Tag Archives: Politics

General, Politics

Economist’s View: “Choosing the Optimal Number of Representatives in Modern Democracies”

Economist’s View: “Choosing the Optimal Number of Representatives in Modern Democracies”

Elaine pointed this article out to me.

The authors have plotted out the various democracies population/representative ratios  and have come up with an optimal number. Theirs is POP raised to 0. 4 power. Almost a square-root of the population. Based on the current US population of  300,000,000 that comes to 2460 representatives, about one representative per 122,000 citizens.  Very close to  the number in my previous discussion on this subject.

What I don’t quite agree with in their analysis is the inclusion of Senators or Peers or Upper House members as representatives. Using the US as an example, the Upper House, the Senate, represent the States and not the individual citizens. That is the role of the House of Representatives.

I thought that in most countries the Upper House represents regional groups in a similar manner as the Senate.  The Senate provides two representatives per State, independent of the size or population of the State. They are elected by the citizens of the State today, rather than being appointed by the State as they were initially. Should they still be considered State Representatives? or just some sort of super citizen representative? Presumably, the Senate can put the brakes on run-away populism and the ‘tyranny of the majority’ if the House gets a bee in its bonnet, but if both houses get a bee in the bonnet, then watch out.

I see from the article that determining an optimal number of representatives has been around for a while. It looks like the numbers are getting pretty solid. I’m not sure why their number for US representatives is so much lower than mine.  They say their model shows 807 combined Representatives and Senators, while my calculator shows raising the Population to the .4 power gives 2460. I think 807 is still way to low for a representative democracy of 300,000,000 citizens.

If I have used my calculator properly, 18,500,516 raised to the .4 power is 807.   The more I look at their numbers for other countries, I question the equation they are using.  They say France’s optimal number of Reps is 545, with a population of over 60 million, ( 1 rep/110,000) while Italy’s optimal number is 570 with  population of 58 million (1 rep/101,000). By my calculator that should be 1292 and 1275 respectively (1 rep/46,500 and 1 rep/45,500) Maybe I need to go back and take some remedial math courses and see if I can figure this out.  They mention a banana curve in the article (evidently a base-running technique) need to find out more on that.

Liberating Thoughts, Politics

Why?

I was down at the local Drinking Liberally meeting the other night and asked a general question of the group:

“Why should we have a government supported health care plan?”

Hillary’s health plan had just been recently announced.

I asked the question in all seriousness. I have been hearing of most of the presidential candidates proposing various versions of national heath care plans but I don’t remember hearing a discussion of the prerequisite  question: Why have national health care?

Continue reading Why? →

General

Partisanship?

Jonathan Chait laments the Broderization of American politics.

Bloomberg has … become the most prominent example of what you could call partisanship scolds. These are people who believe that disagreement is the central problem in U.S. politics, that both parties are to blame in equal measure, and that rejecting party ties or ideology is synonymous with the demonstration of virtue. While partisanship scolds believe that they stand in bold contrast to Washington, they are probably more heavily represented among the Beltway elite than any other demographic.

The official lobby of the partisanship scolds is a group called “Unity ‘08″ — a collection of graying eminences from both parties who are calling for a bipartisan presidential ticket, perhaps led by Bloomberg. Their rhetoric appears to be targeted at people who enjoy kittens, rainbows, and David Broder columns. Specifically, Unity ‘08 says its ticket will run on “ideas and traditions which unite and empower us as individuals and as a people.”

And if people didn’t have sincere disagreements over policy, this approach might even have value.

From the Carpetbagger Report via

What I see in American Politics today is the outright refusal of one side to even talk with the other.As long as one side has the majority, there doesn’t appear to be any reason to discuss policy with the minority. Even though merging ideas may produce a better policy. But then you would have to admit that your original policy wasn’t perfect to start with. And that’s a b-a-a-a-a-d thing.

One of our local state representatives remarks that when he first went to Denver, one of his majority neighbors across the aisle asked why he even bothered to show up. Of course, now, his neighbor isn’t in the majority.

I think the problem isn’t politics, but the total lack of it that is causing the legislative problems people perceive.

General, Politics

Aye, and there’s the rub…

“David is extremely principled and dedicated to doing what he feels is right, and can be a very tough customer when he perceives others as obstacles to achieving those goals,” Berenson said. “But it’s not personal in the sense that ‘I don’t like you.’ It’s all about the underlying principle.”

From a Washington Post Article

It is a fine and good thing when someone puts principle over personal good, especially in the public interest, to do what they feel is right and proper and to promote the right whenever possible.

Of course, in America, it would also be nice if that person had American principles and not some jingoistic notion of national pride, nor some principles based on a cult of personality. Some concept of democracy and a republic would be nice, plus some principles founded on the Bill of Rights.

But no, the principles of the Bush/Cheney White House seem to be anti-American and anti-democratic. They are willing to undermine the principles this country was founded on, in exchange for their notion of “protecting the American way of life” and for fantasized short-term political gains.

The idea of an “American way” has evolved and strayed so far from the original notions of the founders that the citizens don’t seem to realize what is happening to them. We citizens need to hold our government accountable. We are a government of the People, by the People, for the People. When someone says the government is bad, they are saying the people are bad. And the government that we need to hold accountable includes the Congress, starts with the Congress. The Executive branch, the President, doesn’t represent the People, Congress does. (And we have no idea of what the Vice-President is supposed to be doing to the People.) The Executive, the President, is supposed to execute the will of Congress – the representatives of the People.

I, for one, am getting sick and tired of this concept that people seem to be developing that we need to have a single person in charge. A single person that decides policy and implements it. Our Congress certainly seems to be leaning in that direction. A majority believe that our actions in Iraq are wrong but if the President wants to fund them, who are we to say nay?

Democracy is ugly, governments should be inefficient, and one-person rule is wrong.

Liberating Thoughts, Politics, Preparing for the worst

America, where are you now?

Avedon summarizes the results nicely.

America was founded on a number of liberal principles, including the rights to have the government show due cause to confine an individual, to be able to contest confinement. (along with a proscription for crual and unusual punishment) And these principles weren’t restricted to “Americans”. They are for all people.

And now, the US Congress, my representatives in Government, have authorized Government agents to kidnap, transport and confine US citizens without trial, in addition to having authorized those agents to kidnap, transport and confine people, without trial, from all around the world.

And both of my senators supported this shredding of America.

Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s right, or constitutional.

I imagine that Salazar will pull a Nighthorse Campbell now and switch parties.

General, Politics

Oath of office – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From Oath of office – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For other officials, including members of Congress, it specifies they “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution.” At the start of each new U.S. Congress, in January of every odd-numbered year, those newly elected or re-elected Congressmen – the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate – must recite an oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

I wonder if we could try the entire Congress for malfeasance?

Liberating Thoughts, Politics

What is a Representative Democracy?

It would appear that people have forgotten the principles of representative government and why we elect representatives to the Congress every two years.

The holders of those offices certainly don’t want the people to think about how they are not doing their jobs. They would prefer to distract ‘The People’ and point to irrelvant issues to consider.

Taken in the light of ‘The People’ governing themselves, I don’t see very many liberals on the National Political Scene. And it may be that you have to sell your soul to get to that level. ‘The People’ don’t seem to have much to say about critical federal items like debt-ceiling and deficits. Everything seems to be pork barrel politics; get the goods for your district and keep the voters happy, even if you have to compromise your principles by supporting someone else’s bill that doesn’t really impact your district anyway.

And it may be that people just aren’t paying attention to what the idiots in DC are doing this term, because at the Federal level there aren’t that many items that have a direct daily impact on people. How your representative voted regarding salmon fishing farms of the coast of Washington State probably doesn’t have much impact on the average citizen not on the coast of Washington State. But what sort of deals were cut to get that vote?

Maybe, in the global scheme of things, Salmon Fish Farming has a role. I think that is part of why representatives are in Washington. To get the information together that will alow them to make an informed vote and not a bought vote. Their vote should be for their constituents first, and for the US second, if they do’t see their constituency as being a primary player.

We don’t have a very representative democracy anymore, here in the USA. There is 1 person representing almost 1 million citizens in Montana. That doesn’t sound very representative to me. On average, each representative represents 650,000 citizens. That doesn’t sound very representive to me. I think one representative for every 100,000 citizens is a fair goal. It may get a bit chaotic on the Hill trying to get 50% of 3000 representatives to agree on something, but democracy isn’t pretty.

I would actually suggest that a 2/3 majority is needed to pass a federal law, but that might be going to far. I’m willing to compromise on 50%+. If you can’t get 67% of the representatives to agree on a budget, maybe there are some things in it that don’t belong there.

Politics

Tax Reform

I understand that Tax Reform is scurrying around the Hill once again. I have a simple proposal. The Federal Income Tax is equal to (10%+(.0001% x AGI)) AGI. Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) equals the post tax-free income (IRA, 401k, etc) minus the Poverty Level for your situation. At the national level, a family of four PL is about $20K, a single is about $10K.

So, if a family of four earns $50K, then their AGI is $30K and they would pay 13% of that: $3900. A family earning $100K has an AGI of $80K and would pay 18% or $14,400. I expect that the rate should cap out at 30%, so a family making $400K would have an AGI of $380K and pay 30% tax on that, or $114,000.

A single earning $50K would have an AGI of $40K and pay 14%, or $5600. A single making $11K would have an AGI of $1K and pay 11%, $110.

There is only one deduction, the Poverty Level; no Mortgage interest deduction, no charity deductions, no withholding deductions. After thinking about this some more I can see one more modification that needs to be added and that is for catastrophic medical payments. I don’t think taxing major medical treatment should be allowed.

What do do if a family earning $50K faces a medical bill of $250K or even $5K? I think that here we will reduce the AGI by an amount equal to anything in excess of 10% of the premed-AGI, so, in the example above, if the $50K family has a $5K medical emergency they could reduce their $30K AGI by $2K and pay 12.8% on $28K, or $3584.

The numbers can be played with, but the basic focus of this proposal is to use the poverty level as the baseline deduction. This is the value that we measure for basic sustenance. I expect one major change would be to use the local poverty level instead of the national poverty level as the deduction. I expect that poverty is defined higher in NYC than in Milledgeville, TN.

I was just looking a the US Poverty Guidelines and they differentiate between HA, AK, and the lower 48.

PS. I tie all this together by making Representative salaries 5 times the national Poverty Level for a family of four. So, if they try to play games with the poverty guidelines, they will notice as well.

General, Politics

Duty

“We have a duty, a solemn duty to protect the American people, and we will. ” Source: GWB Press Conference Nov 4, 2004

I was double checking the President’s duties and I don’t see this one there. Check out Article II, Section 1, clause 8. I think that’s the only ‘duty’ the president has. No, also “he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.” (II,3) But if I read this right, Congress has the duty to protect the American People (I,8,1). The President is merely Congress’s agent to do so. And if Congress doesn’t mandate protecting the people then it isn’t the President’s ‘duty’.

Of Course, I am interpreting the Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 wording: “provide for the common Defence”, to mean some protection of the American People.

From Constitution
Article. II.

Section. 1.

Clause 1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

Clause 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Clause 3: The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

Clause 4: The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

Clause 5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Clause 6: In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, (See Note 9) the Same shall devolve on the VicePresident, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

Clause 7: The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Clause 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Section. 2.

Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Clause 3: The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section. 3.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Section. 4.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

General

Brief Representation Idea

I just want to throw out an idea, no taxation without representation.

Since Congress saw fit some 90+ years ago to limit the number of representatives to 435, the population of the United States has grown quite a bit. As we approach a population of 300 Million citizens, each representative will represent 690,000 citizens. This is not fair.

We shouldn’t expect a representative to represent more than 150,000 citizens. I think a target of 100,000 citizens per representative is a reasonable number. The Constitution set a lower limit (30,000) but never set an upper limit. I think it is time to set one.

More on this later.