I would argue that you have to look at what is the current bar...Trump's shitshow with (three chiefs of staff in less than 2 years) hardly sets the bar for management excellence...and this is coming from the self appointed "greatest businessman and political mind ever"

The question wasn't about Trump, but congratulations it took exactly one post for you to make it about Trump.
#TDSisreal

---

I miss YaHey

No the question was about representative democracies ... and the implication was that business people are better financial stewards in my cursory reading of the post. My point is that premise is highly flawed in individual cases. So if you want to debate representative democracies we can go down that rabbit hole. I do think AOC holds a lot of the upper hand here in the argument as compared to more traditional politicians in regards to who are beholden to k street.

I don't know about being underrepresented but being a new congress critter would take some getting used to. And it would best be accomplished by asking for help and having a mentor. Both of those things take some humility. Not all new congress critters have much of that.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

It depends.

The single Wyoming rep represents 586k people. The two Wyoming senators represent only 273k people.
The 53 Californian reps represent 746k people each. The two Californian senators represent 19.8M people.
In the New Hampshire state house, each representative represents 3000 people!

I say no for the simple reason we don't need more politicians mooching off the system making 175K a year from our tax dollars and getting fat pensions and good healthcare.

I could do with fewer politicians. In the future we could just do away with all politicians and have a complete democracy where we put every issue to a vote. Surely we could come up with technology to have a simple (Text "yes" for this proposal, and text "no" for this proposal, everyone in the country gets a vote). Anyone in the country can submit a proposal for voting. Might have to clean up hacking issues to make it trustworthy but we can figure that out by 2035 or so surely.

Drain the swamp eh?

Is this in some way different than any other congresspeople?

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

was about to ask the same thing.

tell me what i'm supposed to be angry about, len!

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

I have zero idea how this works but it seems to me to not be a very effective use of a congressman's time to be managing staff. Seems like you would hire a chief of staff/office manager type person who would oversee the vast majority of this stuff?

The AOC thing was only the hook. The idea is, is it working for a congressperson (CP) to represent 800 K people. One of the problems is money in politics. This problem seems to be intractable. With the supreme court ruling that corps are people it seems like any effort to reduce the disproportion influence money has on CPs is doomed. CPs also spend on average 3 hours a day fundraising. They have to to have the money to run ads and expensive campaigns to get elected. They also will tell you that they have to give access to people who will donate big dollars vs ordinary constituents.

But what if each CP had a district of 80K people like in the UK and Canada? Campaigning would be more affordable. CPs would be closer to their voters. And it could be done without costing the gov't more money. Right now a CP gets 174K plus average 1.3 million for office expenses and travel. . But you could take the office expenses and use them to pay more CPs. You could for instance have 5 CPs each representing 150K people and each give them 250 K for office expenses and travel. Or you could go all the way and have 10 CPs and double the cost. The cost of CPs is a minor fraction of the cost of gov't. If they save 1 percent of the federal budget they would pay for themselves several times over.

There are some practical issues like where would you seat 2000 CPs in congress. But surely there is a tech fix for that. Some might argue that they cannot see 2000 people getting the work done efficiently. But I would argue the 435 people is way too many to get things done efficiently anyway.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

i think you actually have to pay BK royalties for using that move.

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

Mob vote rules isn't the answer either. When a tiny locations like New York or Los Angeles has so many votes compared to entire states, it is only natural that the power will gravitate to those tiny locations and rule the country by ruling those cities. I for one would not advocate that, despite the obvious problems with our current system.

LOL.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

Why does the physical size matter here? Shouldn't each vote count the same?

Well what about if they were tiny people? Do the people in the movie Downsizing still count as a full vote?

Can't quite figure out what VC is going for here. Does it just frustrate you that the big wide open spaces with no people don't get to rule the country?

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

It is already mob rule. California has 53 reps and seven states have only one. It changes little if California goes to 100. The small states are already swamped. Besides distribution of reps in the Senate addresses the mob rule problem.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

So minority rule is not a problem?