At 03:42 PM 12/19/2000 -0500, Eliezer wrote:
>I was recently musing that the Senate was originally intended to have 26
>members... maybe a few more as time went on, but still 26 originally. A
>small, tight group; not like a Senate of 100 at all. One Senator of 26,
>nationwide, would have considerably more prestige than one Senator of
>100. People might even be able to remember who they are.
I think this is a crucial point, although there are committees whose
members could be said to form a tight group--or at least they know each
other well.
>Maybe it's time to jump to one Senator for every two states instead of the
>other way around. Not that it'll ever happen. It's just one item more
>for the little list.
Rather than to jump to one Senator for every two states, which would
exacerbate the problem of centralization of power (which has local effects
similar to absentee land ownership), I'd suggest going back to something
more like the original USA setup where each state was sovereign and the
federal government had extremely limited powers. I'd go even farther and
suggest doing away with all permanent federal offices. Instead, have
citizens of each state elect representatives only for specific purposes,
possibly including regularly scheduled annual meetings. Serving as a state
representative might then be seen as a public service, not as a way to gain
power and wealth and not as a permanent career.
Barbara
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:38 MDT