Thirty Thousand What?
A valid Question!
In response to a question I received from one of our members about Article I, Section 2, I wrote the following reply.
In a discussion about representation, he asked;
"...Is it [One Representative for every] 30,000 qualified voters, 30,000 men women & children, or 30,000 adult citizens, etc.?"
Article 1, Section 2 is clear on this. The "census to be taken" is to count EVERYONE. This is one of the issues of concern with a representative republic. Only about half the people are eligible; only half of THEM, actually vote, (sometimes as little as 1/4 of them in some elections), out of those votes, the winner of the election gets about half of those, then we declare them the Representative of EVERYONE in their district.
It doesn't really seem right or even fair that some don't seem to have a voice, but the truth is, that often when a voter votes, they speak for the other members of their small group, called a family. They often talk TO their family about their views and are no doubt considering the welfare and opinions of their family members, when they vote. That is how we do it.
It's not necessarily wrong or right, it's a way to get it done fairly and smartly, by trusting only certain ages of people to vote. We do this to insure, what we assume to be, the best and brightest of us, are making our true voices heard. The following is an approximate breakdown of the actual numbers as they exist today.
The numbers look like this. There are;
- 700,000 total Constituents per district
- 350,000 registered electors, (voters)
- 175,000 actual votes cast - Presidential elections
- 70,000 actual votes cast - Congressional elections
- About 90,000 actual votes cast - Winning President
- About 35,000 actual votes cast - Winning Congressman
- Winning Congressman then claims Congressional seat with what amounts to 1out of 20 people actually doing the choosing.
This means that at best, each of our "Representatives" is voted in to office by only 5% of the people in any given district. FIVE PERCENT! One out of twenty.
Remember, these numbers are based on current district size, but the percentages would be the same, no matter the numbers. In a district with 30,000 people, only 1500 would actually vote for the winner. The other 28,500 people's voices are not counted. That means that in any given Congressional District, 95% of the people represented did not vote for their Representative.
And then we send these Representatives to Washington D. C. and as a group they represent .0001334% of the TOTAL population of America. This is disgusting; that only 13/100,000ths of ONE PERCENT of the people in this country are making laws to govern the rest. To make it simple see the above numbers. It's actually over 710,000 Constituents per Representative right now.
I find this to be astonishing, that we have to rely on such a small number of "deciders" in our society. To me, there has to be some improvements in the numbers. And by that, I mean the percentages, AND the actual ratios employed to "decide" "The number of Representatives". There are FAR too few people, speaking for way too many. Just my opinion.
Comments? Questions? Answers?
Replies
I am not demeaning your efforts to educate the people but, I think we are missing the whole point here. There is one small problem. You are referring to the criteria for representing the people under The Constitution for The united States of America. That has nothing to do with the de-facto entity currently running the country as a federal corporation and its corporate by-laws, The Constitution of The United States.
If the idea was to screw the public, as we all know it was, why would they pay homage to representative requirements or other aspects of the original Constitution, such as the original 13th Amendment? It is more than obvious that they don't.
I guess you can talk about this and how unfair it is for a long time but that doesn't make it a viable position to pursue even if it is espoused in THEIR own corp by-laws. They only use them when it suits THEM, not us. If you look at all the fictions of law, Supreme Court rulings, you can see that they have shredded every tenet of THEIR constitution. Where has anyone found that the premises of the our founding document has been nullified--except for the hiding of the original 13th Amendment?
Arguing about how many representatives there are compared to the number of legal fictions they represent seems a bit ludicrous to me. They don't represent people in their system. They represent legal fiction straw man who are the only entities they can possibly see.
Not missing any points Dan,
Just making ONE point about one part of a Representative Republic and the Representation selection process.
It seems like there could be a way to get a higher percentage of voices involved in the selection process, that's all. There are several debates and good points that can be brought up about corporate this or Strawman that; legal fictions here or direct Constitution violations there. We could bring up the fact that it is supposedly the law of, for AND by the people.
The bottom line in terms of the fraudulent use of legality, words, definitions, etc. is that whether you espouse The Constitution OF or The Constitution FOR, I believe it is a non-sequitur.
This is the Constitution we have. In our founding articles, papers and declarations, the point is made that this whole separation thing was to be redesigned to a model that was "of the people, by the people and for the people", so I believe that ANY constitution that is of (originating from), is also by, (originating from) and for, (belonging to)
These terms are interchangeable without changing the meaning or intent of the phrase or title where they are used. Think about it.
They are all three, indications of origin and ownership. The tell us that it is of, by and for THE PEOPLE, not the government. So if you use the term OF, or BY, or FOR; THE PEOPLE it cannot be misinterpreted to mean that all of the sudden it is of, by or for the government's benefit. Especially if that government is a corporate fraud.
Face it. These "people", (and I use the term loosely), that we have in "government" today are doing their best to ignore the rule of law AND ALL Constitutions in every way they can and the Democ-Rats on Capitol Hill are leading the way towards this insanity.
I don't know about you, but I am going to address the Representation part, because I believe that if we have PROPER representation in Congress, we can use the democratic process to fix the rest. Just MHO.
First let me say 'thank you' Morton and thank you to the rest of the good people who continue to struggle to bring some degree of clarity to our current situation. For a long time many have smelled a rat in the pantry called government but they couldn't quite put their finger on what had changed in our history to bring about our dire condition. Thanks to the internet and people like you, Keith Broaders, and many others, people are starting to wake up. It is through open discourse with people of differing viewpoints that are painting a picture of where we are, how we got here, and how to change it for the betterment of all the people.
In that light I'll differ with you on the significance of the use of 'of' and 'for' in the 2 versions of the Constitution. The purpose of using the word 'for', as used in the original Constitution, implies that it is by the people 'for' the control of their Republican form of government. The use of the term 'of' is possessive and implies ownership by the corporate newly formed Democratic corporate government [Act of 1871]. It's their corporate by-laws to be called upon when it suits them, not us.
I am not a constitutional expert by any means, but one thing I do know is that this government operating here today is not ours, is not a republic, is de-facto in nature, is not responsive to the American people, changes the rules on a continual basis to satisfy the whims of the controlling interest holders, uses every trick and artifice to control and rob the people who have no recourse to ameliorate the situation, selects all officials favorable to their private agenda while utilizing the most fraudulent devices [rigged voting and media propaganda] to con the people into believing in the ridiculous lie that 'their vote counts' and that they actually have some say in the political outcome of events.
What we refer to as our representatives are not ours. They are financed by the power elite and they do their masters' bidding. Under those conditions I fail to see what difference it makes whether a State [federal sub-corporation] has 10 representatives or 100 representatives because they only talk like they are for us before election time. We don't actually have elections by the people in America. We have 'selections' by the Power Elite who make sure that their puppet gets the nod through bribes, TV coverage gratuities, campaign funding, switching the vote count [ie. Ron Paul and many other populist candidates], negative exposure of any 'not in our club' candidates, and a lot of other behind the scenes corrupt activities. They always own both horses in a 2 horse race.
I think a better platform than calling for more representation that doesn't really represent us would be to call for everyone with an IQ over 60 to rescind their voters registration and their fraudulent status of U.S. citizenship, Individual, U.S. person, Resident Alien, Taxpayer. They pulled us into this quagmire and got us to contract with them through fraud and deceit, so why not quit funding them through these fraudulent taxes and giving them support by voting. A de-facto regime can only operate under international law with the consent and support of the people. Registering to vote is the primary ingredient that proves that the de-facto has the support of the people. If you want to make a real change stop funding and supporting these criminals.
Even if we were successful at attaining par, so-called representation with hundreds of new representatives, if they don't really represent our interests, what good is it. One thing you can be sure of, if there was one Rep. for every 30,000 people [translates to 'straw men'] who would pay for all this new meaningless representation? That's right, the same hard working stiffs who are being taxed to death would have the burden of higher taxes to pay for the maintenance of a truck load of new freeloaders all licking their chops at the public trough of greed and avarice.
You really need to go thru the Representation folder and do some more reading. I have addressed ALL of the issues you just raised, including cost, (Which BTW, would remain the same or less.)
Here is where you should start. Click Here! BTW, The number of Representatives we have is anything BUT meaningless. It is the key to EVERYTHING ELSE! Believe me!