Gyro-Copter Lands On West Lawn of US Capitol, Pilot Arrested 327
An anonymous reader writes that Doug Hughes, 61, a mailman from Ruskin, Florida was arrested for landing a gyro-copter on the West Lawn of the U.S. Capitol. "A 61-year-old Florida mailman was arrested Wednesday after he landed a gyrocopter on the U.S. Capitol west lawn. The gyrocopter was carrying the pilot and 535 stamped letters for members of Congress urging 'real reform' to campaign finance laws. Doug Hughes told the Tampa Bay Times ahead of the afternoon stunt that he notified authorities 'well over an hour in advance of getting to the no-fly zone, so they know who I am and what I'm doing.' Capitol police sent dogs and a bomb squad to the scene. Nothing hazardous was found. A city block from the Capitol had been cordoned off."
I can't really blame this guy (Score:5, Funny)
Cut the guy some slack. He simply wanted to fly to D.C.; he had his own gyrocopter, and he really didn't feel like having his nuts groped by the TSA.
Can you really blame him?
Re:I can't really blame this guy (Score:5, Insightful)
Because having his nuts groped by the Secret Service will be a far superior experience.
Re:I can't really blame this guy (Score:5, Insightful)
a couple thoughts...
1) this guy is a nut. the fact that he is a post man and shows up with 535 *stamped* letters is super funny.
2) gyrocopters are inherently funny. those things don't fly so much as fall through the air and manage not to crash. they remind me of bumblebees.
3) maybe this is a woosh on my part, but the GP refers to TSA nut grabbing. This was just in the news [loweringthebar.net] yesterday cuz there was a bust at denver where a gay tsa officer was using coded signals to other officers so he would ahve the chance to grope people's nuts.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because flying to the Capitol region is a no-fly zone. Trips up//down the East Coast have always had to go around Washington.
Shocked he survived (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Shocked he survived (Score:4, Insightful)
It'd be fucking stupid to shoot him down like that.
So instead of there being a helicopter in the air with a human at controls, doing what you suggest would result in a helicopter in the air with nobody controlling it.
At least there's a chance of it being landed safely when there's a human controlling it.
When nobody is controlling it, there's a much greater risk of it falling out of the sky and causing harm. It could land on buildings. It could land on vehicles. It could land on pedestrians and tourists. It could land on your own frigging cock and balls, for crying out loud.
Re: (Score:3)
Well that's rather the point (Score:2)
So instead of there being a helicopter in the air with a human at controls
What about an auto-gyro with 30 lbs or so of C4? Do you still want the "human at the controls"? You don't know what the intentions are, you just know it's very illegal to be there yet there he is.
At this point you'd have to be an idiot to be a terrorist and not try to pilot a small explosive laden gyro into some major target, since it's obviously so easy.
I can't believe the "no fly zone" over Washington is such a total sham with not
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they could have sent up a helicopter, but the standard response is jets, who can't go slow enough or work closely enough to give an effective response.
Re:Well that's rather the point (Score:4, Insightful)
What about an auto-gyro with 30 lbs or so of C4? Do you still want the "human at the controls"? You don't know what the intentions are, you just know it's very illegal to be there yet there he is.
This man was known to the Secret Service, they even interviewed him a year or so before this, on a tip that he would do JUST THIS.
In addition, he called the Secret Service an hour before he got there to let them know he was coming and why. The press also called them because he was in contact with the press to let them know this was a publicity stunt.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, I do not advocate the death penalty for stupidity, but I am shocked he wasn't hit by a sniper before he even crossed the property line.
I don't know about a sniper, but he was in a no-fly zone. Don't they scramble jets when someone enters a no-fly zone? Especially near the Capitol. I assume they do, but I don't really know.
Re:Shocked he survived (Score:4, Informative)
A helicopter with a door-gun would have been the least-damaging to the surroundings, and they may not keep those on ready stand-by.
Re:Shocked he survived (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know about a sniper, but he was in a no-fly zone. Don't they scramble jets when someone enters a no-fly zone? Especially near the Capitol. I assume they do, but I don't really know.
Yes, usually...
In this case, he wasn't on RADAR and the Secret Service knew he was coming. He was known to them and he had made prior contact to let them know of his publicity stunt.
Re:Shocked he survived (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not very smart (Score:3)
Step 1) Call/email ahead and say you are totally harmless.
Step 2) Fly/Drive/Swim vehicle packed to the gill with explosives right into your target without bother.
Step 3) Prophet!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Shocked he survived (Score:5, Insightful)
He's a complete jackass for doing it in the first place.
I applaud him. He's protesting what is the #1 problem in government today in a peaceful way that was sure to make headlines. The problem isn't people like him, the problem is people who are apathetic about the issue in the first place.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He's protesting what is the #1 problem in government today
The first amendment is the #1 problem? This guy is complaining because he doesn't like a court ruling that diminished the ability of labor unions (like his) to be allowed to spend money on political ads when other people weren't allowed to. He's upset about a court correctly finding that unequal protection under the law, and the government directly limiting political speech, was unconstitutional.
in a peaceful way
Yeah, by violating militarily enforced air space that could have involved the use of heavy weapons while he fli
Re: (Score:3)
One of the purposes of the first amendment is to allow petitioning the government and no where in the American Constitution is the government allowed to stop petitioners from arriving by air to exorcise their free speech right to petition Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You're defending his actions as an example of someone using his right to free speech, and ignoring the fact that his complaint is that there IS free political speech. He wants the government to limit political speech, not protect the freedom to make it.
Are you seriously this dense? Money is not speech. The ability to use money to unfairly gain an advantage and monopolize information that is disseminated to the public is not speech. It would be akin to a public debate, where every time the other person speaks I blow an air horn so nobody can listen. People like you are defending his right to blow the air horn as a 1st amendment right.
Freedom of speech yes but the very tenant of a functioning democracy requires at its core that people with something to
Re: (Score:2)
"The first amendment is the #1 problem? This guy is complaining because he doesn't like a court ruling that diminished the ability of labor unions (like his) to be allowed to spend money on political ads when other people weren't allowed to. He's upset about a court correctly finding that unequal protection under the law, and the government directly limiting political speech, was unconstitutional."
Then I have to assume you are against the recent loosening of campaign finance regulation for corporations.
If i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If it is correct to limit labor union's ability to spend due to unequal protection, then how can corporations not similarly be limited?
Wow, you are really missing the point. You have it backwards. The law wasn't "loosened," it was struck down, in part, because it allowed some groups to do things like run political ads on TV while barring other groups from doing so. Regardless of that unequal treatment under the law, which favored some groups and companies over others, the main issue remains: telling people that they're not allowed to say things during an election is a direct violation of the first amendment. Period. The court came to the
Re:Shocked he survived (Score:5, Informative)
Do you really think that the would-be mayor should be allowed to say what he thinks about your business practices and equipment, but you and your fellow landscapers in town shouldn't be allowed to run an ad saying, "Don't elect Mr. Smith, because all of your local landscaping companies will end up out of business.
Yes, that's EXACTLY what I want. If you are so concerned about your business then you should use your PERSONAL funds to support the other candidate.
Re:Shocked he survived (Score:4, Insightful)
>>If it is correct to limit labor union's ability to spend due to unequal protection, then how can corporations not similarly be limited?>Personally, I think all labor union and corporate campaign contributions should be eliminated. "We the people..."
"So when you join a labor union or incorporate your business, you think you're surrendering your rights to free speech? "
Absolutely not. Where did I give you that impression?
Talk all you want.
Campaign contributions, on the other hand, are not speech.
They are the mechanism for election, and should be controlled to ensure that We the People are in charge.
"What if you incorporate a landscaping business in your town, and some local politician says he's going to make it the focus of his term as mayor to prohibit all gasoline powered landscaping equipment in town. Do you really think that the would-be mayor should be allowed to say what he thinks about your business practices and equipment, but you and your fellow landscapers in town shouldn't be allowed to run an ad saying, "Don't elect Mr. Smith, because all of your local landscaping companies will end up out of business." Why do you think such political speech should be banned, but only when it's the business owners who speak it?"
The business owners are still individuals and can participate in this debate to their hearts content, as can ( should ) all citizens ( citizens == non corporate, real people with the right to vote ).
Why should business owners be able to effectively ban non-business owner from political speech by drowning them out with money?
Re: (Score:2)
It's the situation where a squeaky wheel gets the oil - or the jackass gets attention.
Attention span! (Score:2)
Yes I am. I suggest you read beyond the first sentence to find out why.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Shocked he survived (Score:4, Informative)
Really. You're comparing a protest against a monarchy that was suppressing free speech (among many other very bad things), to a guy who decided to fly a dodgy piece of dangerous equipment with high speed rotors past crowds of tourists in order to register his complaint that we have a constitutional guarantee of free speech?
If that is how you describe the aircraft he was flying, then you have no idea what you're talking about and you should really shut up before you embarrass yourself.
The autogyro is one of the safest aircraft that exists, unlike a helicopter that only *CAN* autorotate (often like a brick), the autogyro is *ALWAYS* autorotating and lands that way without power every single time.
It is not a "dodgy piece of dangerous equipment", it is actually very safe.
Re: (Score:2)
actually the rotors are very low speed. gyrocopters rotate at 500 RPM, which is the same range as helicopters. but helicopter rotors are designed like a fan, where lift is generated by directing air downwards. If you look at a gyrocopter rotor it has the cross section of an airplane wing. lift is generated from the bournulli effect. ao if you stand under a gyrocopter you aren't blown away by the downwind.
Oh, OK. So if were to have crashed that machine into the group of school kids he flew past, it probably wouldn't have hurt anybody.
Delivering the Mail (Score:5, Funny)
A 61-year-old Florida mailman was arrested Wednesday after he landed a gyrocopter on the U.S. Capitol west lawn. The gyrocopter was carrying the pilot and 535 stamped letters for members of Congress urging 'real reform' to campaign finance laws.
So in other words, they arrested a Federal Employee on Federal Property for doing his job.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt his job description includes "Flying small aircraft to personally deliver letters."
Re: (Score:2)
Doing his job wrong.... he's supposed to drop that mail off at a mail processing facility, not the Capitol itself.
Re: (Score:3)
he's supposed to drop that mail off at a mail processing facility, not the Capitol itself.
Such as the US post office in room HT-1 of the US Capitol?
Re: (Score:2)
HT-1 only accepts mail that's been cleared at a non-talked-about facility. It's gotta come from the right clearance to get there. There are many "downtown" post offices that only accept one truck route, and only go outbound by that same truck route.
He had what he needed (Score:4, Informative)
It's gotta come from the right clearance to get there.
Come on, he had AT LEAST 100 feet of clearance. If that's not enough I don't know what is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Delivering the Mail (Score:5, Funny)
rocks
troll's with sticks
All sorts of dragons
Mrs Cake
Huje green things with teeth
Any kinds of black dogs with orange eyebrows
Rains of spaniel's
fog
Mrs Cake
Re:Delivering the Mail (Score:5, Informative)
My oh my.
The Capitol hosts the Congress.
The White House is the residence of the US President.
The mailman landed at the US Capitol. Correct addressee.
You mixed the Capitol with the White House. Who fucked up?
(I'm Romanian and even I can tell the difference)
Re:Delivering the Mail (Score:4, Informative)
I'm fairly sure that such gyrocopters qualify as ultralight aircraft, and thus require no license.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm fairly sure that such gyrocopters qualify as ultralight aircraft, and thus require no license.
Which doesn't excuse him from honoring the DC FRZ (which also means you can't fly toy airplanes or plastic toy multirotors, etc) within a 30-mile circle around where he flew. And it certainly won't change the fine (at least) he's going to pay.
Re:Delivering the Mail (Score:4, Informative)
And you're fairly wrong. A gyrocopter is an aircraft and it requires a pilot's license.
This one meets the "Light Sport Aircraft" criteria, which means the license is cheaper and easier to get, but you still have to go through flight training.
Re: (Score:3)
A gyrocopter is an aircraft and it requires a pilot's license.
Whether or not it's an ultralight is defined by weight and capabilities, not visual features.
Re: (Score:3)
You need certification. here [blogspot.com]
Your link appears to be based on Australia laws. In the US no license or permit is required to fly an ultralight aircraft. However everyone should receive training. The autogyros are extremely stable due to their design but of course unexpected things happen.
As to the craft itself, I cannot tell from the article if it is an ultralight copter or a traditional one. Auto-gyros are somewhat difficult to achieve the ultralight weight restrictions but not impossible.
Re:Delivering the Mail (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they arrested an idiot who is supposed to have a pilot license who does not understand the concept of a 'no-fly-zone'.
You might be the idiot. He fully understood all of the implications of what he was doing, and worked out several scenarios. His expected scenario was that a Blackhawk would be scrambled from Quantico, but would overfly him as he was flying so low and slow, and he hoped that by the time the Blackhawk caught up to him that they would have orders to not shoot him down. His biggest worries were that he would be shot down or that he wouldn't have the nerve to do it in the first place. I can't imagine the adrenaline going through him as he was flying across the national mall in sight of the Capitol without a single LEO or military aircraft in sight.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/p... [tampabay.com]
He's right, too. Campaign finance laws and all of the corruption that goes with them is the single largest problem with the current government, and apathy from people like you helps to ensure that it doesn't get fixed. Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice. Whichever R or D you want to pick will be just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
i'm pretty sure what will happen to him is he'll be charged with all sorts of crazy stuff and face a harrowing trial then prolly end up doing 12 mo in lockup.
Guy From Road Warrior... (Score:3)
...is now the SECOND-craziest SOB ever to fly one of those things.
he should have used (Score:2)
a drone
Thank goodness the NSA is looking our for us (Score:2, Insightful)
So, this guy published the the fact that he was going to do this on his blog and in email before he did it. Here's the quote from "Thehill.com":
On the webpage thedemocracyclub.org, he wrote: ''My flight is not a secret. Before I took off, I sent an Email to info@barackobama.com. The letter is intended to persuade the guardians of the Capitol that I am not a threat and that shooting me down will be a bigger headache than letting me deliver these letters to Congress.''
Tell me again, what our incredible spying
Re:Thank goodness the NSA is looking our for us (Score:5, Informative)
Before he took off he also called his friend back home to tell him the plan. His friend had the business card of a Secret Service agent who had previously visited and interviewed them after hearing about his plan for a "big thing" to call attention to campaign finance reform. His friend called the Secret Service agent, got no answer, but left a message informing him of the impending flight. He never got a call back, and the authorities claimed they were not aware of the flight. So, yeah, bit of an intelligence failure there.
Here's a much better article that includes a video at the bottom of him actually landing on the lawn, as well as the text of the letters he was trying to deliver. Note the complete lack of any resistance to him landing, the Capitol Police weren't out there and it took a little while to hear the first sirens.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/p... [tampabay.com]
A different takeaway message (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
info@barackobama.com
That's like e-mailing the home address of a CEO to get a store employee to do something. BarackObama.com was one of his campaign sites.. government business happens at whitehouse.gov instead.
Re: (Score:2)
He's a mailman, not a computer guy. It's all the big blue "E".
Re: (Score:2)
He sent an e-mail to the president's website declaring he was going to do it, and assuming that generated permission to fly in a zone where a baseball home run isn't even allowed.
Re: (Score:2)
BarackObama.com was one of his campaign sites
Seems like the best way to reach that clown, even at T-19 months from irrelevancy.
Great idea, needs more volume... (Score:2)
I would love to see an organized protest (of anything) that involved a fleet of hundreds of quad-copters converging on the capital...
Notice doesn't always generate permission (Score:2)
Simulated call...
Suspect: I'm going to deliver some mail by Gyrocopter on the west lawn of the capitol buliding. Here's my ID and flight plan.
Spook: Uhm, that's a no-fly zone...
Suspect: Thanks for letting me do this.
Spook: We'll have plenty of capitol police around you when you get there.
The US Government doesn't accept mail at sites anymore... they download it from Earth Class Mail.
Mail and autogyros go way back (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the first produced autogyros was for mail delivery and landed on the White House lawn. That one got a trophy from Pres Hoover.
Re: (Score:2)
And they say that history doesn't repeat itself.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Balls of steel (Score:5, Insightful)
His message is that he wants the government to limit your ability to engage in free speech.
There's a constant and deliberate conflation of money and speech going on in this country. They are not equivalent to each other.
Re: (Score:2)
That is not his message, but complete fabrication is part and parcel of your typical troll posts.
OK, so what IS his message? That he thinks the government should NOT interfere with political speech? Because that's the opposite of what he's saying. He thinks that the government should control who gets to say what. That's the bottom line of his position. Just because you don't like it being boiled down to its essence and said out loud doesn't mean that doing so is trolling. It's just calling it what it is.
Re: (Score:3)
No. You fucking idiot.
His message is that how much attention government officials PAY to political speech should not depend on how rich the speaker is.
And that is why campaign finance reform is needed, because without it the ONLY people who get listened to AT ALL is the rich. Without it, you HAVE no freedoms unless the rich don't CARE that you have them - anything that bothers them can and will be revoked.
Without campaign finance reform you don't live in a democracy OR a republic - hell you don't even live
going postal (Score:5, Funny)
Hughs' Letter (Score:4, Informative)
Dear ___________,
Consider the following statement by John Kerry in his farewell speech to the Senate —
"The unending chase for money I believe threatens to steal our democracy itself. They know it. They know we know it. And yet, Nothing Happens!" — John Kerry, 2-13
In a July 2012 Gallup poll, 87% tagged corruption in the federal government as extremely important or very important, placing this issue just barely behind job creation. According to Gallup, public faith in Congress is at a 41-year record low, 7%. (June 2014) Kerry is correct. The popular perception outside the DC beltway is that the federal government is corrupt and the US Congress is the major problem. As a voter, I'm a member of the only political body with authority over Congress. I'm demanding reform and declaring a voter's rebellion in a manner consistent with Jefferson's description of rights in the Declaration of Independence. As a member of Congress, you have three options.
1. You may pretend corruption does not exist.
2. You may pretend to oppose corruption while you sabotage reform.
3. You may actively participate in real reform.
If you're considering option 1, you may wonder if voters really know what the 'chase for money' is. Your dismal and declining popularity documented by Gallup suggests we know, but allow a few examples, by no means a complete list. That these practices are legal does not make them right! Obviously, it is Congress who writes the laws that make corruption legal.
1. Dozens of major and very profitable corporations pay nothing in taxes. Voters know how this is done. Corporations pay millions to lobbyists for special legislation. Many companies on the list of freeloaders are household names — GE, Boeing, Exxon Mobil, Verizon, Citigroup, Dow
2. Almost half of the retiring members of Congress from 1998 to 2004 got jobs as lobbyists earning on average fourteen times their Congressional salary. (50% of the Senate, 42% of the House)
3. The new democratic freshmen to the US House in 2012 were 'advised' by the party to schedule 4 hours per day on the phones fund raising at party headquarters (because fund raising is illegal from gov't offices.) It is the donors with deep pockets who get the calls, but seldom do the priorities of the rich donor help the average citizen.
4. The relevant (rich) donors who command the attention of Congress are only .05% of the public (5 people in a thousand) but these aristocrats of both parties are who Congress really works for. As a member of the US Congress, you should work only for The People.
1. Not yourself.
2. Not your political party.
3. Not the richest donors to your campaign.
4. Not the lobbyist company who will hire you after your leave Congress.
There are several credible groups working to reform Congress. Their evaluations of the problem are remarkably in agreement though the leadership (and membership) may lean conservative or liberal. They see the corrupting effect of money — how the current rules empower special interests through lobbyists and PACs — robbing the average American of any representation on any issue where the connected have a stake. This is not democracy even if the ritual of elections is maintained.
The various mechanisms which funnel money to candidates and congress-persons are complex. It happens before they are elected, while they are in office and after they leave Congress. Fortunately, a solution to corruption is not complicated. All the proposals are built around either reform legislation or a Constitutional Amendment. Actually, we need both — a constitutional amendment and legislation.
There will be discussion about the structure and details of reform. As I see it, campaign finance reform is the cornerstone of building an honest Congress. Erect a wall of separation between our elected officials and big money. This you must do — or your replacement will do. A corporation is not 'people' and no individ
the real crazy: (Score:5, Informative)
most americans agree with him
he could have chosen a better way to make his point. but he'll be prosecuted, and the corruption will continue
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
most americans agree with him
No, most Americans do not think that the government be allowed to stop you from expressing your opinion about politics. That's what the First Amendment is there to prevent the government from doing.
Re: (Score:2)
groups do not deserve extra rights over individuals.
So I have the right to say something political during an election. And you have the right to do so. Each of us can, say, run an ad in the newspaper to express ourselves about politics, and the first amendment protects us from the government controlling our speech. Right?
... sharing the cost of running that exact same ad because we realize that we're on the same page ... then suddenly we lose the rights pr
But if we also engage in our protected right to assemble as a group, and do something horrific like
Florida strikes again! (Score:2)
yeah baby!
Courage? (Score:2)
"And I will tell you completely honestly: I'd rather die in the flight than live to be 80 years old and see this country fall."
I'd think so....
What he is pointing out is the money corruption going on and making this whole political game a charade - just look at those faces... clowns?
It would be worth laughing about it if it wouldn'd be so sad.
Don't forget the message (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no democracy when corporations are allowed unlimited campaign donations, have the rights of 'people', and can direct their media/news to support their candidates..
If all the information most of the population get is from controlled sources, then theres no hope for "3rd party" and nothing will ever really change.. :(
Republican or democratic parties, Bush, Obama... Other than token issues theres no difference.
Remember folks the wealthiest 400(four hundred) people in the USA own more assets than the lower 150 million(150,000,000) people combined.
Re: (Score:3)
One representative per ~500,000 citizens is not democracy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What is the exact ratio between citizens and representatives which defines a democracy?
All of this, of course, ignores the fact that the US is not, and has never been, an actual democracy. It is a Federal Republic.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be in favor of creating a third branch of congress, made up solely of people chosen at random from their respective states.
Give them the right to veto legislation, maybe not create bills, and otherwise oversee congress.
We'd have a federal democratic republic then.
Re: (Score:2)
Your time would be better spent pushing for the repeal of the 17th amendment and ending direct election of senators.
Re: (Score:2)
There is too much vested interest in maintaining the current power structure for any substantive legislative change to happen within my lifetime. At this point, short of open revolt, there will be nothing except for a dog and pony show, with a token reform here and there.
Nope, I'm looking more for future generations, and up and coming countries to learn from our mistakes and institute something new. We are not even a federal republic anymore, but an oligarchy, and as with all corrupted governments, a footno
Re: (Score:2)
What source of randomness would you use for such a branch? In an era where there's too many rigged elections, how do you expect your randomness to be fair?
Re: (Score:2)
Method could be as involved as, I forget the name, but the system was people chosen at random to then choose the next group of people to choose the next group of people, and seven iterations that group then finally choose the representatives. Or you could just select from the social security numbers in a state. Fairly anonymous then.
As other people have mentioned, increasing the numbers of representatives makes it cost prohibitive to buy legislation. If people are chosen randomly, you get a broad section of
Re: (Score:2)
It is neither a 'democracy' nor a republic. It is an oligarchy - in the technical sense: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-... [bbc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
This is as old as the Roman Era governments... a democracy requires everybody to vote on everything, a republic selects representatives/senators to vote as an assembly.
Re: (Score:3)
Why do we even need to elect our representatives? Consider this: if a rep gets 51% of the vote in the district, then nearly half the people are not represented. On top of this we have gerrymandering. If 80 out of 100 districts are 51% for party A and 49% for party B, and the other 20 districts are 100% for party B, you can easily see that despite having a real majority, party B has no actual power. Pretty sucky if you ask me.
No... I have a different answer:
Appointing our representation. In this system
Re: (Score:3)
And I am aware of a few kinks that would need to be resolved. If you keep the current districts, there would need to be more seats as now there are multiple representatives per district. And what if 20 people run for a district and get votes, should all 20 get seats? Probably not.
Some possibilities:
- Reduce the number of districts.
- Limit the number of representatives allowed per district.
- Perhaps, just get rid of districts. If someone from across my state represents me better than someone local, then
Re:Just get rid of democracy instead (Score:5, Informative)
A country being a republic or not has absolutely nothing to do with being a democracy. And being federal also has nothing to do with being a democracy. These are orthogonal notions - a republic simply means a country without a hereditary or dynastic leader. It can be a democracy, or a dictatorship, or anything in between. A federal republic means simply a group of republics cooperating on common matters of interest while governing their own internal affairs - again, it has nothing to do with democracy. One could have a federal dictatorship, if one really wanted. Hell, there are non-republics which are democracies (Britain is a good example). Why do so many people have such difficulties with these words? The concepts are childishly easy to grasp. Why you got a +4 for telling everyone you don't know what those words means is beyond me :)
The phrase you are probably looking for is "representative democracy".
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to break it to you... but we aren't a democracy, we are a republic.
Lets say we changed that ratio a bit... maybe 1 rep per 50k citizens... that would perhaps bump the number of reps to 4,350... do you think that would be any more workable?
Re: (Score:3)
It would be much MORE workable.
Bribery and blackmail would have to hit 10 times as many targets to be as effective. Deadlocks would be more easily broken through. The sharp edge of partisan lines would become blurrier. People would have an actual chance of meeting and talking to their representatives outside of some lip service campaign event or writing a big fat check.
Re: (Score:2)
It is just a republic on paper. In practice it's an oligarchy: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-... [bbc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It's more of a democracy than zero representatives per 500 000 citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry if that sabotages your attempt to dumb things down to the point of uselessness.
Re: (Score:2)
> "dudebro pissbaby fuckboy"
Next up on stage, Pissbaby Fuckboy!
Re: (Score:2)
> "An anonymous reader writes that Doug Hughes, 61, a mailman from Ruskin, Florida"...
I'm tired, and managed to somehow read that as "a mailman from Russia". I was pretty impressed with the guy's dedication, flying a gyro-copter all the way to DC!
Well... He'd have to, wouldn't he. After all, with global warming the ice bridge to Alaska is gone.... (grin)
Re: (Score:2)
We'll see. Although I agree it is unlikely to move the ball any, he stands a lot better chance doing it this way than say, taking off his clothes and running through a mall or some other stunt. He's going to get his 15 minutes of fame (and a huge passel of legal hurt) but if some politician were to take this up and push it, he has the enormous advantage of being thrown into the world's eyeballs for the next little while. It could go viral and maybe bang on the system a little bit.
This day and age, that i
Re: (Score:2)