groups is an artifact of physical necessity that is no longer required, and that it can have many negative side effects, like polarization and intolerance.
The idea I had was that at birth (or upon becoming a naturalized US citizen), in addition to your Social Security Number, you are also assigned a Constituency Number. You and everyone else who shares that number would be randomly distributed across the counntry, but this number would determine who your representative is.
There’d be logistical details to work out, and it would be nice if the government also created some kind of forum (in the old sense of the world, not necessarily an internet forum - though that’s one form it could take) for members of each Constituency to discuss political issues with their fellow Constituents.
Yes, this is absolutely true. And even if the party isn’t desirable (because a core party plank is something like racism) it means that anyone who wants to form a coalition with them needs to openly ally with the Racist Party of America or w/e, which could end up weakening them more than if they just got to hang out on the fringes of a mainstream party.
That’s interesting, as in, a good premise for a novel sort of thing.
Maybe not even that bad in real life either.
The questions I was asking above were mainly rhetorical; I knew exactly how things could remain non-partisan - have nonpartisanship be part of the fabric of how certain things worked. This simply does not work in politics anywhere that there is a strong enough partisan bent to people’s desires. Some parts of the US have managed to somehow get things theoretically out of the hands of partisan interests, but it remains to be seen if it can really stay that way. It’s far more likely to work in places run by liberals, as they’re far more likely to actually have principles to stand by compared to conservatives who always want what they want and damn the methods.
You can only fuss at, or rather, only the guys you can vote for will have their aides read your letters.
Absolutely not true.
Multi-party governments have lawn mower engines and Rolls Royce brakes. It is usually very difficult to get anything done … because the necessity of the action and the quality of the arguments posed rarely align with the voting numbers. Conversely there are so many more ginger points capable of applying the veto.
Multi-party governments work best when it doesn’t really matter whether they work at all.
The adoration so often heard on these boards about the desirability of multi-party coalitions needs to be tempered by the fact most haven’t experienced one. And further, those government with system have inbuilt mechanisms to handle when the political impasse becomes intractable. The US doesn’t.
Oh, well, never mind poli sci, Harpo has a feeling!
Harpo has a degree in Poli Sci. Harpo knows wherewith he’s saying. Harpo good writer, talking not so much.