We don't need to add judges or representatives. The Democrats need to win elections and build within the confines of the apparatus. The Supreme Court is unpredicatable..... everyone talks about Ginsberg.... but Alito is 70, Thomas is 72, Roberts is 65........... Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are in their mid 50's. Play with an actuary table and see what the odds are that all 5 are are alive and on the court in 4 years.... it is morbid but the reality of the situation. If Biden wins he will get to replace Ginsburg (87) and Breyer (82) for sure and likely will get to replace one of the other Justices......
I cannot see how it would be easier/cheaper to buy influence when you're doubling the amount of people you need to buy off to get things through Congress. Yes, the cost per vote may go down, but not enough to offset the multiplier. I agree about oversight in the sense that public attention would be spread thinner, but the doomer in me thinks that corruption at that level didn't mean much to the public already anyway, so as long as the "official" channels are policing the behavior and meting out punishment that's all we can hope for.
The cost to buy someone is related to the cost of their election, which is related to the size of the election. If you double the number of people in the House, then each house race is cheaper to run in. Let's say there are 500 House seats and people spend $1 billion between them ($2 million per race). If there are 1000 House seats and the same number of total people, you'd still spend $1 billion between them ($1 million per race). If I have $1 million I want to use to influence candidates, I can now get the same % influence with twice the candidates. All told, nothing changes in the relative value of my money/influence. The exception would be if total spending increases, but that just means it takes even more money to win elections, which corrupts the process even more to favor the wealthy (thus why you largely only see richer people run for the Senate, for example, relative to the House).
I don't think this is how it would go down in practice. My assumption is that while, yes, the amount spent per seat would decrease, the overall funds spent would necessarily increase. A bit of a diminishing returns model. But we can agree to disagree as I think we both agree on the aim. A much more direct route to neutralizing corruption would be to publicly fund elections, but I think that increasing representation is an important side quest in pursuit of that goal.
Is it Constitutionally viable to barr legislators from joining corporate board seats after their terms? I feel like that is as much of a contributor to corruption as campaign financing.
Funny footnote to this.... last time I flew from Houston to DC I was on a plane with former Rep. John Culberson. I was kinda shocked to see him, given that he was defeated in 2018. It got me curious and I looked him up... I thought maybe he was just hanging around DC because he was going to run again in 2020 and didn't want to cut ties... nope, he won't be running again, he's just a lobbyist now. Funnier footnote... he had a little white bichon frise with him.
Screw a stimulus or a plan for COVID, let’s appoint more unqualified judges to lifetime seats...that’s the Mitch way
Jesus H. I used to say I wouldn't wish COVID on anyone, but McConnell changes all that. He needs to get a bad case with a quickness.
WTF, these Trumpsters are an evil bunch. In the past I was always like, take the high road...karma is a b**** but no more, this s%^$ has to stop, I HOPE Biden takes a few pointers from these grifters and doubles down and shows them payback is fair game, time to get down in the mud on some topics.
