Don't you guys need more congree critters?

[Dr Grump]

It is actually around one rep for every 16 million people. That explains why they don't care about anyone who is not rich.

your math is way off

That it is, so I fixed it.

Thanks for the catch.

It's still wrong...It's 1 for every 85,000

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Someone actually filed a lawsuit over this earlier this year.

Federal Government Says 'One-Person One-Vote' Rule Does Not Bind Congress - Plaintiffs in... -- OXFORD, Miss., Feb. 19 /PRNewswire/ --

 

[jillian]

Nobody can effectively represent 700,000 people. We definitely need more members in the House, but there is little will to do it. More representatives means a dilution of power for each member and they don't want that.

you've asked?

Politicians cling to power like barnacles to a sunken ship.

no one willingly gives up power or wealth...

what's the line?

poor men wanna be rich
rich men wanna be king
and a king ain't satisfied til he rules everything.

 

[Dr Grump]

Someone actually filed a lawsuit over this earlier this year.

Federal Government Says 'One-Person One-Vote' Rule Does Not Bind Congress - Plaintiffs in... -- OXFORD, Miss., Feb. 19 /PRNewswire/ --

Interesting....

 

[Dr Grump]

I know most of you righties like smaller govt, but Art 1 sect II of your constitution said there should be 1 congressman/woman for every 30,000 constituants. Currently its 1 for every 700,000. At home (NZ) we have 1 MP for every 33,000 citizens.

Forget the big govt aspect of it, what about getting some time with your congress critter in order to put forward your concerns and arguments? Hard to do with so many other voice around, no? or do you get enough representation at state level?

actually, it says that the number of reps shall not exceed one for every 30,000.

Isn't it amazing how many people have trouble reading?

We make a great pair. I can't read, you can't do maths....

 

[jillian]

actually, it says that the number of reps shall not exceed one for every 30,000.

Isn't it amazing how many people have trouble reading?

We make a great pair. I can't read, you can't do maths....

do you think the irony in his post was intentional?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

actually, it says that the number of reps shall not exceed one for every 30,000.

Isn't it amazing how many people have trouble reading?

We make a great pair. I can't read, you can't do maths....

I used to be able to do math, did you used to be able to read?

 

[Dr Grump]

Isn't it amazing how many people have trouble reading?

We make a great pair. I can't read, you can't do maths....

I used to be able to do math, did you used to be able to read?

 

[whitehall]

I know most of you righties like smaller govt, but Art 1 sect II of your constitution said there should be 1 congressman/woman for every 30,000 constituants. Currently its 1 for every 700,000. At home (NZ) we have 1 MP for every 33,000 citizens.

Forget the big govt aspect of it, what about getting some time with your congress critter in order to put forward your concerns and arguments? Hard to do with so many other voice around, no? or do you get enough representation at state level?

There is something weird going on in the minds of radical lefties. Maybe it's a result of a sub-standard union based elementary education or maybe it's a result of the pop-culture tripe promoted by the left wing media or maybe it's just Soros' based left wing propaganda. The point is that Tea Party activists and republicans are satisfied with the US Constitution. Calling for a smaller government means firing most of the fat assed bureaucrats who collect a salary by sitting on their asses and creating rules that they know nobody can live by. Trim the size of the Constitutionally required government you jackasses.

 

[Dr Grump]

I know most of you righties like smaller govt, but Art 1 sect II of your constitution said there should be 1 congressman/woman for every 30,000 constituants. Currently its 1 for every 700,000. At home (NZ) we have 1 MP for every 33,000 citizens.

Forget the big govt aspect of it, what about getting some time with your congress critter in order to put forward your concerns and arguments? Hard to do with so many other voice around, no? or do you get enough representation at state level?

There is something weird going on in the minds of radical lefties. Maybe it's a result of a sub-standard union based elementary education or maybe it's a result of the pop-culture tripe promoted by the left wing media or maybe it's just Soros' based left wing propaganda. The point is that Tea Party activists and republicans are satisfied with the US Constitution. Calling for a smaller government means firing most of the fat assed bureaucrats who collect a salary by sitting on their asses and creating rules that they know nobody can live by. Trim the size of the Constitutionally required government you jackasses.

Not my problem.
That aside, who is sitting on their butts at the moment? I mean who specifically, or are you just using stereotypes?

 

[FA_Q2]

We have enough trouble getting 400 to work together, how impossible would it be to get thousands to work together. Each congressman would be worthless as well. No real voice in the torrential downpour of the others. No, the number is quite good where it is at.

 

[konradv]

Someone actually filed a lawsuit over this earlier this year.

Federal Government Says 'One-Person One-Vote' Rule Does Not Bind Congress - Plaintiffs in... -- OXFORD, Miss., Feb. 19 /PRNewswire/ --

Don't really see how you can get around that without redrawing state lines or creating Congressional districts that cross state lines. The way we do it now is Constitutional. To change it would reqire an amendment, so the suit seems like an exercise in futility.

 

[Polk]

Nobody can effectively represent 700,000 people. We definitely need more members in the House, but there is little will to do it. More representatives means a dilution of power for each member and they don't want that.

To add: Small states dislike the idea, because it lowers their over-representation.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nobody can effectively represent 700,000 people. We definitely need more members in the House, but there is little will to do it. More representatives means a dilution of power for each member and they don't want that.

To add: Small states dislike the idea, because it lowers their over-representation.

How would it lower the over representation of states with 1 representative when they would end up with more representatives?

 

[Polk]

Nobody can effectively represent 700,000 people. We definitely need more members in the House, but there is little will to do it. More representatives means a dilution of power for each member and they don't want that.

To add: Small states dislike the idea, because it lowers their over-representation.

How would it lower the over representation of states with 1 representative when they would end up with more representatives?

Because they'd up with a lower proportion of the total. Wyoming has 1 seat out of 435. They'd still have 1 seat in a up until roughly 550 seats (Wyoming is 1/554th of the population).

 

[jillian]

Nobody can effectively represent 700,000 people. We definitely need more members in the House, but there is little will to do it. More representatives means a dilution of power for each member and they don't want that.

To add: Small states dislike the idea, because it lowers their over-representation.

How would it lower the over representation of states with 1 representative when they would end up with more representatives?

do you really not understand the concept that increasing the number of congress members would dilute the power of smaller states? it should... they're smaller, their power should be proportionately lower.

i hope you're being contary and not really incapable of following that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

To add: Small states dislike the idea, because it lowers their over-representation.

How would it lower the over representation of states with 1 representative when they would end up with more representatives?

do you really not understand the concept that increasing the number of congress members would dilute the power of smaller states? it should... they're smaller, their power should be proportionately lower.

i hope you're being contary and not really incapable of following that.

It would not affect the Senate, which is where the larger states want to change things. I think that means that you are the one who is confused, not me.

 

[FA_Q2]

Someone actually filed a lawsuit over this earlier this year.

Federal Government Says 'One-Person One-Vote' Rule Does Not Bind Congress - Plaintiffs in... -- OXFORD, Miss., Feb. 19 /PRNewswire/ --

Don't really see how you can get around that without redrawing state lines or creating Congressional districts that cross state lines. The way we do it now is Constitutional. To change it would reqire an amendment, so the suit seems like an exercise in futility.

Why? All you would need is more districts. That would not affect state lines whatsoever and certainly would not violate the constitution.