Talk:Congressional stagnation in the United States

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was no consensus. —Nightstallion (?) 09:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Per my comments at WP:PR I think the title of this article is not neutral and may still count as original research (pending your reply at PR, and presuming you can cite an example of "Congressional stagnation" being used to describe this phenomenon of incumbents being re-elected).  I think it should be moved, to something like "Re-election rate of U.S. Representatives."  Kaisershatner 16:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, but i think a more suitable title would be "Incumbent electoral eadvantage in the United States Congress"? Still to POV? As i think that title is more appropriate Thethinredline 18:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That's a pretty neutral title, but does it really summarize the subject of this article?  Before we move it, maybe discussion is in order (see WP:RM and Wikipedia:Naming_conflict.  I think the process may help us figure this out.  Kaisershatner 16:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Title, page move

message: Wow, this is facinating!  I wonder if it would be possible to come up with a table that would show the replacement rate of members of Congress in past elections.  Chadlupkes 02:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the creator and primary contributor to this article i've been meaning to do that for a long time, however circumstances largely out of my control have limited my time on wikipedia (getting married and becoming a father for instance) but it's on my todo list. Thethinredline 21:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Article! 

message: I'm just passing through categorizing articles for WP:UCGA, and I was checking the quality of the article given the age of the GA.  There's nothing wrong with the quality of the article, but you may want to check your references -- I think that sometime since this article was written, the method of using in-line citations and referencing works has changed as the current article "suggests" there's 50-odd reference but in reality only about a dozen.  (eg we now have <ref> tags and the citation templates)  Easy to fix, and nothing to ding this articles' GA for. --Masem 19:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quickie suggestion 

message: Please note that "Article the First" revises the "Congressional Apportionment Amendment" in a very serious way.  The actual amendment had nothing to do with apportionment of power among the states as the now redirected "Apportionment" article boldly claimed.  "Article the First" was about essential liberty and the voice of the common people in THEIR government.  These statements, unlike my earlier statements herein above are well supported by the history and the congressional records. One thing that seems to be inaccurate here and in most supposed analysis of Article The First is a claim that the amendment would force an increase in the representation (House membership) to 6K members.  The current unamended Constitution ALLOWS a House of 10K members but does not compel it.  Article the First (unless it is interpreted as an algorithm) ALLOWS a House of only 6K members.  The effect of ratifying Article the First if interpreted as an algorithm would be to create a house membership of 1600 members.  And if not interpreted as an algorithm the amendment would be absolutely moot. The current "no more than one for every 30K" is obviously more generous than "not more than one for every 50K" in the amendment.  Neither statement compels the government to do anything about the ridiculous "one for every 700K" we currently have.  The alteration and crippling of the Article the First happened because of incumbency in the first place.  While the people wanted assurance of representation and the people's conventions (ratifying conventions) made this clear, the amendment was sabotaged by an aristocratic committee and then rejected by, not the people, but by the incumbent members of the state legislatures.  The people of America got ripped at square one by the tendency of those in power ever seeking to protect their power and to add to it.  We all have this same disease.  Some are more afflicted than others. 
--The Trucker 16:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article the First