From: Eli Sarver (anrkngl@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Dec 19 2000 - 14:55:35 MST
Eliezer sed:
>I was recently musing that the Senate was originally intended to have 26
>members... maybe a few more as time went on, but still 26 originally. A
>small, tight group; not like a Senate of 100 at all. One Senator of 26,
>nationwide, would have considerably more prestige than one Senator of
>100. People might even be able to remember who they are.
>
>Maybe it's time to jump to one Senator for every two states instead of the
>other way around. Not that it'll ever happen. It's just one item more
>for the little list.
>Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/
>Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
if there were 26, that would still be two for each state. I just figured
that was the reason for that figure, since we started with thirteen..
I would like to see one Senator per state. I'm not sure if it would make
things better or worse, only less complex. I think there are too many
representatives, but I respect the reasons behind their numbers, even though
they only change every ten years. (with all this technology to count people
WITHOUT the census?)
Anybody else see horrible inefficiencies?
I'm always a fan of less v. more, I suppose..
-- anrkngl@lowmagnet.org http://www.lowmagnet.org/ _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:32:27 MST