Colin - It's a great question. While Promachus may not align with my answer... My answer, is outlined extensively in these pages over the years including recently in Chapter 5.2: https://www.fairnessmatters.vote/p/chapter-312-a-second-constitutional. Rather than "rebel", my approach has been to encourage all of us to realize that we are not as divided as our legislature would have us believe and that we need to wake up to the realization that we are being manipulated by a "politics industry" that has rigged our election system to ensure they retain power at all costs. The incentives are not aligned with problem solving or legislating. In fact a senator once said the quiet part outloud when he said: "An unresolved issue is far more valuable than a resolved one." So my strong feeling is that we need to "reject" the current dysfunction and embrace a reality that few are willing to accept. That it's the process itself which must be reformed to incentivize our elected officials to put country before party or in other words patriotism over partisanship. There are structural reforms that can be enacted that would empower the silent majority and reduce the power to the "base" and the extreme voices that fuel our divisive election process. Are you aware 83% of our US house seats are determined in the primaries, with only 8% voter turnout! Here are a few suggestions that we could adopt:
(1) end closed primaries - adopt single, non-party, "jungle" primaries like the system in Alaska that has yielded more moderate candidates that are more accountable to the broader electorate "enfranchising" independent voters (https://www.aei.org/politics-and-public-opinion/election-qa-katherine-gehl-explains-final-five-voting/). NOTE: some folks love their parties... that's fine they can retain their own party primaries - but the one that counts - the one that our tax payer dollars fund - are non-partisan and the parties can submit their candidates and use their own primaries to ascertain who they submit... that works too but they can't control who we vote for in the general election - that's tantamount to taxation without representation and it ensures we have only the illusion of choice;
(2) pass a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United - American promise is making incredible strides here (https://americanpromise.net);
(3) expand congress - When the founders split the legislative branch into the House and the Senate, they believed the House would be the institution that’s closest to the people. In order to fulfill that goal, House seats were apportioned based on population. In 1792, the ratio was one House seat for every 33,000 residents. Based on the 1790 census count of approximately 3.9 million people, that created a House with 105 seats (the math wasn't exact). Over time, the size of the House itself continued to increase with the size of the country. In 1810, the ratio grew to one House member for every 35,000 residents (181 seats); by 1880, the size of the House was 325 seats with, approximately one seat per 150,000 residents. The government stopped expanding the House after the 1930 census. The initial ratio for the first 435-member House was approximately 1 member per 280,000 residents, based on a census count of just more than 123 million. Now, we have the same 435 House seats — but a national population (approximately 335 million) that’s almost three times what it was in 1930. That translates to approximately one representative for every 770,000 residents. This makes every congressional district the equivalent of one of the 20 largest cities in America if compared to the populations of cities. Is that any way to have a representative democracy? It’s hard for one mayor to represent the diverse viewpoints of any one city, let alone a member of Congress who the founders truly believed would be representative of their community. (https://www.amacad.org/ourcommonpurpose/enlarging-the-house/section/7#:~:text=When%20it%20comes%20to%20House,roughly%20270%2C000%20citizens%20per%20representative & https://protectdemocracy.org/work/expanding-the-house-of-representatives-explained/).
Hmmm. I would take a slightly different path in that the Federal government is involved in too much. Most issues that matter to most people are local. State and local authorities should be primary/exclusive on local issues. Removing the US Congress would be a major advancement in knowing and serving the people's needs.
Peter - Thanks for the provocative comment. Your concern about federal overreach is legitimate. For decades, the federal government has expanded its footprint into areas that were once the domain of states or localities. Education. Transportation. Criminal justice. Even health care. And there’s a compelling case to be made that many issues are best addressed closer to the communities they affect. But calling for the elimination of Congress is a step beyond decentralization — it’s a dismantling of the very framework that has held this republic together. From a constitutional perspective, Congress is not an optional feature. It’s Article I, Section 1 — the first institution the Framers created. The founders designed separation of powers precisely to prevent any one person or branch from dominating. That’s why Congress is not just a lawmaking body — it’s the people’s branch, with the power of the purse, the authority to declare war, and the responsibility to oversee the executive.
Here’s the paradox and where I would suggest that you think about reframing your approach. The heart of the issue is that Congress has abdicated its power over time — ceding authority to the presidency, gridlocking itself into irrelevance, and turning away from polity into performance.
So my suggestion is that the solution isn’t to remove it. It’s to reform it, restore it, and hold it accountable. To eliminate Congress would be to consolidate even more power in the hands of the executive branch — which is exactly what many Americans, left and right, fear most.
Historically, we’ve seen this movie before:
• When Congress failed to check executive overreach in the 20th century, we got undeclared wars, secret surveillance, and emergency powers abused.
• When Congress was sidelined, both parties turned increasingly to executive orders and regulatory agencies — bypassing democratic debate.
We should absolutely be pushing more decision-making to the state and local level. That’s federalism. But in a diverse, continental republic of 330 million people, we still need a functional, representative national legislature — one that operates with integrity, transparency, and the consent of the governed.
The real work ahead is not to destroy Congress, but to restore it to its intended role: a deliberative, pluralistic body that serves the people rather than the party.
So we welcome the spirit of your comment — skepticism of centralization is healthy. But let’s focus that energy on fixing the system, not scrapping the safeguards.
We said. How does the 3% rebel?
Colin - It's a great question. While Promachus may not align with my answer... My answer, is outlined extensively in these pages over the years including recently in Chapter 5.2: https://www.fairnessmatters.vote/p/chapter-312-a-second-constitutional. Rather than "rebel", my approach has been to encourage all of us to realize that we are not as divided as our legislature would have us believe and that we need to wake up to the realization that we are being manipulated by a "politics industry" that has rigged our election system to ensure they retain power at all costs. The incentives are not aligned with problem solving or legislating. In fact a senator once said the quiet part outloud when he said: "An unresolved issue is far more valuable than a resolved one." So my strong feeling is that we need to "reject" the current dysfunction and embrace a reality that few are willing to accept. That it's the process itself which must be reformed to incentivize our elected officials to put country before party or in other words patriotism over partisanship. There are structural reforms that can be enacted that would empower the silent majority and reduce the power to the "base" and the extreme voices that fuel our divisive election process. Are you aware 83% of our US house seats are determined in the primaries, with only 8% voter turnout! Here are a few suggestions that we could adopt:
(1) end closed primaries - adopt single, non-party, "jungle" primaries like the system in Alaska that has yielded more moderate candidates that are more accountable to the broader electorate "enfranchising" independent voters (https://www.aei.org/politics-and-public-opinion/election-qa-katherine-gehl-explains-final-five-voting/). NOTE: some folks love their parties... that's fine they can retain their own party primaries - but the one that counts - the one that our tax payer dollars fund - are non-partisan and the parties can submit their candidates and use their own primaries to ascertain who they submit... that works too but they can't control who we vote for in the general election - that's tantamount to taxation without representation and it ensures we have only the illusion of choice;
(2) pass a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United - American promise is making incredible strides here (https://americanpromise.net);
(3) expand congress - When the founders split the legislative branch into the House and the Senate, they believed the House would be the institution that’s closest to the people. In order to fulfill that goal, House seats were apportioned based on population. In 1792, the ratio was one House seat for every 33,000 residents. Based on the 1790 census count of approximately 3.9 million people, that created a House with 105 seats (the math wasn't exact). Over time, the size of the House itself continued to increase with the size of the country. In 1810, the ratio grew to one House member for every 35,000 residents (181 seats); by 1880, the size of the House was 325 seats with, approximately one seat per 150,000 residents. The government stopped expanding the House after the 1930 census. The initial ratio for the first 435-member House was approximately 1 member per 280,000 residents, based on a census count of just more than 123 million. Now, we have the same 435 House seats — but a national population (approximately 335 million) that’s almost three times what it was in 1930. That translates to approximately one representative for every 770,000 residents. This makes every congressional district the equivalent of one of the 20 largest cities in America if compared to the populations of cities. Is that any way to have a representative democracy? It’s hard for one mayor to represent the diverse viewpoints of any one city, let alone a member of Congress who the founders truly believed would be representative of their community. (https://www.amacad.org/ourcommonpurpose/enlarging-the-house/section/7#:~:text=When%20it%20comes%20to%20House,roughly%20270%2C000%20citizens%20per%20representative & https://protectdemocracy.org/work/expanding-the-house-of-representatives-explained/).
(4) Fairness Doctrine and Free Speech! It's time to revisit the repeal under Reagan. We need to hold media companies and politicians accountable (yes politicians) accountable for their lies. I'm not suggesting criminal penalties that is fraught - but civil penalties along the lines of libel/slander laws. We also need to regulate social media companies and their algorithms. A few articles to help frame this one: https://hsph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Roadmap-Holding-Social-Media-Platforms-Accountable.pdf. Prof G's take: https://www.profgalloway.com/facebook-what-to-do/)
Just a few potential "rallying" points to consider.
Andy
Hmmm. I would take a slightly different path in that the Federal government is involved in too much. Most issues that matter to most people are local. State and local authorities should be primary/exclusive on local issues. Removing the US Congress would be a major advancement in knowing and serving the people's needs.
Peter - Thanks for the provocative comment. Your concern about federal overreach is legitimate. For decades, the federal government has expanded its footprint into areas that were once the domain of states or localities. Education. Transportation. Criminal justice. Even health care. And there’s a compelling case to be made that many issues are best addressed closer to the communities they affect. But calling for the elimination of Congress is a step beyond decentralization — it’s a dismantling of the very framework that has held this republic together. From a constitutional perspective, Congress is not an optional feature. It’s Article I, Section 1 — the first institution the Framers created. The founders designed separation of powers precisely to prevent any one person or branch from dominating. That’s why Congress is not just a lawmaking body — it’s the people’s branch, with the power of the purse, the authority to declare war, and the responsibility to oversee the executive.
Here’s the paradox and where I would suggest that you think about reframing your approach. The heart of the issue is that Congress has abdicated its power over time — ceding authority to the presidency, gridlocking itself into irrelevance, and turning away from polity into performance.
So my suggestion is that the solution isn’t to remove it. It’s to reform it, restore it, and hold it accountable. To eliminate Congress would be to consolidate even more power in the hands of the executive branch — which is exactly what many Americans, left and right, fear most.
Historically, we’ve seen this movie before:
• When Congress failed to check executive overreach in the 20th century, we got undeclared wars, secret surveillance, and emergency powers abused.
• When Congress was sidelined, both parties turned increasingly to executive orders and regulatory agencies — bypassing democratic debate.
We should absolutely be pushing more decision-making to the state and local level. That’s federalism. But in a diverse, continental republic of 330 million people, we still need a functional, representative national legislature — one that operates with integrity, transparency, and the consent of the governed.
The real work ahead is not to destroy Congress, but to restore it to its intended role: a deliberative, pluralistic body that serves the people rather than the party.
So we welcome the spirit of your comment — skepticism of centralization is healthy. But let’s focus that energy on fixing the system, not scrapping the safeguards.
Proof reading is a major problem I have!
"...removing Congress FROM THESE ISSUES would...".
Please accept my apology. I think much faster than I type.
all good ;-).
Promachus gets a lot right. As did Chapter 5.6. I like - I really really like - this Federalist Papers style back and forth the two of you have.