HOUSE RESOLUTION: Clean House Amendment 2.0 (Failed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Special Provision: This Amendment to the Constitution will take effect at the next scheduled election for the House of Representatives after ratification. [/quote]

Sponsor: NC Yankee
House Designation: HR 1202

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is a retread from the ninth Congress, but with the Senate pushing again for this we really should not be left to be instructed as how to "clean our own house" by the other chamber , but rather should take leadership ourselves on this front and move to reform this aspect of our chamber ourselves. I have adapted the text to reflect the Senate version so that this will speedily be pushed to the regions and not delayed over minor differences.

[wxtransit]

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On one hand, yes, some elections do have the minimum required candidates (which is frankly concerning), and it is generally better to reduce the size of non-necessary government; however, the House is currently a fairly quiet body already with nine members, and seven members would (likely) make it even quieter, the House would statistically become less representative relative to the popular vote (given the multi-party system we have now), smaller parties that have been able to get in to a nine-seat house would likely fail to get into a seven-seat house due to the large (now) more concentrated popular vote from the larger parties (side note: with such a small House, it should likely become nonpartisan), and with such a small House, decision-making power would be vested in less individuals, potentially setting the stage for more controversial bills to be passed/failed quicker (I should note the Senate does only has six members; however, the House with its nine members serves as a check on the Senate and vice versa).

I don't think just because another house proposed something that concerns the way our House functions should rush us in getting this passed, but instead it should make us consider fully and carefully the potential effects of this getting passed.

[Lumine]

If I may, I would argue that if the House of Representatives is indeed a quiet body (I cannot judge as to that) then that is not directly related to the number of seats. The level of activity and debate in a given body depends on Representatives themselves and the way in which they hold their office and participate in the legislative process. And there's plenty of examples of even smaller bodies (like the famed five-member Mideast Assembly) which weren't exactly quiet or lacked debate despite having five members. If the Representatives are active and committed, the House should be active and display quality debate with seven members as well.

Furthermore, with such a change it's also larger parties that see their representation decreased, not just the small ones. And in the past, when half the Senate was elected at-large with just five seats up for grabs there was significant space for voices that didn't come from both main parties to be represented. The idea of "such a small House" also rings a bit hollow to me, considering the regional legislatures and the Senate are smaller than the proposed reduction, and unlike in RL, there is a limit as to how many offices we can keep filled and active.

Already there is a lot of emphasis by some on the checks and balances of the present system (I disagree with some of the points there, but that's a different debate). Considering there's still the President, Senate and House present in the system, I fail to see how this is too large a change for the present balance of power. Again, that an elected body has less members is not to say radical legislation is going to get passed, unless you would be arguing that because of the Senate only has seven members we're more prone to passing controversial legislation. I don't find that to be the actual case.

Certainly the House isn't forced to pass this measure just because I decided to revive in the Senate. However, the House should also consider carefully the merits of office reduction, the fact that the House (and potentially the regional legislatuves) are the more effective areas in which to achieve this reduction, and that the past rejection of this attempt was, for lack of a better term, both irresponsible and, if I may, a bit selfish too. By all means, let us have this debate on both Houses and have it be an informed one, but I would hope we do not rejected measures of necessary change because of concerns that do not seem enough at the present.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On one hand, yes, some elections do have the minimum required candidates (which is frankly concerning), and it is generally better to reduce the size of non-necessary government; however, the House is currently a fairly quiet body already with nine members, and seven members would (likely) make it even quieter, the House would statistically become less representative relative to the popular vote (given the multi-party system we have now), smaller parties that have been able to get in to a nine-seat house would likely fail to get into a seven-seat house due to the large (now) more concentrated popular vote from the larger parties (side note: with such a small House, it should likely become nonpartisan), and with such a small House, decision-making power would be vested in less individuals, potentially setting the stage for more controversial bills to be passed/failed quicker (I should note the Senate does only has six members; however, the House with its nine members serves as a check on the Senate and vice versa).

I don't think just because another house proposed something that concerns the way our House functions should rush us in getting this passed, but instead it should make us consider fully and carefully the potential effects of this getting passed.

I said "move to pass" not pass for a reason. I fully expect and hope to have an informed debate.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I fully expect and hope to have an informed debate.

You know silence most certainly doesn't speak well for "We Need Nine!!!"


I am just going to keep upping the font size.

[wxtransit]

Does anyone want to add to my earlier remarks?

crickets

[Bidenworth2020]

HELL. GODDAMN. NO

we already have an activity problem and, since incumbents are both more likely to get elected as well as be less active, this just makes no sense. The nine person system allows more new people to get elected.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I was one of the few that liked Adam's original proposal for the house to be 11 members precisely for that reason, PM, instead of 9, but I doubt we could sustain it that large as we are struggling to get candidates as it is with nine.

[Bidenworth2020]

I was one of the few that liked Adam's original proposal for the house to be 11 members precisely for that reason, PM, instead of 9, but I doubt we could sustain it that large as we are struggling to get candidates as it is with nine.

you aren't making any arguments for your own bill

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I was one of the few that liked Adam's original proposal for the house to be 11 members precisely for that reason, PM, instead of 9, but I doubt we could sustain it that large as we are struggling to get candidates as it is with nine.

you aren't making any arguments for your own bill

Doesn't the bold count?

In a perfect world I would want a larger house. A larger house is more representative, more democratic and thus makes the people's house function as should be as the most effective advocate for the people in a bicameralist arrangement. I support the Cube Root Rule in real life for that very reason.

However, we have to operate in reality and considering the number of elections we have had with barely enough candidates and the number of inactive members we are constantly riding dirty with in this chamber clearly we have overstretched the carrying capacity in this biosphere.

[Bidenworth2020]

I was one of the few that liked Adam's original proposal for the house to be 11 members precisely for that reason, PM, instead of 9, but I doubt we could sustain it that large as we are struggling to get candidates as it is with nine.

you aren't making any arguments for your own bill

Doesn't the bold count?

In a perfect world I would want a larger house. A larger house is more representative, more democratic and thus makes the people's house function as should be as the most effective advocate for the people in a bicameralist arrangement. I support the Cube Root Rule in real life for that very reason.

However, we have to operate in reality and considering the number of elections we have had with barely enough candidates and the number of inactive members we are constantly riding dirty with in this chamber clearly we have overstretched the carrying capacity in this biosphere.

no reason to limit ourselves though, more people would be open the larger it is.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

I can see both sides of this, but I feel like reducing the number of seats is not necessary, nor is it going to help with activity problems. 

[wxtransit]

I've stated my case already, and while I can understand the argument of the other side, I see the drawbacks of this amendment being too much compared with the benefits.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am sensing that this debate has run its course and people are either on one side or the other. Therefore I motion for a final vote, Representatives have 24 hours to object.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

A Final vote is now open on this resolution, Representatives please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AYE


As much as representativeness and democracy are directly correlated with the size of the more popular house, such is inversely correlated with the percentage of inactive or low activity members. Therefore, and based on what I previously stated, I am voting for this once again.

[RFayette]

Aye

[Bidenworth2020]

Nay

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Nay

[wxtransit]

Nay.

[RC (a la Frémont)]

Aye.

[The Govanah Jake]

Nay

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Nay

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yet I bear eternally the moniker of being "anti-reform". "It's BS and it's bad for ya" - George Carlin


Well we went from 1 to hopefully 4 votes. That means next time we try it, it will pass.