Congressman wants to expand House of Representatives by 150 seats to create smaller voting districts

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I have my doubts this will pass, but this needed to happen years ago. The American people are not getting representation when their representative is responsible for the wants and needs of 800,000 people. That is too diverse of a group to be effectively represented by one person and if you've ever tried to get an audience with your congressman, good luck. If you are lucky enough to meet with them better luck getting more than five minutes.

Another change I would make is to allow them to vote remotely so they can spend more time in their home districts and less in D.C.

Feel free to now whine and complain about this idea.

The bill from Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., would add 150 new seats to the House, boosting the total number from 435 to 585 House lawmakers by 2030. Blumenauer says more members of the House are needed because they currently represent too many people – nearly 800,000 on average – which is making it difficult for lawmakers to represent their voters effectively.

MSN

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

they would have to build a new house chamber
Dems just want more power

 

[basquebromance]

I have my doubts this will pass, but this needed to happen years ago. The American people are not getting representation when their representative is responsible for the wants and needs of 800,000 people. That is too diverse of a group to be effectively represented by one person and if you've ever tried to get an audience with your congressman, good luck. If you are lucky enough to meet with them better luck getting more than five minutes.

Another change I would make is to allow them to vote remotely so they can spend more time in their home districts and less in D.C.

Feel free to now whine and complain about this idea.

i will whine

So you want California to run the country?

 

[MarcATL]

i will whine

So you want California to run the country?

Which small group should run the country?

 

[basquebromance]

Which small group should run the country?

i don't know...THE PRESIDENT?

 

[Nostra]

Yeah, let’s send another 150 asshats to DC so they can siphon tax dollars to send back to their districts.

Brilliant!

 

[candycorn]

I have my doubts this will pass, but this needed to happen years ago. The American people are not getting representation when their representative is responsible for the wants and needs of 800,000 people. That is too diverse of a group to be effectively represented by one person and if you've ever tried to get an audience with your congressman, good luck. If you are lucky enough to meet with them better luck getting more than five minutes.

Another change I would make is to allow them to vote remotely so they can spend more time in their home districts and less in D.C.

Feel free to now whine and complain about this idea.

Completely agree with you on this one.

Especially in the "money equals speech" era we have now....

I personally also favor getting rid of the Senate entirely. That has no hope of ever happening of course. This house measure? Maybe.

 

[Lastamender]

I have my doubts this will pass, but this needed to happen years ago. The American people are not getting representation when their representative is responsible for the wants and needs of 800,000 people. That is too diverse of a group to be effectively represented by one person and if you've ever tried to get an audience with your congressman, good luck. If you are lucky enough to meet with them better luck getting more than five minutes.

Another change I would make is to allow them to vote remotely so they can spend more time in their home districts and less in D.C.

Feel free to now whine and complain about this idea.

150 more assholes who do not listen to their constituents at 176.000 a year is a waste.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I have my doubts this will pass, but this needed to happen years ago. The American people are not getting representation when their representative is responsible for the wants and needs of 800,000 people. That is too diverse of a group to be effectively represented by one person and if you've ever tried to get an audience with your congressman, good luck. If you are lucky enough to meet with them better luck getting more than five minutes.

Another change I would make is to allow them to vote remotely so they can spend more time in their home districts and less in D.C.

Feel free to now whine and complain about this idea.

They're not getting the representation they need and adding 150 seats won't change this.
Changing to Proportional Representation, but keeping the same number of seats, would have a MUCH BIGGER DIFFERENCE.

 

[candycorn]

They're not getting the representation they need and adding 150 seats won't change this.
Changing to Proportional Representation, but keeping the same number of seats, would have a MUCH BIGGER DIFFERENCE.

Really? Explain.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Really? Explain.

With FPTP there's a problem. It only leads to two parties. In Germany, with Proportional Representation and a 5% cut off they have six political parties, in Denmark with a 2% cut off they have ten political parties.

In Germany each party stands for something different. CDU/CSU are your traditional right wing party. The SPD is the traditional left wing party. The FDP are the center-right party, the AfD the further right party, the Gruene are the left wing environmental party and die Linke are the further left party.

In the US you have the Reps who are between fascists and center-right and the Dems who are between center-right and Communism. They're too big, they hold too many views to stand for anything, they're afraid of standing for anything other than side issues like abortion, guns etc because holding views of the economy, for example, wouldn't work as every new leader comes up with something else and Congress has millions of different views among the Congress-peeps.

If they were to increase the number of representatives, all that would happen is that Republicans and Democrats would win those seats, like they win almost all the seats in the US. The third party in the US is the Libertarian Party and they have had zero presidents, they have zero Congress-peeps, they have zero governors, zero state House seats, zero state Senate seats, and 322 elected representatives (like dog catcher or some shit).

Overview | Undergraduate Research & Fellowships

Undergraduate Research and Fellowships (URF) fosters a culture of undergraduate research and creative endeavor—broadly defined—at Northeastern University. Research and creative endeavors are key…

www.northeastern.edu

" Legislators vote almost exactly along party lines "

Democrats mostly vote Democrat, Republicans mostly vote Republican. There is some fight in there from some reps (representatives), but not really. Most reps follow the money, most have been bought, most do as they're told.

Proportional Representation means people know what they're voting for. They have CHOICE.

In the US if you have the Republicans who you hate because of their economic policy, and Democrats who you hate because of their immigration policy, you're screwed and they're not going to listen to you, because one side will get your vote, and if you vote third party, who cares anyway?

In the UK, with FPTP, UKIP in 2015 got 12.6% of the vote. They won one seat.
In Germany, with PR, the AfD in 2017 got 12.6% of the vote. They won 90 seats.

Spot the difference.

The difference now is that UKIP has died. It's irrelevant. The AfD is still going strong, they got 10.3% of the vote. People weren't too happy with them so 2.3% probably went back to the CDU/CSU. In 2017 they were unhappy with the CDU/CSU so they voted elsewhere.

In fact in Germany they vote FPTP and PR on the same day and the biggest two parties do better with FPTP and the smaller parties do better with PR, because people want to vote smaller parties but with FPTP feel they can't, because usually it's a two horse race as to who's going to win and you vote third party, you lose control of your vote, lose control who who is going to win that seat.

 

[Leo123]

Anything that expands government=BAD.

 

[BrokeLoser]

I have my doubts this will pass, but this needed to happen years ago. The American people are not getting representation when their representative is responsible for the wants and needs of 800,000 people. That is too diverse of a group to be effectively represented by one person and if you've ever tried to get an audience with your congressman, good luck. If you are lucky enough to meet with them better luck getting more than five minutes.

Another change I would make is to allow them to vote remotely so they can spend more time in their home districts and less in D.C.

Feel free to now whine and complain about this idea.

Congress consistently runs along with an approval rating in the 20% range….Sooooo you think The People want a bigger shit-show they can hate or do you think the shit-show won’t be such a shit-show with a little tighter representation?

candycorn

 

[Jessica-stormlover]

Yeah, let’s send another 150 asshats to DC so they can siphon tax dollars to send back to their districts.

Brilliant!

Is that part of the point? That is why their districts elect them!

 

[progressive hunter]

I have my doubts this will pass, but this needed to happen years ago. The American people are not getting representation when their representative is responsible for the wants and needs of 800,000 people. That is too diverse of a group to be effectively represented by one person and if you've ever tried to get an audience with your congressman, good luck. If you are lucky enough to meet with them better luck getting more than five minutes.

Another change I would make is to allow them to vote remotely so they can spend more time in their home districts and less in D.C.

Feel free to now whine and complain about this idea.

long before that can even be considered the fed gov needs to be pulled back into the confines of the constitution,,
otherwise you just have a bigger bloated fed gov that answers to no one but themselves,,

 

[candycorn]

With FPTP there's a problem. It only leads to two parties. In Germany, with Proportional Representation and a 5% cut off they have six political parties, in Denmark with a 2% cut off they have ten political parties.

In Germany each party stands for something different. CDU/CSU are your traditional right wing party. The SPD is the traditional left wing party. The FDP are the center-right party, the AfD the further right party, the Gruene are the left wing environmental party and die Linke are the further left party.

In the US you have the Reps who are between fascists and center-right and the Dems who are between center-right and Communism. They're too big, they hold too many views to stand for anything, they're afraid of standing for anything other than side issues like abortion, guns etc because holding views of the economy, for example, wouldn't work as every new leader comes up with something else and Congress has millions of different views among the Congress-peeps.

If they were to increase the number of representatives, all that would happen is that Republicans and Democrats would win those seats, like they win almost all the seats in the US. The third party in the US is the Libertarian Party and they have had zero presidents, they have zero Congress-peeps, they have zero governors, zero state House seats, zero state Senate seats, and 322 elected representatives (like dog catcher or some shit).

Overview | Undergraduate Research & Fellowships

Undergraduate Research and Fellowships (URF) fosters a culture of undergraduate research and creative endeavor—broadly defined—at Northeastern University. Research and creative endeavors are key…

www.northeastern.edu

" Legislators vote almost exactly along party lines "

Democrats mostly vote Democrat, Republicans mostly vote Republican. There is some fight in there from some reps (representatives), but not really. Most reps follow the money, most have been bought, most do as they're told.

Proportional Representation means people know what they're voting for. They have CHOICE.

In the US if you have the Republicans who you hate because of their economic policy, and Democrats who you hate because of their immigration policy, you're screwed and they're not going to listen to you, because one side will get your vote, and if you vote third party, who cares anyway?

In the UK, with FPTP, UKIP in 2015 got 12.6% of the vote. They won one seat.
In Germany, with PR, the AfD in 2017 got 12.6% of the vote. They won 90 seats.

Spot the difference.

The difference now is that UKIP has died. It's irrelevant. The AfD is still going strong, they got 10.3% of the vote. People weren't too happy with them so 2.3% probably went back to the CDU/CSU. In 2017 they were unhappy with the CDU/CSU so they voted elsewhere.

In fact in Germany they vote FPTP and PR on the same day and the biggest two parties do better with FPTP and the smaller parties do better with PR, because people want to vote smaller parties but with FPTP feel they can't, because usually it's a two horse race as to who's going to win and you vote third party, you lose control of your vote, lose control who who is going to win that seat.

Did you read the OP?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Did you read the OP?

Yes.

 

[Cellblock2429]

I have my doubts this will pass, but this needed to happen years ago. The American people are not getting representation when their representative is responsible for the wants and needs of 800,000 people. That is too diverse of a group to be effectively represented by one person and if you've ever tried to get an audience with your congressman, good luck. If you are lucky enough to meet with them better luck getting more than five minutes.

Another change I would make is to allow them to vote remotely so they can spend more time in their home districts and less in D.C.

Feel free to now whine and complain about this idea.

/—-/-/ No time to whine, we’re too busy laughing at you. Funny how this proposal is made ONLLY after the GOP takes control of Congress. BWHAHAHAHA BWHAHAHAHA

 

[Independentthinker]

I have my doubts this will pass, but this needed to happen years ago. The American people are not getting representation when their representative is responsible for the wants and needs of 800,000 people. That is too diverse of a group to be effectively represented by one person and if you've ever tried to get an audience with your congressman, good luck. If you are lucky enough to meet with them better luck getting more than five minutes.

Another change I would make is to allow them to vote remotely so they can spend more time in their home districts and less in D.C.

Feel free to now whine and complain about this idea.

Yet another political coup attempt by Democrats to take full control.

 

[Pete7469]

As if the 435 corrupt sociopath don't waste enough money, we need another 150 jerk off lawyers to find ways to piss money away?