The American Two Party system

[hollodero]

(03-05-2023, 11:26 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: In addition, we have the same number of Representatives as was set in 1911. Our population has increased by 259% since that time. We have more than three times our population but the same number of Representatives. So how effectively can our Representatives truly represent our interests when they have to cover so many people? For comparison's sake:

Germany - 83.2 million people, 736 in Bundestag, 113,043.5 people per representative (to be fair, this is the largest directly-elected legislative body out there).
Austria (choosing this for Hollo's sake) - 9 million people, 183 in National Council, 49,180.3 people per representative.
UK - 67.3 million people, 650 in the House of Commons, 103,538.5 people per representative.
Canada - 38.3 million people, 338 in the House of Commons, 113,313.6 people per representative.

Now, the US - 331.9 million people, 435 in House of Representatives, 762,988.5 people per representative.

The more people a representative represents, the less democratic the system is. It means that the voice of the citizen is diluted further and the representative has no chance of truly speaking for their constituents.

I get the value of the argument. I wonder though whether your implicit proposal would change anything for the better. First, for practitcal reasons. If you employ 435 representatives times 7, so around 3.000 representatives, things would not get done any easier. Even if halving that number, you'd have to persuade around a thousand people for any proposal, which also means a thousand backroom deals, a thousand goodies, and amendments and whatnot. Imho completely unpracticable, and in the end probably only solved through strictening party discipline. And then what about the guy who speaks for his constituents. His voice isn't as loud anymore. 
But mostly, it does not tackle what I deem the main issue. It's still two molochs, you'd just add more people into them. People that by design don't represent their constituents, but neglect up to 50% of their constituent's will, those that picked the only other option available. And more often than not, a person that was picked for the sole quality of not being a QAnon believing, Trump-loving election denier, or most often just because the color fits the district and it doesn't matter who runs. How would more of those people turn anything for the better.  

Now if things were different, like 15% of people with a certain philosophy actually being represented by 15% of congresspeople, instead of having all of their votes counted for someone else, then I can see the point in arguing over that particular aspect. If you were a bit more like Canada or Germany in that regard. But as things stand, I feel bringing up the low number of congresspeople in the end is a distraction from the overarching issue.

(03-05-2023, 11:26 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Our system is broken and there are a lot of things beyond just the two-party system that needs fixing.

That is certainly true. Doesn't change that the two-party system needs fixing. And to me it seems it's the biggest issue of them all. And most other issues might not be fixable as long as the two-party system stands as is.

I find it hard to understand at times how Americans don't quite seem willing to just agree to that.