We have been talking about the power and problems associated with Congress over the course of American History, and I have said on a few occassions, "Imagine how less efficient it would be if the size of the House of Representatives got bigger and bigger as it was supposed to instead of being capped at 435 members!" After reading this article, I find myself reconsidering things. Read the article below by Brian Flynn and argue for or against the specific solutions that he suggests (not the general idea to make Congress bigger, but the specific ways that a bigger Congress could be made more efficient through modern technology). Your response needs to be thoughtful and persuasive, not mere ranting or rhetoric. Minimum word count is 500 words and this post is going to be worth 50 points. DUE March 18 by midnight.Saturday, March 10, 2012
APUSH - Can Bigger Really Be Better? Saving American Democracy through Technology
We have been talking about the power and problems associated with Congress over the course of American History, and I have said on a few occassions, "Imagine how less efficient it would be if the size of the House of Representatives got bigger and bigger as it was supposed to instead of being capped at 435 members!" After reading this article, I find myself reconsidering things. Read the article below by Brian Flynn and argue for or against the specific solutions that he suggests (not the general idea to make Congress bigger, but the specific ways that a bigger Congress could be made more efficient through modern technology). Your response needs to be thoughtful and persuasive, not mere ranting or rhetoric. Minimum word count is 500 words and this post is going to be worth 50 points. DUE March 18 by midnight.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Audrey, this a generalized response to the idea of making Congress bigger, which is not what I want you guys to do. I want you to respond to the specific ideas that Flynn suggests that have to do with how modern technology can make Congress bigger and more efficient. Please submit a posting that is responsive to my request.
Brian Flynn has brought up a point that many Americans seem to complain about rather than do something about. We all know that congress is not at it’s best lately. The question we need to be asking is not why, but how can we fix it? For if Congress is a representation of the “People”, shouldn’t it be up to the people to fix it? We live in a growing global world. We are all connected by technology that is at our fingertips. Why is Congress not using it? As much as the United States has advanced, there are still some areas where it is set in its old ways. Congress is at the same number of members since 1929. The population has more than doubled since then. The rest of the nation realizes this, and has created tools like Facebook and twitter in order to stay connected in a country that is growing by the minute. Yet the people who represent us are still sitting in a crowed room bickering amongst themselves as if it was 1776. There is no way that the growing number of people a congress member must represent are being represented thoroughly. If congress were to communicate through technology, for example in a situation similar to Skype, where they can still see each other, things would be done much more efficiently. This would allow for Congress to change, not only in efficiency, but in diversity as well. Congress is currently made up of rich Republicans and Democrats, leaving no room for anyone of different viewpoints to take part and represent the 40% of the population, which is neither Republican nor Democrat. If congress were to be removed from their showcase of a room and spread out, more people would be able to join. The reason for the 435 max is because there isn’t enough room for them, spatially, and because many believe that it would become chaotic. Flynn challenges that by stating that U.K. House of Commons consists of 90,000 members and is still able to function. The United States has a significantly greater population in comparison to the U.K. and yet they are have more representation! Another example outside of government was Amazon.com. There is not one center headquarters for Amazon, but there is a worldwide connection. If business is successfully connection virally, why can’t the United States government? If the U.S. were to expand through technology, it would rival governments worldwide, even more than it already is. Many would also that more representation is not necessarily better representation. This is a viable statement, however one needs to question whether or not one man or woman can represent thousands of people well. If enlarging the number of congress members is out of the question, why not still connect through technology. The main reason congress’ approval rating is 10% is because it fails to get anything done. I would challenge any group of 435 people with a “common purpose” to gather in one crowded room and try to get something done. I doubt it would work. And since technology is getting faster and faster, is this not the way to go to get this situation, or any situation for that matter done? Until the day Congress decides to emerge into the 21st century, the American people will have to do something about it. If an American can get over millions of people to pay attention to a problem in Africa, we can fix our problems here in America the same way.
The United States of America, supposedly the greatest democracy in the world, but the king is not immortal or infallible, eventually the king will grow old and outdated still clinging to an age gone by while the world around him has evolved and passed him up. This is America and we still clasp our fists around our system, maintaining the ailing's vitality by supporting its outdated policies, just as an animal evolving to survive so must our government change to suit the modern era we are living in. Do not take this as a condemnation of America, this is as patriotic as one can be continuing the founding fathers legacy of change, this nation was founded on people wanting more so I do not think its unpatriotic to ask for more now. Our government has become alienated from the will of the people, and this is not a new trend, Grover Cleveland and Herbert Hoover both believed that though the people support the government the government should not support the people, what is this? The people are the only reason that the government has any power without the consent of the people government is meaningless. This growing divide is apparent in all levels of government, but most readily in the house which according to Madison is supposed to be representative of the people, now they no longer serve the interests of the people but of the parties and corporations that pull the strings. This is a disease that must be purged from our government returning control to the people. Bryan Flynn argues that the current system is broken stating that, “With each member of Congress representing a very large number of people, representatives receive tremendous attention from special interests. It is relatively easy for these groups to buy the support of the 218 members it takes to pass a bill, and congressional seats have increased in value as the economy and government have grown.” This is absolutely the case and this flaw needs to be rectified the house must represent the people and not those with enough money to purchase votes. He goes on to argue that, “The real resistance to congressional reform is Congress itself. The Democratic and Republican parties enjoy a duopoly: No third party, or even a faction within the parties, can disrupt their stranglehold, especially when redistricting and gerrymandering have created solidly Democratic and Republican seats.” This is part of the reason that our system is so broken, the strict two party system where you are either liberal or conservative why can we not just have a normal person, why do we have to draw an imaginary line and choose sides. We no longer choose candidates based on the candidates themselves but based on the animal they stand in front of, a war of the roses with no reason behind it other than the other side is supposedly wrong. “The result is that members and even candidates continue to reflect the more partisan positions of the party, regardless of the will of the people. Although roughly 40% of Americans describe themselves as independent, Washington continues to be driven by the right- and left-wing believers who form the base of each of the parties, resulting in acrimony and stalemate.” If the people had more of a voice in the government perhaps we would have more sane leaders, if forty percent of the American population is non-partisan why is this statistic not reflected in our elected government officials.
Flynn's solution would be to increase the number of representatives to closer reflect the will of the masses, increasing the number to around three thousand, “The idea of 3,000 or more members of Congress, constituting a Washington-based power elite, would scare people if we continue to apply the 1780s approach to governing. But our government needs to evolve to reflect the world we live in. What if members of Congress went to Washington quarterly for two week conventions? The rest of the time they could live in their districts, using widely adopted technologies to collaborate and vote online. It is ridiculous that a member must be "present" to cast a vote in Congress in 2012.” This is the modern world, and thus it should also be the modern government, not the 18th century government, we are putting our nation's government in an artificial time stop trying to cling to the good 'ol days when congress could realistically have this number of representatives. Why should technology not be implemented into government, we are hindering progress by remaining in the status-quo, eventually progress overtakes all and drowns those who still stand in its way. Flynn continues his argument with a policy that would make representative less susceptible to corruption, “The role of a member of a much larger Congress should be part-time, making it more attractive for people of varying backgrounds to run. Most importantly, in most districts it would no longer require millions of dollars to get elected, so members would be less likely to be corrupted.” This would make government represent the people and get real people in government rather than professional politicians who lie with silver tongues, we need real people, people with real opinions, people with real voices, people with genuine smiles and genuine emotion not people with everything calculated to appeal to everyone who have everything but a spine and honesty. Flynn counters those who would contest this large number of representatives as being prone to gridlock, “Many might argue that such a large number would lead to gridlock based on sheer numbers. Really? More unproductive than where we are today? Properly used technology can enable large numbers of people to collaborate effectively, as they do in some leading corporations. For example, Amazon.com operates a disparate group of businesses around the world with very few physical meetings in headquarters.” This indecisiveness is debilitating our democracy with representatives being to afraid to take action because of fear of offending a portion of the population leading us to do nothing as we slowly suffocate, but that is okay as long as the they get elected for another term. At this point Amazon.com looks quite a bit more effective at running its operation than the American government, so why should a system that enable them to better function not be implemented into our government to allow them to better perform their function, serve the people. The United States of America's government is composed of many separate parts each connected and interlocked like the individual organs of an animal and just as an animal must adapt to survive in a changing environment so must the United States of America's government change to survive in the ever changing world that we inhabit.
As the U.S. progresses changes must be made in order to maintain an American Government that parallels the growth of the American society. Brian Flynn's argument towards a bigger and part time Congress effectively addresses the needs of today's society. This new Congress would shrink the corruption and monopoly of congressmen over seats within congress while increasing Congressional production and the voice of the American public. With representatives speaking on behalf of an immense number of people, the power of the position has also become immense. Due to this it has become less of a position to serve the district they represent and more of a position to gain political power, a greater status, and wealth. Flynn's idea brings in representatives concerned with the well being and voice of the people in their district as the incentive of being part of the select few 435 is gone. In addition, election of representatives would be based off of their ability to gain their small district's approval, and less about publicity and the use of money for the campaign. Congressmen themselves would have no ability to use corrupt methods to gain the majority in Congress as it would be too large to ever control the vote of that many people. The increase of representatives would create a more productive Congress able to support the people as needs be. With a smaller Congress there is a constant struggle as all people must get their opinion in, whereas if there was a larger House of Representatives there could be no chance for every person to address the subject and instead representatives would each vote for what they agree with. This is very much like how millions of Americans can cast their vote during elections and the nation is able to come to a consensus as to what decision should be made. In addition Flynn's idea of a more "part-time" Congress would support the need for a greater voice of the "forgotten man". As representatives take leave to their home districts, they are then able to be within their community to listen and address what the people truly want. It may seem as unsettling to change the government constructed by our "Founding Fathers" however on multiple occasions this has already taken place. The 17th amendment caused direct election of senators, the 20th amendment created an earlier start for presidency, and the argument itself for more representatives is against the change in the size of Congress from an act in 1929. Flynn's argument is a thoughtful idea that deserves to be addressed by the American people. To create a modern Congress with reduced corruption and monopoly and to form a more productive Congress with the voice of the people Flynn's idea should be integrated.
There are times when change is necessary: Change for the better, change for efficiency, and change for the people. Congress supposedly must represent the people. The sole purpose of the establishment House of Representatives was intended to embody the will of the people. Congress has come to the point where it has forsaken its purpose. And as Brian Flynn poses the question, “How did our national legislature get to the point where only 10% of Americans approve of it actions,” he presents in his argument that Congress no longer represents the people and has not for an extended period of time. This statement is quite contradictory to the foundations America has been built upon, “the city on a hill.” Flynn suggests the idea of increasing the number of members in the House, but the idea of 3,000 or more tends to frighten and sound ludicrous to many. When you think about the ratio, 1 member per 100,000 people, the amount of representatives still seems insufficient to accurately voice out the interests of individual citizens. Brian Flynn does make a point; Congress wants to stick with the status quo. We could increase the size of Congress. It would not hurt…well at least I don’t think so. And hey, if it goes haywire cap it back to 435 members until we can “unearth” a better solution to fix this predicament we are currently in. I mean, I’m no political guru, but if some things are not working properly then maybe it is possibly time for change. With modern technology at its peak, we have no excuse to remain unconnected. With just a click of a button you can chat with someone halfway across the globe, you can even see them on your screen. Cell phones, computers, and social networking sites: you name it; it brings people together (other than food)! Technology may not be able to literally “save” American democracy, but it can definitely contribute to cooperating and communicating successfully. Holding conferences via satellite can enable the members to spend the rest of their time living in their districts. Whether big or small, if we properly use the technological resources we have available, we can have people collaborate effectively.
Due to the lessening amount of representation of the people, Flynn argues that the reason is self-interest and power. The influence of desire can often be stronger than the will to do what is right. Of course, those who hold the power and get what they want would not want to change a thing. But on the other side of the fence, would increasing the number of members increase the corruption as well? Increasing the number of members could mean risking the chance of the number of people contending for authority. Again, whether big or small the hunger for power will always be present in society and competition has been and remains a key self-motivator to many. I may sound like a hypocrite, but there are two sides to my argument. If Congress is larger than it presently is, that would mean that the government would spend more money than it currently is to pay for these Congressmen and women and representatives. Plus, with more members means more technological devices to purchase. Clearly, with about $13 trillion of debt, America has no more room in its economy to spend money like there is no tomorrow. It all boils down to whether what kind of characters these representatives have and who we choose to vote for. Americans “want government to work efficiently, represent them well, provide some collective services, and solve problems” for the nation. Whether there is plenty or few, if the politicians are carefully and sincerely listening to the voice of the people, the “needs” of the American people would be better met and problems would be solved. Apparently, congressional reform is as quite a controversial issue in American society and has as much impact as news about the Middle East, Keeping Up With the Kardashians, and Lady Gaga’s outrageous wardrobe.
Marissa and Camden, very cogent and thoughtful reflections on the article and its main suggestions. You clearly get it and that is good. I wonder if you will carry this idea into your civic discourse in the future. Will you become advocates for this substantial change to how we do politics in this country?
Cassel, I am glad that you supplemented your first post with one that was far more responsive to the prompt itself. I am not going to fault you for this because you are trying to dig into things and prefer to work through your thoughts as you go rather than put it all together before you post. Much of my writing in high school and early college was of the same type, a lot of exploration because I was trying to work things out in my own head. It is partly for students like you and me that I shifted into the blog format for these kinds of writes. Will you become an advocate for this new way of doing politics?
Nikka, excellent response. Somehow we got crossed in submitting, so don't think I was leaving you out. You must have posted right as I was finishing mine and so I was right behind you. As I asked the others: will you carry this idea into your civic future? Will you be an advocate for it?
The American House of Representatives today is much different from how it was when first created, more than 200 years ago. Today, the number of House members has been capped at 435 members to preserve representation from the American people. During American government history, this number has grown from about 65 members in the beginning as the population in America increased. Finally, as the number of House members kept increasing, Congress enacted the Reapportionment Act in 1929, to exact a number of House representatives. According to the link, each member represents approximately 700,000 Americans. More representation would occur, if the House were to expand, however, any decision made by the House would take that much longer to reach a verdict by almost 3,000 people. It is still so hard to come to an agreement for anything in Congress because each representative wants to support the people they represent, while still aiming to drag it out in order to be elected again. All of the representatives right now refuse to really represent, partially because there will always have to be compromise in their job, but also because that is the definition of politics. The whole game is to receive as much support as possible without fully fulfilling them in order to gain more support. As a result, people like Brian Flynn attempt to persuade the American people to increase the number of House members, when, in reality, it would deepen the hole that American politics is in, and would continue the degradation. Brian Flynn also tries to convince us that voting via internet will help the increasing of the House members. It is the 21st century, and the iPad has been a transforming mode of technology around the world, however, there are cautions. This will increase the time in which decisions were being made. Voting through Skype or email, especially with 3,000 plus members, in which each would have to be contacted and verified, would be much more inefficient than meeting once with every member, and fully counted. There can also be problems with technology. Every day, Americans hear of stolen identities and false IP addresses and hackers. There is no real block against any hacker or virus that would attack a very important decision being made from the government. If Flynn actually considered the cautions rather than just think of a random answer, he would soon discover that his “idea” is severely flawed. There is absolutely no way that the House of Representatives can involve any more members that is currently holds now. The decisions made now are too slow because of the politicians themselves rather than actually focusing on their jobs. Technology as well has too many risks in which voting could tamper with those decisions that there is no possible way in which it would work. As much as Brian Flynn has a persuasive argument with a seemingly possible answer to a very complicated question, the American government will never be a perfect system. No perfect system exists on earth. The answer, however, will never result in expanding the House of Representatives to more than 3,000 members.
Brenna, is the answer, as you seem to suggest by not offering an alternative, to allow the ratio of representative to people to continue to expand so that there is an ever greater disconnect between the voter and his or her representative? The House of Representatives has made use of technology to increase its efficiency over simple paper ballot voting in the chamber with the use of electronic voting devices accessed by registered key-cards by each member. Technology already plays a role in trying to improve certain processes, but that technology is not necessarily addressing the growing problem of the disparity between those elected and those represented. Members of Congress are paged, texted, emailed, tweeted, you name it, but that just creates a flood of information that one representative is still expected to handle, and that flood will simply grow if the disparity of the ratio is not addressed. What is your alternative?
This is one of those times where we must reconsider what we have known in order to evolve into a better country. Congressional approval is low and therefore a problem. Bryan Flynn has proposed that the solution is to increase the population of congress in order to increase representation. If this proposal does in fact boost the effectiveness of our government then we need to implement it. So the question becomes: Will it boost our governments effectiveness? The main problems with congress are its members and its lack of efficiency. I have no doubt that the addition of members will increase representation and help get rid of the system we have of electing crooks to congress. My worry is efficiency. Can 10,000 members of congress effectively collaborate and result in progress? The U.K. house of commons seems to accomplish things with 90,000 people so that’s reassuring. Probably the better argument is the age we live in. If we changed to having 10,000 people in congress, we would not need a coliseum because we live in the technological age. Like large corporations do, congress members could associate through the internet, in video services that would resemble Skype. As we technologically advance there will be more inventions adding to the support of long distance collaboration; an example would be holograms like the ones in star wars, which are in development and have even been demoed in front of large crowds. So the problem isn’t congressional attendance because technology has the solution to that problem. My worry is that congress won’t be able to function properly with 10,000 people. Knowing that my sister and I can’t ever agree I have trouble visualizing four hundred people agreeing, much less ten thousand. However congress still finds a way to collaborate, but not produce results that benefit Americans. So really the problem comes back to Americans being accurately represented. Democracy is the political system of giving power to the people and that is what our government is, a democratic government. If you take the power to the people concept the extreme you end up with direct democracy, in which every person plays a direct role in politics. The reason direct democracy does not work is because not every man is informed and educated in politics enough to help run government, in fact most are not. So when Brian Flynn proposes more members of congress he is taking us to the happy medium of the common mans representation. More people in congress means more representation and at the same time if we can find people that are wise and knowledgeable in the political field we will also have a government that is smarter and more supportive. This idea if applied will step us in the right direction but not create a perfect government. You can hope to advance government but you can’t hope to cure it of all problems. However I believe the problems are the corruption of the people in their political offices and that is something that can be suppressed using methods such as increasing the amount of members in the house.
Wow, it is about 15 minutes to midnight and more than half of the class has still not done their blog entry. I sent out reminders to parents and reminded you all in class several times, some of you individually. I can't help you if you won't even help yourself. Education is not a one-way street.
About five minutes to go and still no new postings except mine. Most unfortunate.
TIME! Too bad so many of you neglected to do this blog entry.
Ok now! Hold up Mr. K. In my defense, I started working on this blog lonnnggg before midnight but I realized that I'm not for this, I'm against it so I erased everything I had and wrote something that I actually agree with. I swear. BIBLE. Promise!!!!!
I do believe in a need for Congressional reform, but Brian Flynn’s proposal is far-reaching and easier said than done. 3000 plus members sound good on paper but the reality is much different. With 435 House members the legislative process is already grindingly slow. It takes months, even years for a bill to slowly climb its way up the mountain of conflict and bargaining that the hundreds of representatives have built. Now Flynn proposes to inflate this number to a lofty 3000 members. Can you imagine the conflict this would create? With so many districts now individualized, now the true voice of the public would be heard! Well, the public has many voices. So many voices that sooner or later would cause massive quarrels with each other and butting heads of interests. Now the hobbling legislative machine would slow down to a crawl.
The proposal of electronic meeting has its benefits but the cons outweigh the pros. For one, there is the potential security risk. Many nefarious governments and individuals would use the online committees as a chance to violate the privacy of our representative process. Two, such meetings are impersonal and mar the spirit and tradition our forefathers intended it to be. Yes, with our new technology things could be made more convenient, but fighting for a bill on the floor is a personal and delicate process that is better done face-to-face than through a bright screen.
Flynn does the damage of comparing our governmental system to that of Iraq’s. He states that even “Iraq's legislature is seven times more representative than our federal government.” Well, Flynn, last time I checked Iraq isn’t exactly the pinnacle of human civilization, and I’m pretty sure they don’t own a trillion dollar economy like us. He then attempts to compare our infinitely complex and diverse operations of our government to the structure of a company on the internet that sells earmuffs and televisions. To compare a countries governmental system to a glorified pawn shop website is both trivial and simple-minded. Running a country is completely different not to mention incredibly more sophisticated.
Some say if we did try this 3000+ House and it didn’t work then we could just go back to our old system. Well, one doesn’t just make a u-turn in a governmental process concerning the whole nation and its people on such an intimate level. Switching back would take an unprecedented amount of time. I mean, just look at how long it took to consider reformation.
Again, I’m not against Congressional reform, I am just against Flynn’s ideas of it. Yes I do agree that our Congress should do a better job of representing the interests of our people. But really, Flynn? Online chatting? Iraq? Amazon? You could’ve done better.
Brian has a good point in his article how many of us Americans complain more than takiong action. The Congress of the United States has not been doing that very well lately and the problem is not asking why but how to fix this small problem. Everyday our world is growing with new people. If the Congress's job is to represent the people why did they stop? I believe that if we do add more members to Congress it could help Congress get back on their feet and start representing the people again. We have had the same ammount of Congress members since 1929. We use modern technology everyday in our lives and it would make more since if Congress has internet meetings such as using skype or other programs to see each other from wherever the members are. Still people are argueing amongst themselves like if we were back at our four fathers still deciding on the Declaration of Independence. By adding more members to Congress I believe that our economy would be better to have more minds to think of new ideas. Our Congress is filled with super rich Republicans and Democrats who argue with each other everyday of can't agreeing on just a simple topic. While looking at representation though we have a bigger population than some other countries even countries who have a smaller population has more representation than the United States. By using skype through meetings more members can join congress. It probally wouldn't happen but if the Congress can sit in a room together and decide on a topic, agreeing with each other for once. There are some successful online buisness's and companies who use the internet, why can't the members of congressstart using online resources. I believe in adding more members we can get the job done faster. If other countries can do this I think the United States can also. Brian Flynn was talking in his article that the U.K. has a total of 90,000 members in Congress and if functioning quite well. The reason why hardly is ever getting done in Congress because no one agrees with each other. It is time for the Congress itself move and live into the the 21st century just like everyone else did, until they do the people of the United States will just have to do something. My question is why isn't the Congress not using what's in front of them that they probally use everyday. Most Congress members are filthy rich making billions and a problem of adding more members is to make less money than they are already making adn lose some power that they already have. But come on why can't they be members that are doing this for the greater good, why does everything have to be about having power and money. The members have to be elected like all others running for a certain title. But when the members are trying to get the people's vote most of what their saying is not true but it isn't a big suprise at all, our world is just like that. But I still go with my opinion of adding more members to Congress I believe that it will for the better and I don't really care if the members lose a small amount of cash or lose some power, the members are supposed to represent the people.
Brian Flynn made a good point in his article that Congress should increase itself in numbers in order to properly represent the population of the United States. Right now, Congress wastes valuable time due to arguments. I believe that if by adding more members to Congress, more arguments would take place. By adding more members there would be more topics to argue about, and there would be even more men in one room. Some people think that by adding more members to congress, more business would be taken care of. This is not necessarily the case, there would be more ideas and more arguments. Brian Flynn thinks that by adding more members to congress, The people would be represented more eqyually. But this is how congress has be operating since day one, why would it not work now? This is how our founding fathers wanted it to be, who are we to change it just because of technology? Yes, using technology would be easier to some congress men because you can have conference calls which allows people to meet when they're in different places. Allowing each congressman their personal space, generally meaning less stress. This would be a good idea except technology is not always reliable. You can not always use the internet. But, from another point of view, the United Kingdom's House of Commons functions pretty well with about 90,000 members. And having more members means that you can represent individuals more equally. More opinions would be listenend to and more ideas could be proposed. Which is also what congress is for. By adding more members to the United States Congress would truely be for the people. Using more people to represent the people would be more sufficient to our capitalist country. Since the congress is for the "people", should the people not be able to decide what the congress should be all about? Right now the congressman to people ratio is not considered effecient. There's about 700,000 people to one congressman, which is approximately the population of one city. Congressmen think that if they add more people their social status wouldn't be as "important" and that their financial interest would decrease. Most of the congressmen today are millionares and they are being seriously selfish. Congressmen get elected to get paid millions of dollars to dress in fancey suits, sit in comfy chairs and argue without coming up with any solutions. Even though the population of the United States has greatly increased since the very beginning, Congress has not grown that much.
Scratch the other one I posted….
Brian Flynn believes that Congress should expand in its numbers and that it should be a part time occupation. I think that this should not be done. Right now, it takes Congress a tremendous amount of time for them to get things done due to arguing and lack of agreement between Republican and Democratic parties. By adding more members I believe this would cause even more disagreement. The more people, the more opinions and ideas there are to be decided on. The general belief is that a larger Congress will accomplish more than a smaller Congress. I think that this will only add to the chaos. It is harder to get more people to agree on one topic. Flynn suggests technology is the solution to this problem. He believes that by expanding Congress through technology, the people will have a stronger voice. He thinks that they will accomplish more and please the people. The manner that Congress has been using for over two hundred years has worked up until now, so why should we not stick to the status quo? Adding more people, this would make it not ‘of the people’ but the people themselves. This would make our government appear Socialistic, which would contradict our Capitalistic society. It just would not work. We could also look at this from a different perspective: increase the number of Congress members. Flynn believes that by this increase, more peoples opinions would be voiced and the Congress truly would be ‘of the people’. But is this the best decision? As of now, the ratio between a Congressman and the people he represents is not efficient. With the few members that we currently have, it gives the ‘celebrity status’ to Congressmen instead of getting elected to support the people, they get elected to be millionaires and sit in fancy chairs and argue with out results. Are these the kind of people we want leading and guiding our country? People who are focused on their own benefits tend not to look at the bigger picture: how their decisions affect everyone in the country. Nearly a century ago was the cap of four hundred and thirty five members enacted. It is time for a change. The population has more than doubled since then and there is no way the representation accurate of 1929, is accurate now. With the original representation of one member to 33,000, the total members would be nearly 10,000 members. Well 10,000 people in the Congress Building would never fit. This is a situation that can be fixed by technology. With programs such as Skype and others, meetings could be held with out everyone being in the same room or anywhere near each other. Some people may argue that working with this many people would be completely impossible. Look at the House of Commons in the United Kingdom: It consists of about 90,000 members! The Iraqi government is at 100,000 people per representative. Both of these governments have it together and are able to get things done so who’s to say that it would never work with us? Should we increase Congress or leave it how it has been since 1929?
I don't know where some of you guys are getting the number that the current House of Commons has 90,000 members. It has 650 members as of the 2010 election. That is 215 more members than the House of Representatives for a total population of just over 62 million, whereas the United States has 435 House members for a total population of over 313 million. Thus, there is far more representation in England than there is in the United States by population. So, don't know where you are getting this number. Google is a nice help to finding out stuff in terms of fact checking.
A bit of population trivia to keep things in perspective:
The United States is the third largest country by population in the world behind China (#1) and India (#2). Russia has only half the population of the United States despite being more than twice our geographic size. China is about the same geographic size of the United States, although most of it is high desert, and it's population is nearly 4 times the size of ours - that is, about 4 Chinese for every 1 American.
The population of California is about 3 million people more than the ENTIRE population of Canada (#35) on the population list. That means that California alone ranks with other sizeable nations on the planet.
The top two states by population in America are California (#1) and Texas (#2), and there are about 12 million more Californians than there are Texans. Wyoming is the smallest state by population, with just over half a million people in it.
If you combined Wyoming, Washngton DC, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Delaware, Montano, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Maine, Hawaii, and Idaho, you would have about 1/3 of the population of California distributed among these 12 states and the District of Columbia.
It counts to be in California!
Somehow, I let this slip my mind over the weekend. This is unlike me (I’m usually amongst the first to post), so I must ask (or plead) for forgiveness, try not to let it happen again, do my best to make-up for my lateness, and not put-off 'till tomorrow what I should have done yesterday:
The expansion of the House could be dramatically improved through the use of technology both socially and economically. Socially, internet communication would improve the ability for an expanded House to be able to vote from remote locations; and economically, such a system would save money, time, and oil. Thus for social and economic reasons, the technological modernization of America’s government would increase efficiency for an expanded House.
Socially, the government could use web-based technology to make communication easier from remote locations if expansionism in the House were to occur. Although the founding fathers predicted and planned for a growth in the population, they did not foresee a population growth as big as the one that exists today, according to Bryan Flynn, and thus they capped the house at 435 members. Nor did they predict the advances in technology happening today, and thus did not implement ideas for improving or advancing the governmental system technologically once the population growth exceeded the foreseen number. Although “properly used technology can enable large numbers of people to collaborate effectively,[…]” the government, being that it is the government and not some third-party privately-run business such as “…Amazon.com…”, the government is not going to succumb to a typical third-party telecommunications or chat-room website such as Skype or DimDim. Those would not be secure or reliable enough for a corporation as prestigious as the government. Instead, the House would require its own secured official webcam-communications system, requiring taxpayer money and time for the development of such a site. Such suggestions for improvement would be a pleasure to use, but they are not without their share of labor in the implementation process.
Economically, an expansion of the House could save money through the correct use of modern-day technology. It is true that computers are already in place today at almost every governmental office, including, for example, the Department of Motor Vehicles. Flynn ridicules the necessity “…that a member must be "present" to cast a vote…” Though the you-must-be-present-to-vote system probably has roots based in the traditional sense of government, citizens are already casting their ballots my mail and plans may soon be put in place for an internet-based ballot submission system, and thus even the private citizen does not need to be “present” to vote, much less leave their couch, even to deliver the ballot to the mail box as they would via a vote-by-mail. If the government were to implement this same online system for the House, the increase in efficiency would benefit all not only through the time and money saved from traveling, but also by saving gas and oil that would be otherwise used for the transportation of the House members, who would instead only be traveling “…to Washington quarterly for two week conventions…”.
There are times, however, when America needs to let go of traditional methods and modernize itself, especially in times of necessity and economic pressure such as the situations we find ourselves in today. These suggested improvements would increase the efficiency of the House on both a social and economic level. Socially, members would not have to be “present to vote” and could communicate via easier methods such as chat rooms; and economically, the money, time, and oil saved could outweigh the hardships of implementing such a process in the long-run. Therefore, both socially and economically, the expansion of the House would be made more convenient provided that modern-day technology, used correctly and efficiently, be put in its proper place in the government.
I apologize for my late entry on this blog Mr. Korling! As I was sick I inadvertently let it slip my mind, I know that isn't a valid excuse, but regardless, I'm sorry.
In regards to the question of utilizing modern technology for the benefit of better representation of the citizens of the United States, Brian Flynn brings up an interesting topic. Moving forward on the assumption that everyone who has read this article and is a United States citizen agrees with the idea of increased representation in our DEMOCRACY government and advocates the eradication of corruption in government officials, the debate then becomes centered on the issue of how to feasibly connect such a large proposed congress (over 3,000 members.) Brian Flynn brings up the idea of having the various members of the House of Representatives vote through the use of technological aid. Expanding upon that idea, members of Congress could review proposed bills from the comfort of their districts and submit their respective votes online. This would allow not only greater ease in the voting over such bills, but would bring the congressman closer to the people he/she represents! For how can one accurately represent a population if the individual does not reside among the people he represents? In this proposed system the congressman could much more accurately represent "his" people's needs and desires. Furthermore, members could communicate with other congressmen through the aid of such technological tools as video chatting, through the use of applications of Skype on a computer or even on their smartphones with such applications as FaceTime! What a much more productive government we could have if only we used the tools we have at our disposal! For a brief second, if we allow ourselves to imagine an entire government that is constantly connected, constantly growing, moving on behalf of the people and the nation's requirements, we begin to catch a glimpse of a government that is truly modern, and truly an effective tool in the hands of the people! Such a government would allow the United States' status as the ideal of what all countries aspire to become to experience a revival that would once again catapult the United States to the forefront of the world's countries. Returning to the outlined proposal, countless other tools could be effectively used to connect a larger House of Representatives; such as tools that are doubtlessly already being used for the congressmen to communicate such as email, texting, and cellular communication, and tools that are constantly being created such as wireless data storage in applications such as iCloud, imagine a computer bank which could contain the uploaded content of every congressman, such as notes, revisions to bills, and drafts, and make it available to every member of the House?! Would that not be the ultimate culmination of newborn technology combined with our century-old American standards and practices for government? The expansion of the House of Representatives, ESPECIALLY with the aid of modern technology, possesses the potential to be a blessing, not a burden, to the United States government. Far from resulting in a gridlock due to numbers, such a House would aid the United States in returning once again to a true representative-based democracy.
In this article, Flynn’s fresh perspective on today’s congress in highly perceptive and logical, as well as reasonable and forward thinking. The idea that more government is needed is unappealing to most people as most people consider government to be powerful figures with bloated salaries. However Flynn’s idea that more government equals less power to the individual official is sensible. It is shocking to learn that each congress member represents 300,000 people. It is now understandable how most people can disagree with congresses actions; how is one person supposed to get the opinion from 300,000 people? They can’t, it’s unreasonable. Representation is key to the foundation of America and each American needs to be represented in congress today.
It’s understandable why congress members are against this, who would want to deliberately cut down their paycheck? But I agree wholeheartedly with Flynn that smaller paychecks will help prevent corruption. How can a congress member represent the common man when he has millions of dollars in his bank account? He will not begin to understand the problems that the middle class man faces in today’s nation. Furthermore elections will run a lot smoother and efficiently with more positions available. It is a little staggering to think of so many people in the House, but we either need to put more people in there, or create a new level of government with representatives under our current senators that can get direct thought from the people.
And while we cannot fit this many people into the Whitehouse, why do we need to? Is it really necessary for each senator to be physically present in order to cast a vote? In today’s technological world, most businesses communicate through video conferences and internet. It will save the taxpayers money to have them simply visit D.C. For a couple weeks a year and spend the rest of the time with the people they’re supposed to be representing and having conferences using modern technology to create a more efficient government. There are many governments who do this and as the superpower of the globe, we should have been the ones to introduce this new way of thinking to the rest of the world. We are the most powerful nation on Earth but we have an inefficient and illogically organized government. This needs to be fixed; it’s time for America to start speaking up for their rights promised by the constitution. Flynn has brought us an amazing new proposal that could change our nation for the better, helping us get more things done. I support Flynn’s plan with all my rights as a citizen(well technically minor) of America, and I will do my best to ensure a better future for my posterity.
Ruth Bozhko
Bryan Flynn sounds like another one of those angry Americans that just about finds any reason to rant about the government. Technology is great, but it does not serve an important purpose in government. Comparing our government to Amazon is a little ridiculous. Amazon and the American government have two very different jobs. In no way shape or form does Amazon makes laws that affect millions of people. The government could in fact benefit from a larger congress. And incorporating technology would add efficiency to the system, but there are limits. People that are interested in political news have many different ways to stay in the loop. The problem seems to be the communication between the members of congress. Adding more members to it would not be an immediate solution, the focus should be on the communication. Because if the members of congress have no communication amongst themselves, how in world are they supposed to communicate with the people they represent? Flynn also adds that the American government helped the Iraqi government set up a more “representative” system, suggesting that the American people were falling behind. First of all, this is a ridiculous statement; he compares our extremely successful country to an immensely corrupt one. The United States does not require any outside help to run smoothly, although we do have some corrupt individuals in power, the United States is an all around strong country. It is filled with many proud citizens who don’t have to worry about religious conflict, suppression, and everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed in our capitalist system. This proves that although Iraq indeed has a larger number of representatives in congress, in no way, shape, or form do they exceed the success of the United States. In my opinion, technology has little to do with the efficiency of congress. What our country needs to work on is getting the right representatives in power. The problem is the corruption that quickly travels through our government. It is all about the money, doing the right thing is not what is on these congressmen’s minds. Because the right thing might not always get them more voters, many just do what keeps them in office longer. It is the people’s responsibility to get the right kind of leaders in congress. Once we figure this out our country will prosper once more. Technology plays a major role in our lives today; it seems to be the fastest growing industry yet. We are slowly replacing people with robots and remotes. But the idea of incorporating this into government is simply ridiculous. We need our congressmen to make these decisions face to face and in harmony. Running a successful democracy is serious; this isn’t just another business where a simple Skype call fixes the latest dispute. This is congress! Their decisions affect millions of Americans everyday! So I think it is time for our leaders to shape up and take the responsibility of leading our democracy with some newfound integrity.
Congress should not increase in number of members period. Us as americans constantly complain rather than do something about it, as Brian Flynn points out and brings up a good point. I think technology can be a great option to solve this population growth problem and stay connected. We should never take that option too far because the technology has done plenty of worser outcomes to us as much as the positive. We have gotten carried away with it and our country has grown dumber each generation becuse of our reliability on that. It's made things faster and it is just the way of doing yhings. Recently I have not liked any of the decision congress has been making. More members creates less indivdual thoughts and probably, I would imagine some more laziness with dealing with situations. Just like a teacher who has to teach fourty eight students rather then a teacher who is teaching twenty four. Through every loop hole or whatever way you try and get around it, the classroom with twenty students will agree more efficiently, work out, and learn more. This part of the situation really convinces me to think it's a great option to bring in technology in order for congress to connect much better. We have online sites throughout the world such as facebook, twitter, instagram etc. to share and connect with whoever we want to. They should have that option to our congress in our own country, why not? Instead of the traditional meetings in the same room. We can do this, I'm sure, without taking the technolgy too far, because there is a great possibilty of scewing things up even further then we already are. But if we keep this option controlled to a certain point, I think it would make the congess's job much more profficient and the rest of the country would be satisfied.
Post a Comment