Good research! Thanks for sharing. I was shocked that the graph stopped at 1913. That's also the year the Federal Reserve was enacted. It gave birth to the great depression (they actually apologized for causing it) WWI and the IRS. The Federal Reserve are 13 _private_, _foreign_ banks and are a cancer that's been eating at the heart and soul of the USA for nearly a century.

Yep, The American People DESERVE better representation. thank you.

That's why it would behoove us to increase local and state rights. The more power your representative has on those smaller levels, the less important having direct access to the Federal Representative becomes.

My only problem is that, can you imagin how hard it would be to find the pork, when you have 5,000 legislators writing bills that are laden with it.

Incidentally, doubling the congress would bring us to representation levels comparable to those of about 1950. To get back to the levels around 1790 - 1830 we would need to increase the congress membership by 10 times.

Yeah, the only stuff that would pass would be the stuff that actually SHOULD be passed. The stuff that everybody ACTUALLY agrees on. No more pork or buying off congressmen. Everything else should be left to local governements. Congress SHOULD be SLOW and DELIBERATE.

I wonder if we would have more pork or less pork. I was watching some news program that was talking about the current pork, and there were things that were just really outrageous that had made it into the bills.

I know this is an old video (I found it by exploring from your latest video as of now) but it made me realize it would be interesting to also have it by state (new states can be added to the graph over time as they becomes states) and show how many people per congressperson there are in each state. It would show diverging levels of representation in different states over time. It would take a lot of research if it's not already available somewhere though.

@thecodesorcerer

Жыл бұрын

Good idea

I think there are few enough representatives now though that big money can have a big influence. I tend to think that with more reps, it's harder for any particular lobby to have as much influence. Then there is always the senate to keep things in check

the purpose of the congress is to represent the will of the people in the federal government. There are 700K people per congressman today on average compared to something like 1 to 25K voters when this country was formed. How can one person be heard in the congress with those odds? Additionally, when there are only 435 congressmen, today, special interests can just buy them out.

My point is that it would be next to impossible to find out. I think we do need more representation. In far too many cases our representatives don't really represent their constituents. There are just to many of them with opposite views for the representatives to stand for all of them.

Which is exactly why it isn't feasible. It's hard enough to get anything accomplished with 535 voters. Imagine how hard it would be to pass any bill with 5,000 reps.

@thecodesorcerer

Жыл бұрын

Hard to get things passed on a National level may not be a bad thing at all.

and how do you propose shifting power to the states when the federal lawmakers are less and less likely to listen to what you as an individual have to say about that.

19th ammendment, women's right to vote was signed in 1920 -- that also coincides with the halting of the growth of congress...

I thought this was going to be about the Congress members getting shorter on average.

@thecodesorcerer

Жыл бұрын

Shorter on intelligence

I think the capping of the House at 435 was just a practical measure. I agree with goneresistance -- the solution is to shift power away from the federal monster and toward state and local gov't, or better yet: individuals! (Oh the shock! The horror!) Find out about our Special Offer! Vote for Ron Paul... and get a *free* country! Limited time offer. Act now!

@thecodesorcerer

Жыл бұрын

Increasing representation would shift power to local by diluting law making power in federal

I'm all for states rights, but look, we have a federal governement that can and does levy income taxes, and we have representation that is shrinking steadily over time. Taxation without representation. Why not start by doubling the membership in congress and make it much more difficult for special interests and lobbyists to spend our tax dollars without our consent.

I agree with local government. We do have a federal government though - and that government has the right to levy taxes. As long as that federal government can levy taxes, we should have representation in the creation of the laws! That means, fix the representation.

red, Did you know that there are over 35,000 lobbyists in Washington? Congress could get something done if it were larger if they used a system like you tube to do it. What if when bills were introduced, they were done electronically on a system like this, and when people speak to the congress, they do it via video, like you tube? What if the whole legislation process were done via the internet?

dude, hasn't Ron Paul been in the congress for 20 years? I think what we need is a much larger congress to better represent the people. Did you know that there are 35,000 lobbyists in Washington??? 35,000 people who attempt to influence the 435 in congress. 435 people in congress representing a population of over 300M and growing.

Good point, I don't know if I totally agree-yet; but, it sure is something to think about.

Could you imagine the impact of changing the representation to a per capita basis? Say 200k voters per Congressman? OMG! The Congress would be Ginormous! They'd Never get anything done. oh, they don't get anything done now. Hmmm

@thecodesorcerer

Жыл бұрын

Harder to bribe them all