We Need More Representatives In The House Of Representatives

Let’s discuss a few of the points Con raised: Con made a series of confusing statements in R2. Con presented an article that stated how women and minorities are now predominately on the political left with white men comprising most of the political right. This House makeup ignores the reality of women and minorities not being on the left and white men not always being on the political right. I thank Con for providing another piece of evidence to support the need to add more voices to the process and expand the House of Representatives. Con added by saying how “incumbents get re-elected to the House about 90% of the time in any given election. ” Con’s statements illustrate the problem. As I said before, “[w]hen the American people do not have a choice in Congressional elections because no challenger would (or could) run, our democracy fails. ” Con’s statements do not refute the resolution; in fact, they support the resolution. Con said: “when you break down the makeup of both parties, along with what kind of people are actually elected to the house of representatives in the first place, then it becomes apparent that more representatives would not resemble the american[sic] people, it simply wouldnt[sic] change. ” Con continued by saying more Congressional seats: “would just further exacerbate the gap between the makeup of the House and the american[sic] public where more white men are added to Congress. ” Con does not provide evidence to support that women and minorities wouldn’t win any new seats created in a larger Congress. He just says so. As we have a black President who won against a woman Senator in the Democratic party primary, I find it difficult to believe Con’s claim that “([a] bunch of old white men)” will automatically pick up any and all new seats added to the House of Representatives. Con assumes that “bunch[es] of old white men” will all vote in a similar manner. How does Con know that “[a] bunch of old white men” will all automatically vote the same way? How exactly would “[a] bunch of old white men” vote? In short, Con’s counterclaims are baloney at best and biased at their worst. Con claimed that the House of Representatives currently provides a cross-section of America. This is simply not true. Aside from Con’s opinion, there are many glaring realities about the House, which show that the representative body no longer represents the makeup of America: The House is disproportional by gender. While women comprise approximately 50% of the population in America, but only 18% of the House membership. . http://womensissues.about.com... The House is disproportional by income. An average Congressman makes $174,000 per year while also receiving full health care benefits. The benefits bring Congressional salaries to approximately $285,000 which is five times higher than what an average American makes. . http://dailycaller.com... This House is disproportional by wealth. In 2009, 44% of the House members were millionaires as compared to only 1% of the American population. . http://www.politico.com... If Con happens to live in a world where 18% of the population are women, everyone makes about $280,000 per year, and just about half of the population are millionaires then he is correct in asserting that the current House of Representatives is a faithful cross-section of Americans. But, such a world does not exist in the lives of everyday Americans; therefore, Con must realize that his proposed composition of the House is not the makeup of America and that more seats will allow more viewpoints into the conversation. Con erroneously discussed Senator McConnell’s approval ratings; however, Senator McConnell is a Senator. He is not in the House of Representatives. Con discussed Senator McConnell’s approval ratings; however, this is a moot point. Senator McConnell is a member of the Senate and not of the House of Representatives. This resolution, and the purpose of the debate, is to discuss the House of Representatives. Arguments about the Senate do not relate to the House, as the House is a separate body. Con’s argument is about the Senate; therefore, Con’s argument is invalid in this discussion. Con inaccurately stated his understanding of how the Electoral College works. Con said “But thats[sic] not even the case with how the Electoral system works, its a winner take all system. ” Con’s statement is not true. Maine & Nebraska already allocate electors on a proportional basis, not winner-take-all. . http://www.archives.gov... Con claims that adding members to the House will create conflict. Con said “[a]dding more people into Congress would just further exacerbate dissatisfaction with Congress and instead push Congress's approval ratings even lower, not higher. ” But, in DDO, we know first-hand that Con’s claim is simply not true. Adding more Representatives in the process has the same effect that adding more voters does in a DDO debate; it allows for more opinions and also stops a single voter from unduly influencing the outcome. Not only did Con fail to rebut my argument, but he posed another argument that is easily negated by the first-hand experiences of both Con, myself, and of those who will be voting on this debate. Just as DDO makes requests for voters to counter a vote bomb by asking more members to vote on a debate, more Reps in Congress would give Americans the ability to achieve better outcomes in the House by having more Congressmen voting on issues. We ask for this in DDO and we should expect it from our government. Summary In conclusion, I would like to thank my worthy adversary for his display of superior debating skills. One such skill Con applied in the last round was a tactic called spreading, also known as the Gish Gallop, where Con tried to list as many counter-arguments as possible in an attempt to distract from the discussion at hand. But, the topic of identifying the problems within Congress and finding the ideal solution is too important to allow Con’s baffling and incorrect statements from R2 into this discussion. More Representatives would bring more voices to the legislative process. Con has not provided evidence to dispute this. Con made many inaccurate statements last round. Con talked about campaigning for Senate when this debate discusses the House of Representatives, a different legislative body. Con said that all states must allocate electors on a winner-take-all basis when, in fact, two states currently do not allocate electors on a winner-take-all basis. Con concluded by stating that more Representatives would create more conflict. But, as I mentioned before, just as DDO makes requests for voters to counter a vote bomb by asking more members to vote on a debate, more Reps in Congress would give Americans the ability to achieve better outcomes in the House by having more Congressmen voting on issues. We ask for this in DDO and we should expect this from our government. I affirm all of my prior arguments, Con’s argument that our current Congress is not representative of America, and Con’s argument that sitting Congressmen overwhelming win re election despite low approval ratings. I’m looking forward to my opponent abandoning the Gish Gallop and bringing a researched and reasoned response in his rebuttal.