Skip to content

real politiks

According to an op-ed in the Christian Science Monitor, “The federal courts were recently asked by plaintiffs from five states (Mississippi, Montana, South Dakota, Delaware, and Utah) to rule that the size of the House be increased from its current 435 seats to reflect our nation’s population growth.”

Imagine the craziest Monkey Island in the zoo of your choice. Now toss in handfuls of new monkeys, a 500 pound bag of peanuts, and a few ounces of cocaine. There you have it – a larger House of Representatives!

The urbanization of the nation is rolling along unfettered, even as the ugly consequences becomes glaringly apparent. What’s “sustainable” about a few million monkeys crowded in a sea of concrete? Perhaps if we adopted the emergent behavior of our friends the termites the game could continue without the biological/sociological implosion looming just down the turnpike. And, judging from the looks of things, the termite model might be exactly where we’re heading, like it or not. After we get our uniforms, can we all have a Prius?

Of course, the obvious answer is to have the House “elected” by lottery, exactly like we handle jury duty in most places. Your name pops up in the computer, and – voila – Welcome to Congress! One year term. No campaigns; no cashola; no bullshit. The less done, the better. Wasn’t it Jefferson who said “the government that governs least, governs best”? Or was that Daniel Boone?

And while we’re at it, it might be a barrel of sustainable fun to review the nefarious “population growth” eluded to by the plaintiffs from Mississippi, Montana, South Dakota, Delaware, and Utah.

To be a termite, or not to be a termite – that is the question.

posted by Mudd

Posted in Uncategorized.

One Response

Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. Karen Robinson said

    My first response was horror. “We don’t need any more clowns in Congress. The one I have never listens to me.“ On further contemplation (however brief), it occurred to me that if we had more it would cost more for them to all be bought. And an ordinary citizen might have a better chance of knowing who the joker was before voting for him/her. This would only work, of course, if those Neanderthal states of Mississippi, Montana, South Dakota and Utah (I don’t know about Delaware) were not the only ones to receive extra “representation” If the additional Congresspeople were spread out proportionally, what would happen? Would you end up with more Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians? Would it create an opportunity for third party candidates?

    It would also only work if the current redistricting procedures were changed at a national level to prevent the blatant gerrymandering that currently defines them; otherwise you’d only end up with more Republicans and incumbents in Utah and more Democrats and incumbents in California. I’m already cringing from the thought of the additional U.S. Congressional member from Utah we’re bound to be gifted with after the census.

    The idea appears to warrant discussion.

    As for selection by lottery, well, maybe with lots of caveats, although a one year sentence – oops, I mean term – would be inadequate for most people to even learn the rules under which to House operates. Would the lottery be run by the same wonderful voting machines that choose our current representatives?

Some HTML is OK


(required, but never shared)

or, reply to this post via trackback.