nonfunctional body to a much larger and potentially even more nonfunctional body.
That, my friend, is change just for the sake of change and that rarely comes to a good conclusion.
As to making a 10,000 member body functional:
arendt,
your proposal has many interesting points, but it lacks an understanding of 1 key fact:
Bureaucracies and their knowledge, no matter how despised or ridiculed, are absolutely critical to the functioning of any complex, organized society.
Historically, all the societies that grew past a certain point/size and thrived had some sort of bureaucracy in place to handle many of the day to day aspects necessary for that society to function. Egypt had them (in the form of the priesthood), China had them (scholar gentry system), Rome had them (this is the closest example of a modern day bureaucracy) and India had/has them (the Brahman caste) to name a few.
Their function is based upon their longevity in their position. They understand how to make the "machine" work, how to maintain it and fix it (in a tactical way). Churning them out every 2 years would disrupt the continuity that they (must) provide.
do bureaucracies have their flaws? Of course, they do, however, without their role, the society and it's structure, especially when the society reaches a certain size (usually beyond the city/state level), begins to crumble and decay.
================================================================================================================
The funny thing that I love to sit back and watch is people running around and saying we need to change this or change then when it comes to the foundations of this nation. The Founding Fathers did an outstanding job (either through wisdom or luck) to cobble together 13 almost individual nations (only really held together by a common language) into one cohesive functioning group/nation.
The framework laid down is flexible enough to scale across a continent and across 4 centuries (18th, 19th, 20th and 21st for those who want to quibble); function in the face of an increase of population by more than 2 orders of magnitude (2.5million to 300 million); unheard of technical innovation and through 1 Civil War (and multiple inter-state skirmishes).
yet, even with that wonderful functionality, there are people who will poke and prod in an attempt to "fix" what they percieve as broken. They never seem to get:
- when you start poking at the foundation, even when being very very careful, you run the risk of bringing the whole house down.
- forging together the 1st 13 states was a monumental struggle and damn near didn't happen
- bearing the above point in mind, it is highly unlikely that a new Constitution could be drafted and ratified (just imagine the battle over abortion - do you really think that a right to guarantee that would not be a deal killer? The nation is split and a 2/3's majority would be unlikely for unrestricted access to abortion - anything less the forces of pro-choice wouldn't accept and they make up 36% of the population)
BTW, if you are one of those that think the world would be a better place with a broken up USA, just imagine yourself on the wrong side of the border when the lines are drawn and the borders established and being stuck in "Jesusland" with the "United State of Canada" not accepting any immigrants.
This country has flaws and things could be much different (and, in some cases, better) but ripping down the house (or gutting the 2nd floor) in hopes that the new one will be better is a bigger risk than most people would be willing to take.