It's time to reduce the number of Representatives in Congress.

The Federal Government is too big and supposedly, 85,000 IRS Agents will be added.

It's time to reduce the number of Representatives in Congress.

We currently have 435 individuals who are supposed to measure the will of their constituents then present this to the assembly of members of the collective Congress. In the early 2000's, I wrote a letter to my Senator asking why he did not canvass the voters and bring their concerns and ideas to Washington? His response was, essentially, he knew what was best for the people of our state and the same is true of Representatives.
We have 100 senators, so why not 100 representatives? How many people are necessary to run the country? The 2022 salary and MRA (Members Representational Allowance) is prox. $1.5mil, so, 335 Reps. X $1.5mil = half a billion dollars in savings.

 

This is an idea I could get behind. You know why we need 85,000 more IRS agents? So they can suck more of our hard earned money out of you and I…. At what point do we get to have some oversight on how these elected lumps of poo spend it?

 

While there would be a benefit to reducing the number of bloat in government (all sorts of federal and state government departments could be reduced in size), reducing the number of reps in the House isn't as clear.

First of all, the house is supposed to be composed proportionally to the population of each state. Also, the House isn't meant to confer as much power to any individual as the senate. If we were to reduce the numbers, it would have to be done proportionally by state (and that might be a challenge given that some states only have one rep). We might also increase the power of certain reps while diminishing their accountability to the people.

I'd be open to hearing some proposals but we must take into account the pros and cons. And a change like this would require a law-something that might be difficult since the members impacted would be voting (same issue we see with term limits-few incumbents are willing to vote themselves out).

 

Article 1, sec, 2 of the Constitution reads:

"No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."
"and who shall not"...??????? Stated so not to infringe upon States Rights?
Cannot find anything relating to this.

I say two Reps/state.

Membership cap in the House was set at 435 by the Reapportionment Act of 1927.
Gerrymandering was left to the discretion of the States.
I say, since Washington, D.C. is within the state of Virginia's boundaries, the residents should be considered to reside in the State of Virginia and added to the voter rolls.
Limit the number of Representatives per state to two. Adopt term limits of two years and a maximum of two terms total for life.
Eliminate PACS, lobbyists and special interest groups.

I will also add Senators to the mix. Two year terms with a maximum of two terms total for life.
Any members committing provable lies will be subject to a potential felony conviction.

It's time to get rid of the deadwood and hangers-on.

 

A six year term for Senators is in the Constitution, so that would take plenty of effort to change.
Changing the number of Reps in the House would take a new law passed by Congress and signed by the President. That would be easier than changing the Constitution for Senators but still difficult (given that members would be voting themselves out). If there was some movement on it, the party in control would try to write the law in such a way as to increase their chances of keeping a majority.

 

It is worded correctly. You are placing the emphasis of the negative incorrectly. Read carefully. Place the emphasis on the opening words of the paragraph, to wit:

"...No person shall be a Representative who SHALL NOT (emphasis added for clarity) ..". Thus, the negative is a positive requirement of the Representative to be an Inhabitant of that State. Old English usage.

This is clarified in the Federalist Papers pg. 326. Pg 371 clearly defines that the language of qualifications is fixed in the Constitution and are unalterable by the legislature.

I hope this helps to explain the language.

 

Correct regarding Senators.
Revised: One, six year term total for life.

We have 535 individuals in Congress (Senate and House) forming committees to determine the proper direction for unscrewing a light bulb or how much CO2 is emitted for each croak of a bullfrog (both not necessarily true), but I think you get my meaning. This Country is in serious trouble and the output needed from Congress is tied up in factions serving their own agendas.What about "We the People" and the state of our Republic?

 

I hear you. There is plenty that I would want to cut too. Reality says that it will be very difficult. Something that we have more control over is picking better representatives. We need to better vet candidates and not fall into the trap of reelecting incumbents who have betrayed our trust.

 

This is a terrible idea. It would change the country from a representative republic into a leftists wet dream. For example, Texas would have two representatives elected by the leftists in Houston, Austin, and the Dallas/ Fort Worth metroplex. The leftist cities across the nation will be the only ones relevant to presidential elections. Want that? Look at the blue and red map:



The Founders realized this and that is why we are a representative republic.

I agree that the 535 are wasting our money and are disconnected with those that they represent. So why don’t we pass an amendment that says they only convene once a year for only 60-90 days with no breaks? Some states do this. Require them to stay in their districts/states for the remainder of the year so they can answer to their constituents. There are many other things that would keep them in line but this would be a great start.

 

I think for the most part that many do enter public life with honorable intentions. It is the political machine that corrupts them once they are there. Once you compromise the first time it is akin to the first shot of heroin that starts an addicts decline…. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

Those are good reasons for term limits and only reporting to the house/senate for only a limited time each year.

 

The biggest problem in Rhode Island, and I imagine in most states, is voter ignorance followed by gullibility, then apathy. We are a traditional union run state and most Democratic voters tow the party line. Voters should be asking incumbents, "What have you accomplished for the citizens of (insert state) to warrant a second term" and asking the new wannabes,"What are your goals for the citizens of (insert state)?"
My wife asked a newbie, who was campaigning for a Senate seat while walking through a local County Fair, "What are you planning to do about our polluted bay?" His response as he walked past us was, "Yes, that is something that should be looked into" then scurried away with his "handlers." His name? Jack Reed. He chose not to stop and address my wife directly. He did not get our votes, yet still won election (too many damn Democrats).
To paraphrase Edgar Allen Poe, Believe nothing you hear and only ten percent of what you read especially in today's journalistic environment.

 

Just came across this image...

 

Thread title . . . It's time to reduce the number of Representatives in Congress.

I guess I feel differently. I'm fine with the number of representatives in both the House and the Senate. Instead, I think . . .

It's time to reduce the number of Representatives in Washington.​

.​