I feel like I’m chronically online, glued to the news, and am always receiving political texts. Somehow I had no idea this was all happening this weekend and I’m very confused.

https://amp.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article303512311.html

while I support Bernie Sanders he is not a socialist by any means while he does lean left he does not advocate for the workers control of the means of production I guess i'm just wondering why people call Senator Sanders a socialist when anyone who has read any marxist literature would under stand that he is not?

EDIT: most responses are very cool

I think it could have bipartisan support and would be beneficial for the country. Technology could help overcome a lot of challenges cited as reasons for not ratifying it sooner.

Here are some benefits I was thinking of:

• Actually knowing your local representative, regular communications with them and feeling they represent your interests
• Reduced power of lobbyists due to local accountability and sheer number
• Provides more opportunity for people to become actively involved in and knowledgeable about government
• Potential for people who would be amazing representatives that otherwise wouldn’t have ever run for office to “rise to the top” based solely on capability and reputation
• Govenrment actually representative of the people in various communities versus just whatever their party line currently is, more independents

Only 27 more states would need to ratify in order for the amendment to take effect as it’s still technically pending.

Thoughts? Any other potential benefits you could think of?

—————————————————————————

Summary of The Congressional Apportionment Amendment

• Proposed in 1789: It was one of the original 12 amendments proposed in the Bill of Rights; the first article in the group.
• Purpose: To regulate the size of the U.S. House of Representatives by setting a formula for apportioning representatives among the states based on population.
• Goal: To ensure more direct and proportional representation as the population grew.

Amendment Content: - Specifies that there should be at least one Representative for every 30,000 people. - Sets a series of ratios adjusting as the population increases, eventually capping the number of representatives to a formulaic limit.

Ratification Status: - Passed by Congress but never ratified by enough states to become part of the Constitution. - Remains technically pending, as it has no ratification deadline.

Historical Significance: - Reflects the Founders’ concerns about ensuring fair representation in a growing republic. - Some modern advocates cite it in discussions about reforming or expanding the House of Representatives.

“Billionaires have bought up the country and are carving it up day by day. The economy they’ve built is good for them, bad for us,” Osborn said in a post on X.

“This race, we could have a chance to win. We could take on this illness, the billionaire class, directly,” he continued. “We could replace a billionaire with a mechanic.”

“Just me and Pete. Someone who’s spent his life working for a living and will never take an order from a corporation or a party boss, or someone who’s never worked a day in his life and is entirely beholden to corporations and party bosses,” Osborn said.