House of Representatives

Odd Couples in the Supersized House of Representatives Debate

We’re fantasizing about counties working together to solve their own problems instead of waiting for more duopoly excuses. Welcome to Strange Bedfellow Wednesday, when we dish on the odd couples for and against the Original First Amendment. What was the initial attraction, their first fight, and why did they kiss and make up?

This Week’s
Political Flap

The problem is the House is offline during a crisis period with a devastating US debt default looming, a past-due Farm Bill, a Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization, and two international crises.

It appears House members would rather play hyper-partisan politics than do their jobs (but they can still trade stocks with non-public information).

This week’s solution is the Original First Amendment* to limit congressional districts to 30,000 citizens, which would yield 12,000 congressional districts and go mostly virtual. Political parrots hate our nonpartisan rankings because they can’t think outside the Beltway.

* The Original First Amendment was left on the cutting room floor through clerical error or intrigue.

How to
Super-Size the
House of
Representatives

The implementation of the Original First Amendment involves restructuring congressional representation with an average of four representatives per county, virtual meetings, and for emergencies, a rotational system in Washington, D.C.

This implementation plan aims to provide a practical framework for the proposed changes in congressional representation.

  1. County-Based Representation: The cornerstone of this plan is a county-centric approach, where each county, on average, would have four representatives. This ensures a more localized and responsive representation.
  2. Grouping Small Counties: Very small counties with limited populations would be grouped together to form 30,000-person districts, ensuring that even sparsely populated areas have representation.
  3. Multiple Members for Large Counties: Conversely, highly populous counties would have multiple representatives to represent their residents adequately. Proportional Representation would likely be optimum. More on that soon.
  4. Virtual Meetings: To leverage modern technology, the vast majority of congressional meetings would take place virtually. This reduces the need for frequent physical gatherings, making participation more efficient and cost-effective.
  5. Presence in D.C.: Roughly 30 contiguous representatives would select a spokesperson to be in Washington at all times for emergencies. These can rotate. The 435 would act as a whip for the counties to pass urgent legislation. The D.C. grouping would use the existing House plenary space of 435.

The implementation of the Original First Amendment would create a dynamic and flexible system of congressional representation, balancing local responsiveness with the practicality of virtual communication.

This innovative approach aims to improve the efficiency of governance while maintaining a strong connection between representatives and their constituents, ultimately fostering a more responsive and accountable government.

SPOILER
ALERT

If you’d prefer to role-play this week’s puzzle, first, now would be a good time to swoop on over to PolicyKeys.com. You can read an introduction to this week’s political flap in our Monday Puzzle Drop article. On Tuesday, after POLI issued the nonpartisan scores, we broke the ties and called fouls on POLI’s plays in the Tiebreaker article.

Odd Couples
Leaning In Favor
of a Super-Sized House and
On Each Other


Civil Servants (19) &
Entrepreneurs (17)

How they Met: Civil Servants and Entrepreneurs first crossed paths at a policy forum, where they both found themselves fascinated by the potential of the Original First Amendment to foster innovation and efficient governance.

First Fight: Their first spat occurred during a heated debate about the size and role of government, with Entrepreneurs arguing for minimal interference and Civil Servants advocating for a more active state.

Kiss and Make Up: However, their passionate exchange led to a compromise where they agreed that diluting fringe views could ensure both entrepreneurial freedom and effective public service, creating an atmosphere of cooperation that left them both satisfied.

Urban Part-timers (23) &
Rural Professionals (3)

How they Met: Urban Part-time and Rural Professionals unexpectedly encountered each other at a mall with pamphlets being handed out about the Original First Amendment and sparks flew.

First Fight: Tensions flared when they debated the merits of rural vs. urban representation, culminating in a heated exchange about who truly understands our nation better.

Kiss and Make Up: Yet, their differences became their strength as they realized that a larger House combining urban dynamism with rural wisdom could create skilled jobs, resulting in a passionate exchange that left them both inspired.

USA Made (23) &
Importer (31)

How they Met: USA Made and Importer bumped into each other, quite literally, at a bustling trade expo, where they shared a laugh over second rounds and the Original First Amendment’s potential impact on the economy.

First Fight: Sparks flew when they disagreed over the importance of global trade, with USA Made championing domestic production for good jobs while Importer stressed the value to consumers from international markets.

Kiss and Make Up: However, their differences only fueled their chemistry as they realized that in a larger House sometimes you need quality locally made goods, and other times just the least expensive import, leaving them both feeling contented.

Democrat Doves (11) &
Digital Republicans (9)

How they Met: Democrat Doves and Digital Republicans found themselves at a lively special interest gathering where the discussion centered on the Original First Amendment, leading to an unexpected connection.

First Fight: Their first argument ignited when they debated government over- and under-reach, with Democrat Doves emphasizing diplomcy and Digital Republicans stressing artificial intelligence.

Kiss and Make Up: Yet, their passionate disagreement gave birth to an understanding that a larger House would do a better job fulfilling their needs as opposed to useful party operatives, leading to a passionate reconciliation that left them both feeling right.

Odd Couples
Leaning Against
a Super-Sized House
and Each Other
For Warmth


Rural Investors (2) &
Urban Investors (2)

How they Met: Rural Investors and Urban Investors found themselves seated next to each other at a high-stakes investment conference, sharing a mutual skepticism about the Original First Amendment’s impact on the financial world.

First Fight: Their first spat erupted about not wanting to financially or emotionally invest in each other’s ventures.

Kiss and Make Up: Yet, their shared concern for the financial landscape led them to explore an exciting new partnership that incorporates both rural resilience and urban dynamism, resulting in a mutually satisfying relationship. Gridlock shmidlock they don’t want a super-sized House.

Rural Part-time (24) &
Billionaire (8)

How they Met: Rural Part-timer and a Billionaire found themselves in a surprising encounter at a philanthropic event at the cash bar, reservations about the Original First Amendment’s potential chaos got them talking late into the evening.

First Fight: Their initial disagreement sparked when they debated the role of big business and government in rural economic development, with Rural Part-time advocating for grassroots initiatives and Billionaires emphasizing the importance of private sector investment.

Kiss and Make Up: However, their spirited exchange led to a collaborative effort to explore investment opportunities that could benefit rural communities while aligning with the financial interests of Billionaires, creating a partnership that found them both green and grinning. Neither needs the government getting between them.

HMOs (2) &
Medical Guilds (2)

How they Met: HMOs and Medical Guilds ran into each other at a healthcare summit, united by their reservations about the Original First Amendment’s potential effect on the healthcare industry.

First Fight: Their initial conflict flared up when they disputed the role of profit in healthcare, with HMOs emphasizing efficiency, waste, and cost-effectiveness while Medical Guilds stressed quality, pay, and ethics.

Kiss and Make Up: Nevertheless, their passionate disagreement led them to discover that a larger House of Representatives would probably push for national healthcare, and they ended up satisfying their needs both professionally and personally.

Party Favor (D)(2) &
Party Favor (R)(2)

How they Met: Party Favor Democrats and Party Favor Republicans found themselves at a lively trade show united by their concerns about the Original First Amendment’s impact on tax breaks, subsidies, government contracts, and favorable laws.

First Fight: Their first argument ignited when they debated the potential for a more diverse and effective Congress, with Party Favor Democrats emphasizing representation and Party Favor Republicans stressing party cohesion.

Kiss and Make Up: Yet, their passionate disagreement led them to realize that they have it too good to risk a House of Representatives that rocks the boat, so they kept on rockin’ late after hours.

Bottom
Line

POLI had support as nearly unanimous. Our editors were a bit less convinced. Nevertheless, we predict a 67% ±5 (13 Roles) strong supermajority of roles in this country to support the Original First Amendment, including a majority of each of the four sides of the political tablemaking this US Public Policy Leaderboard (US-PPL) worthy idea. 

Congress’s approval rating is 17%, the Supreme Court’s is 40%, the media’s 27%, and the average score of the policies on the PolicyKeys™ US Public Policy Leaderboard (US-PPL) is 73%, with many above 80%—Politics 4.0 is already 2x to 3x better model of US political sentiment and direction than politics as usual.

PolicyKeys
is based on the
Four Kinds of Love 

Self-sacrifice is giving of one’s self with no expectation of reciprocation. Think of a firefighter rushing into a burning building. 

Nurture is helping someone grow into their potential and keep up their momentum. Think of a coach, a parent, or a mentor. 

Tough-love is being able to invest in the personal pain of watching someone learn from their mistakes. Think of a boss, teacher, or a loved one drawing a line in the sand. 

Self-love isn’t narcissism. It’s knowing you can’t love another until you take care of yourself. Think about putting on your oxygen mask in an airplane before helping someone else. 

It’s ironic how much hate there is arguing about what kind of love should dominate public policy. The Golden Rule barely holds on to be worthy of the US Public Policy Leaderboard. What’s your mix of the four kinds of love on your best day?

The Four Dark
Political Emotions

Envy in Politics

  1. Consumers: Jealous of affluence, some support luxury taxes, disregarding potential harm to small businesses and their workers.
  2. Workers: Envious of higher pay, some advocate for wage caps, ignoring potential skill disincentives and loss of professional standards.
  3. Professionals: Chasing perfection, they may push for rigorous industry standards that, while well-intended, can limit consumer options.
  4. Owners: Coveting government influence, some call for privatization of liberty, causing less justice for others.

Spite in Politics

  1. Consumers: Upset with corporations, some call for tough rules, forgetting that this can increase costs for professionals and themselves.
  2. Workers: Angered by robots taking jobs, some want trade barriers, overlooking trade wars that hurt consumers and the economy.
  3. Professionals: Unhappy with industry shifts, some cling to old ways, missing the chance for growth and innovation that owners can bring.
  4. Owners: Annoyed by unions, some move their businesses overseas, neglecting local workers and weakening demand for their own products.

Sloth in Politics

  1. Consumers: Unhappy with product quality. Some abstain from political action, allowing inferior companies and poor regulations to persist.
  2. Workers: Dissatisfied with wages. Some avoid labor unions, missing an opportunity for change.
  3. Professionals: Aware of flaws, some stick with the status quo, risking harm to consumers and their livelihoods.
  4. Owners: Comfortable in their lifestyle, they don’t reinvest in their businesses to increase capacity and profits.

Greed in Politics

  1. Consumers: Drawn to low prices, some buy imported goods that risk local jobs.
  2. Workers: Attracted to job security, some back grandfather clauses harming new hires.
  3. Professionals: Eager for profits, some lobby for lax regulations that compromise ethics.
  4. Owners: Focused on the bottom line, some advocate for lower safety standards, risking worker well-being.

Love
Extremes

When taken too far, each political strength is prone to a political weakness.

Self-Sacrifice – Envy: Individuals who prioritize the needs of others might be prone to envy, as they may feel overlooked or undervalued compared to those they’re helping.

Nurture – Spite: Those who nurture and care for others may be more susceptible to spite when they perceive harm or injustice being done to those they care about.

Tough-Love – Sloth: Someone who employs tough love might feel it’s not reciprocated or effective, leading to a tendency toward sloth—why bother pushing others if it yields no result?

Self-Love – Greed: A focus on self-love could tip into greed, where self-care becomes self-serving to the point of disregarding others.

Politics goes negative fast. Does it have to? A political parrot by any other name still stinks.

Methodology

Our One-Page Narrative Tool, game board, and AI are based on a ground truth: There’s a time to save and a time to spend, a time for freedom and a time for laws. Where can we agree?

This yields four legs of the political table: Abundance, Thrift, Governance, and Commerce, poetically our Political DNA, ACGT.

The four sides of the table are…

Abundance Governance (AG)
National Public Sector and NGOs,

Abundance Commerce (AC)
Technology and New Businesses,

Thrift Government (TG)
Local Municipalities, Guilds, and Consumers, and

Thrift Commerce (TC)
Established Supply Chains and Jobs.

Each side has a bias for change and a bias for the status quo. We scan these eight Information Walls for Key YES and NO Reasons, no cherry-picking.

We search for solutions with the highest hypothetical nonpartisan rating. Something that would solve 80% of the problem with the simplest 20% solution. The Pareto principle, hence a parrot-topia.

The Key Reasons are sorted using our EMIT format: Emotions, Money, Information, and Timespan. We search for these key signals in the political noise.

Key Reasons can look similar, so we edit for redundancy and look for errors, omissions, and innovations.

We look to filter out the GRIFTERS, Gaslighting, Red-herrings, Idolizing, False-dilemmas, Tunnel-vision, Exclusions, Reductions, and Straw-man arguments. 

Birds of a Feather AI

Once the Key Reasons are set, we prescore the puzzle using the Birds of a Feather AI for loose ties to beliefs, attitudes, values, and ethics. Over 16 million combinations are possible for the 128 roles. The game board starts balanced at zero, with an equal bias for change and the status quo.

We then prescore the puzzle using 56 arch-type roles that best embody each of the 56 loose ties. This yields a general bias for change or status quo and reveals ties.

The editors review all 128 roles for specific reasons and overrule the AI where necessary. These are noted in the Tuesday Tiebreaker article.

Then, we score the puzzle on all four sides of the Political Table: eight Information Walls, sixteen Subcultural Windows, sixteen Bias Columns, and sixteen Influence Rows.

SAT9 AI

When the scoring is done, a second AI looks for inconsistencies using the SAT9 AI filter. This is 256 ‘supreme courts’ where each role is the chief justice in a presumed 5-4 and 4-5 bench. This generates a ± error margin.

This is all done on a One Page Narrative Tool (OPNT) that we gamified for role-playing at policykeys.com. We call our AI, POLI for Political Omnibus Leadership Initiative.

You can read more about PolicyKeys™ in the upcoming book, Politics 4.0: How Gamification, AI, and National Idea Leaderboards Can Help You Depolarize the World. The Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has recognized PolicyKeys™ for digital engagement.

Weekly
Puzzle

new PolicyKeys™
Where Can We Agree?® puzzle 
drops every 
Monday at 7 a.m. Eastern at PolicyKeys.com.

PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? is a real-life role-playing game. Each week, there are sixteen sets of eight ‘rival’ roles. Sit awhile in each of their eight chairs and predict whether a majority of people in those roles would say Yes or No to the week’s question.

The best ideas land on the US Public Policy Leaderboard (US-PPL) if a majority of each of the four sides of the political table agree. You can play this week’s puzzle at PolicyKeys.com.

YOU CAN PLAY THIS WEEK’S PUZZLE AT POLICYKEYS.COM.

Cue the
Patriotic Music

Imagine a world not paralyzed by political squawking. A Parrot-otopia oasis in a desert of division. Where the sounds of the silent super-majority drown out the droning of the hyper-partisan parrots.

We’ll be freed from the cages of entrenched ideology to fly higher in the big sky of American beliefs, attitudes, values, and ethics. To boldly go where no political parrot has gone before—ranking solutions with a nonpartisan score.

Anthem

Where Can We Agree? 
(Why Don’t You Want To Know?)

You can play this week’s puzzle at PolicyKeys.com.

Fly
higher

A Bigger Virtual House
Politico Magazine

Return the House of Representatives to the People
Thirty-Thousand.org

County Statistics of the United States
Wikipedia

Should we expand the House of Representatives? The Founders thought so
The Hill Opinion

It’s Time to Increase the Size of the House of Representatives
Real Clear Politics Commentary

Pros and Cons of Expanding the House
American Academy of Arts & Sciences

How the House Got Stuck at 435 Seats
FiveThirtyEight

A Bigger House Won’t Heal Congress
National Review

Is it time to expand the House of Representatives?
Liberty Nation News

Want to Fix Congress? Add 5,500 New Representatives
The Federalist

Enlarging the House Won’t Fix U.S. Politics
Bloomberg Opinion

Proposals to Radically Grow the House of Representatives
The Census Project

Should We Expand the Membership of the House of Representatives?
American Enterprise Institute

Is it Time to Expand the Size of Congress?
Marquette Law School

Why We Need to Increase the Size of the House of Representatives
DC Report

Competitive House District Decline
Politico

It takes guts to see things from all four sides of the table
[::]


Posted

in

by

Tags: