this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
569 points (94.5% liked)
Asklemmy
43950 readers
577 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
In my country (Australia), they should increase the number of seats in government.
It hasn't been done since the early 80s when the population was half of what it is now. Your member therefore can be more active, a smaller electorate means less emails and letters to sift through, less stress from staff, and more representative of a progressive voting base.
But this gets so easily dismissed as increasing bureaucracy and big government.
We've got the same problem in the US, so I feel you
I think your federal government will operate more effectively with say 1000 seats in the congress and 200 senators. More senators you could asume better laws will be passed quicker, corruption is less effective as it's more expensive with more lawmakers, and factions of parties (say progressive vs moderate democrats) can band larger coalitions.
This is just my opinion though, a big government does have downsides.