We have too many representatives!

[Martin_Hyde]

I also think it incredibly unwise to want to abolish entire layers of government simply because of one person’s opinion that “most people don’t care about it.” You’ve done nothing to prove that is the case other than make a bit of a mention about voter turnout.

[foolsguinea]

Thank you Mr Hyde. I was despairing that I would get any actual persuasive points made against my OP.

And AClockworkMelon’s point is well taken.

We really don’t debate well here, do we? It’s too easy just to mock someone or purposely misinterpret what he says rather than marshal arguments to prove him wrong.

There are things to like about our present system, but I do think that giving each voter more representatives at different levels is not the same as giving us more representation. Maybe unicameral legislatures are better.

Calling for simple monarchy was a bit extreme, I grant.

[msmith537]

Really this is stupid. When people say “we have too many representatives” what they really mean is “we have too many people representing the interests of other people who I don’t agree with.” And when they say “tyrany is better” they generally assume the tyrant will unilaterally ennact policies that they do agree with.

[John_Mace]

@foolsguinea

We really don’t debate well here, do we? It’s too easy just to mock someone or purposely misinterpret what he says rather than marshal arguments to prove him wrong.

My experience is that the quality of the debate is generally determined by the quality of the OP. Seriously, you made a bunch of unsupported (and some outlandish) assertions in your OP. No facts, no cites. Why should anyone be interested in disproving your opinions?

[Shagnasty]

@msmith537

Really this is stupid. When people say “we have too many representatives” what they really mean is “we have too many people representing the interests of other people who I don’t agree with.” And when they say “tyrany is better” they generally assume the tyrant will unilaterally ennact policies that they do agree with.

Agreed. This is one of the sorriest excuses for a Great Debate I have seen in a while. I have no idea what state the OP lives in but everywhere I have lived, people care very much about state politics. In fact, I would go the opposite route and say that it is the most important level of government. That is one fatal flaw of several in the OP.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Please eliminate three. I am not a nut.

[2sense]

@msmith537

Really this is stupid. When people say “we have too many representatives” what they really mean is “we have too many people representing the interests of other people who I don’t agree with.”

No what we are saying is, “There are too many politicians to keep track of.” I once counted the officials I help elect (and presumably have an obligation to keep an eye on) and there were like 40 or so. I like politics and it’s still just waaaay too much for me. If I’m overwhelmed it’s that much worse for people who don’t find it interesting at all.

What we need here is less government. The OP would have been better served to avoid the talk of tyranny but makes a good point. If we reduced government down to a mere 2 jurisdictions it would be much easier for the electorate to oversee their representatives. And it would give politicians less room to pass the buck. Keep it simple and keep them responsible. When it comes to politicians, a short and straight leash is best. (All the District of Columbia dominatrixes agree!)

[foolsguinea]

Wait, what, someone agreed with me?

OK, yeah, my OP overreached. That’s kind of why I just sort of abandoned the thread.

But seriously, I completely ignore my county commissioners, & I’m at least nominally interested in politics.

I think having two state legislative chambers elected the same way is overkill. (If one were statewide at-large seats, & thus represented fluctuations in popular support rather than skillful gerrymandering, I could live with the second one having districts. For a while.)

I’m not for less representation. I’m for better representation. We proliferate representatives who diffuse attention, & don’t necessarily represent the common interest. Of course many of them are well-meaning & decent people who manage to do all right because of their own personal character. But some are just louses who get into the legislature by getting in with the party in a one-party district.

My feelings on this are evolving. I used to think the proliferation of gov’t levels in our culture (both through federalism & through the break between professional civil servants & elected officials) charming. I now worry it’s obstructionist. As I said in another thread,

@foolsguinea

City managers are hired (at least in my town) by elected non-professional middlemen. The city managers are hired guns from outside & not directly accountable to the people. The city council are a bunch of dilettantes who have other jobs & incomes, thus have divided interests & distractions.

Strong mayors are voted in, act as professionals, & actually rule. They are also responsible to the people.

I’m not sure which is better, which is worse.

[foolsguinea]

@2sense

I once counted the officials I help elect (and presumably have an obligation to keep an eye on) and there were like 40 or so. I like politics and it’s still just waaaay too much for me. If I’m overwhelmed it’s that much worse for people who don’t find it interesting at all.

This is the germ of it. Hyperbole aside, this is what worries me. I’m willing to be convinced I’m wrong, but somebody has to do some convincing.

[Todderbob]

@AClockworkMelon

Yeah, I’d rather not have the Commander in Chief of the Executive Branch also run the Legislative Branch. kthxbai

This would be fantastic.

@foolsguinea

In response to a post in another thread, I posted something that I’ve been thinking for a while, & have decided to just come out & say. And it’s really it’s own debate.Good in theory, but in practice, most Americans are Americans first, not Missourians or Floridians or what have you; & we’re mobile. If the pols in the several states think that voters in their states are fixated on how their state should be different from the rest of the nation, that’s only because the overwhelming majority of Americans don’t pay any attention at all to state politics, & only the few that somehow care about these archaic things called “states” are voting for state officeholders.

Most Americans only know one politician: The President of the United States of America. And it is the President of the United States of America who will be credited & blamed for everything, whether he was involved or not. Therefore, state offices are effectively unaccountable. Really, for the sake of responsible government, we should bite the bullet & abolish most superfluous levels of representation, as those people are utterly ignored & can damn near get away with murder under the present system. Keep the Presidency–perhaps only the Presidency, autocratic & absolute. But if you like, keep as well either the state governors or one house of Congress. Abolish the rest, it’s too many “representatives” for most of us to keep track of.

I responded in the other thread, about an hour after you opened this one, because I didn’t see this one.

Next time you quote me in an OP, let me know… I’d like an at bat to respond.

@Todderbob

Thats because most of the representatives don’t represent you.

You have 1 Representative, and 2 Senators that you need to worry about. Other than that – the rest of themy you simply don’t need to worry about, they represent other people.

Your idea of a country is one I don’t want to live in, it’s somewhere between an absolute dictatorship and my worst nightmare.

[Frostillicus]

@Bryan_Ekers

Please eliminate three. I am not a nut.

I was wondering how long it would take for Grandpa Simpson to appear in this thread.