LBJ was never able to cut the line in terms of seniority in either chamber. So what he did was create new centers of authority. In the House, he built what would become the DCCC. In the Senate, he turned leadership from a backwater to the main channel. -OS - ThreadSky

lyndonbajohnson.bsky.social • 76 days ago

LBJ was never able to cut the line in terms of seniority in either chamber. So what he did was create new centers of authority. In the House, he built what would become the DCCC. In the Senate, he turned leadership from a backwater to the main channel. -OS

Comments

braddeltan.bsky.social•76 days ago

Or we do what's been necessary for almost a century: we strip the ability of Congress to limit the number of members in the House and require each member to represent a maximum of, oh, let's say 10,000 people instead of the current ~700,000 to 750,000 people.

braddeltan.bsky.social•76 days ago

Sure that means approx 32,000 Congresscritters. So what? The technology has existed to accommodate them and their voting for over 20 years. Over 50 years, depending on how you want to reckon it. You'd break the back of this bullshit where Congressfolk stay in office for 40+ years.

neilpostman.bsky.social•76 days ago

Even without the technology, the implications of having a truly massive house that would be split on far more practical economic lines is fascinating.

braddeltan.bsky.social•76 days ago

Indeed! It wouldn't be without its problems, of course. We've seen examples of large legislative bodies over the centuries, after all. But on the whole I think it'd be better than the current system. Certainly it would be a worthy experiment.

neilpostman.bsky.social•76 days ago

I'm more struck by how much more personal the politics would (could??) become. It takes A LOT of money to run a legislative district office (aides, campaign events, flights etc.). How much work in Congress would subsequently occur?
@lyndonbajohnson.bsky.social

braddeltan.bsky.social•76 days ago

If there's one thing I know it's that money is like water: it never stops, it flows around any obstacles you put in front of it, and it's very difficult to get it go where you want and not where you don't.

But yes, in theory repping only 10k ppl does require a lot less money to be raised.

braddeltan.bsky.social•76 days ago

And it's a lot harder for billionaires to control 32,000 elections than it is for 435.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply