I think we need to end the electoral college and ensure each vote counts (I tried to follow the link but it was dead) I also believe we must put in constituent petitions to law pathways as the current system ensures we have no real voice if it isn’t one of 2 parties choice policies
I like your ideas, I would add that each Native American tribe needs at least 2 representatives in each house. I would also add a clear statement that every person has the right to absolute bodily autonomy and that no laws can restrict or regulate a person’s body or the healthcare they seek. We must openly state women can never again be only partial people in the eyes of the law. We must also add that violations of human rights even in rhetoric is a crime punishable by law. For far too long we have been denied equality despite having it written in law. By we I mean all minorities.
I’m glad Substack has the “read” option though missed Beth’s voice. I couldn’t find this episode on Apple 🤷🏼♀️.
I like the idea of representatives who know their neighbors. And, I wonder how they’d get anything done w/that many people. I wonder what it would look like for someone who has really great ideas, though may be more quiet, to not feel lost.
I think a good Kindergarten teacher will need to help them work well together, listen & not be bullies.
It struck me that much of this seems to fall under efficiency. You know, like the E in DOGE, which I think is why the idea people have of the possibilities of what something like DOGE *could* do is so appealing to many.
Such good thinking. And you really got me at the end when you wrote about paying attention and being part of what is to come. I would never have chosen this kind of destruction but I truly hope it leads to something creative.
I agree with much of what you envision. However, I can’t see increasing the size of the house or the senate so drastically. If for no other reason than the cost of supporting so many people.
What if………. It was unpaid. Or paid very little. And people did it knowing they would need other income. Could you imagine a teacher also being the rep for an area and voting in evenings and holding open doors nights and weekends? Imagine how in touch that person would be. And a term is only 2 years. So if it is too much, it’s only 2 years.
The problem with not paying people is only the wealthy could maybe do the job. I just don’t see this being a part time, volunteer gig, even with 11,000 people still need to write laws, meet in committees, debate laws, meet with others.
I was initially resistant to the idea of House reps being fully remote, but you’re convincing me. New systems of regional meetings and visits could emerge. It would be so much easier to meet your rep! They could still get together for big ceremonial stuff. Even a ratio of 1:100,000 would be a dramatic improvement - that could get scaled up over the next 2 census periods.
How about less than total reliance on technology and more on personal contact. The high number for the House could convene 4 or 8 times a year to ensure they at least know each other.
I managed remote teams and we physically met quarterly and telephonically weekly. It worked well and allowed not over managing.
The increase in the senate should be linked to less than 10 but more than 2 per state
In the spirit of discussing the shared vision, do you think advances in communication since Madison’s time mean that representatives can be expected to represent more than 30,000 people? 11,000 in the House just seems so huge to me. Is there a middle ground between that number and where we are today?
I initially agreed with you. Then I thought about it and I don’t think the deciding factor for the number would be technology. I think it should be psychology and how well one person can know and serve an amount of people. One thing I really love about such a large number in the house is that, all people would run probably under the two party system, it would essentially break it up. Congress people would get together based on things that would be beyond party line; like we have seen with the remote votes for new parents issue. If I know my 30,000 people then I can actually serve them. I think it would also break up the state representatives as well. I live in south eastern nc and my rep has an area all the way up the outer banks. Also 11,000 reps would take away career politicians in the house because it would not be a career. I’m sure lots of them would have second jobs, like teachers and pastors often do. It would be a way to serve. Sorry. I went to comment and started ranting. Have a great day!
I think we need to end the electoral college and ensure each vote counts (I tried to follow the link but it was dead) I also believe we must put in constituent petitions to law pathways as the current system ensures we have no real voice if it isn’t one of 2 parties choice policies
I like your ideas, I would add that each Native American tribe needs at least 2 representatives in each house. I would also add a clear statement that every person has the right to absolute bodily autonomy and that no laws can restrict or regulate a person’s body or the healthcare they seek. We must openly state women can never again be only partial people in the eyes of the law. We must also add that violations of human rights even in rhetoric is a crime punishable by law. For far too long we have been denied equality despite having it written in law. By we I mean all minorities.
I’m glad Substack has the “read” option though missed Beth’s voice. I couldn’t find this episode on Apple 🤷🏼♀️.
I like the idea of representatives who know their neighbors. And, I wonder how they’d get anything done w/that many people. I wonder what it would look like for someone who has really great ideas, though may be more quiet, to not feel lost.
I think a good Kindergarten teacher will need to help them work well together, listen & not be bullies.
It struck me that much of this seems to fall under efficiency. You know, like the E in DOGE, which I think is why the idea people have of the possibilities of what something like DOGE *could* do is so appealing to many.
Such good thinking. And you really got me at the end when you wrote about paying attention and being part of what is to come. I would never have chosen this kind of destruction but I truly hope it leads to something creative.
I agree with much of what you envision. However, I can’t see increasing the size of the house or the senate so drastically. If for no other reason than the cost of supporting so many people.
What if………. It was unpaid. Or paid very little. And people did it knowing they would need other income. Could you imagine a teacher also being the rep for an area and voting in evenings and holding open doors nights and weekends? Imagine how in touch that person would be. And a term is only 2 years. So if it is too much, it’s only 2 years.
The problem with not paying people is only the wealthy could maybe do the job. I just don’t see this being a part time, volunteer gig, even with 11,000 people still need to write laws, meet in committees, debate laws, meet with others.
I was initially resistant to the idea of House reps being fully remote, but you’re convincing me. New systems of regional meetings and visits could emerge. It would be so much easier to meet your rep! They could still get together for big ceremonial stuff. Even a ratio of 1:100,000 would be a dramatic improvement - that could get scaled up over the next 2 census periods.
How about less than total reliance on technology and more on personal contact. The high number for the House could convene 4 or 8 times a year to ensure they at least know each other.
I managed remote teams and we physically met quarterly and telephonically weekly. It worked well and allowed not over managing.
The increase in the senate should be linked to less than 10 but more than 2 per state
Me too! If we add dramatically more reps it will require change, and this is an interesting way to do it.
This is so interesting! Thank you for sharing.
In the spirit of discussing the shared vision, do you think advances in communication since Madison’s time mean that representatives can be expected to represent more than 30,000 people? 11,000 in the House just seems so huge to me. Is there a middle ground between that number and where we are today?
I initially agreed with you. Then I thought about it and I don’t think the deciding factor for the number would be technology. I think it should be psychology and how well one person can know and serve an amount of people. One thing I really love about such a large number in the house is that, all people would run probably under the two party system, it would essentially break it up. Congress people would get together based on things that would be beyond party line; like we have seen with the remote votes for new parents issue. If I know my 30,000 people then I can actually serve them. I think it would also break up the state representatives as well. I live in south eastern nc and my rep has an area all the way up the outer banks. Also 11,000 reps would take away career politicians in the house because it would not be a career. I’m sure lots of them would have second jobs, like teachers and pastors often do. It would be a way to serve. Sorry. I went to comment and started ranting. Have a great day!
This post needs to be on every elected Democrat official's desk.
Thank you so much for following your more to say with a format that I can share.
GIRRRRRLLLLL YES I have been waiting for this kind of articulation of vision! Thank you for putting this together!!!
I am completely unable to read the Preamble without singing it a la Schoolhouse Rock.
🎵 Do ordain and estaaaaaaaaaablish this constitution 🎵