How would increasing the size of congress fix corruption exactly? How exactly would that be too many people to bribe? Seems rather risky.

It doesn't FIX it, but it means more people to bribe, it drives up the cost of bribery, how many people have to be in on something, etc

there is no risk in increasing size of congress, it would lower the ratio of population to representatives

What is risky about lowering ratio of population to rep?

IT would lower it back down to what it was in say 1900

so roughly 1920 ratio by that chart

and we have much better communication today

ratios for other OECD countries

are they are risk?

Why do that when you could just have term limits and have restrictions on lobbying? It doesn't make sense to widen the attack my making the target even larger, attack it at the source

it's not like shooting at a bigger target to score one hit, you have to hit more targets to get a 'kill'

if you have to bribe 51%, you have to bribe say 350 people rather than just 218

the fixed cost of bribing to an outcome goes way up

and it's not an either or, all of the above can and should be done, unless there is some argument to be made for having experienced politicians but maybe they can operate like the counsels do

and why should americans have 750,000 to one rep versus say japan at 270k?

if it's RISKY for the US, japan should be totalitarian by now right? mob rule and all that

and fucking iceland omg

they are basically living under the Nazghul

Guys I'm learning English and I want to know: what do you are talking about?

Obs: I like the weather

I didn't mean risky in regards for it necessarily becoming totalitarian, I mean risky in how that's a pretty significant change to the government (in regards to a larger congress) and how that could very well just cause a lot more problems than it solves, like becoming even more torturous than before in it's processes and generate even more deadlock; it's counterintuitive to having a working republic. And besides all that expanding the amount of representatives would do is provide more openings for more companies and outside entities to influence politicians. This simply is not better than limiting terms, you would cycle out any possible corruption after just a few years and would more likely result in limiting corruption from occuring in the first place. Just increasing the size doesn't attack the source of the problem, it relies on the presumption that a larger congress will be less susceptible to bribery, which itself assumes that bribery has a "fixed cost" which it literally can't because it is illegal (unless you mean something like a minimum cost to potentially be considered bribery, that's the only thing that makes borderline sense).

@Sh0t d-do you think only one entity bribes people? Do you think that 350 people could not be easily bribed the same way? That idea is lunacy

If I was let’s say The Ukrainian government (just as an entity and I had a good amount of money, I’d bribe as many as I could

But then you got Israel, who would want to bribe as many as they could

Then you got Saudi who would want to bribe as many as they could

Those are just examples don’t take those as factual bribery scandals, I’m just using them

they dont want the same thing. Those 3 countries could want 3x bills, or take any industry. the smoking industry can't bribe 100 and then big oil bribes 200 to get a total of 300. they would each have to bribe 300 for their own issue

an idea is lunacy...when existing countries already have lower ratios and the us had a lower ratio itself. as our population grew, we stopped expanding the house

@Cobra Commander term limits and ratio of population to rep are dealing with different things.
``` it's counterintuitive to having a working republic. ```
How is it 'counterintuitive'? Maybe your intuition is broken, because obviously having a lower ratio is historic precedent and other countries current have dramatically better ratios than we do right now

```which itself assumes that bribery has a "fixed cost" which it literally can't because it is illegal```
the fixed cost is the amount of effort to 'bribe' your way to a guranteed pass

there is precedent in such an issue across the country in the city manager movement, and various other consolidations(going the OTHER way and limited democracy and responsiveness)

republicans lmao

It's counter-intuitive because it makes the congress even more bloated, which will create more gridlock, all the while resting on the assumption that more people in congress will lead to less corruption (which while not impossible is not something you should take as a guarantee at all); term limits largely negates this problem and simply cycles people out, likely before too much corruption happens in the first place; not hard to understand. Also that would not be a "fixed" cost then as that isn't any sort of standardized thing, it's simply the cost of a bribe.

obviously the idea of 'growing' the house is not abnormal since it grew from 65 to 435 from 'founding' till 1920. the change and trend was related more to the urbanization of the country, not a 'size' problem.

Yeah and it's already quite grid locked today

dude, you keep saying term limits. Term limits adderss a DIFFERENT issue altogether. they are compatible

can you not understand the difference between a term limit and ratio of population to representative diluting your 'per session' voice

How exactly is the representative to population ratio as important?

because it raises the amount of voice per person. instead of having your vote diluted with 750k people, it's down to 250k or whatever amount.more reps, more reps to interface with the population, more responsiveness