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

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'm all for it.
 
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.

Return the Senate to what it was before the amendment allowing direct voting, let the State legislatures select the Senators.
 
Proportional representation in the House is what is needed to break the two party gravy train, ops I mean, system. Our Houston Metro Area Subdivision got redrawn and gerrymandered, zigzagging all the way to the Louisiana border.
 
Return the Senate to what it was before the amendment allowing direct voting, let the State legislatures select the Senators.
Try to Amend the Constitution to take that right away from the people. I dare ya.
 
Try to Amend the Constitution to take that right away from the people. I dare ya.

Only way it would work.

Would love to see it.

And they would still indirectly elect Senators, it just adds one layer, and makes the Senators more loyal to their State, not the national party as we see now.
 
They already do in the House. The Senate is redundant, and the States need representation as intended by the founders.

They also already do that at the State level.
It's become too easy for a party in power to gerrymander the voting districts and dilute the voting power of the opposition party.
 
Keep the Senate (perhaps with some changes). Ditch the over-priced, inefficient House and go to direct voting. Imagine the money and time saved, not to mention the improvement from taw payers providing lobbyists with cushy surrounding in which to screw us.
 
It's become too easy for a party in power to gerrymander the voting districts and dilute the voting power of the opposition party.

Smaller districts would make gerrymandering harder, as crazier shapes to get the population splits the party in power wants would be easier to spot.
 
Which small group should run the country?
What Ido know is if a person follows the rules and lives next to someone who falunted it, it sucks.
Which small group should run the country?
What I do know is that if someone follows the rules and someone else lives next door flaunting the same, it sucks. And this is something going on for decades.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #35
The responses are largely what I expected, a lot of gnashing of teeth without even five seconds of critical thinking being applied.
 
i don't know...THE PRESIDENT?
So what the Prez sez, goes, is that right?

You're not making any sense dude.

By your own words you were whining about one state, California, running the country, now you want it whittled down to one man?!?!?

giphy.gif
 
Last edited:
Congress should meet for 4 months every two years, get their shit done, and go home.

No paycheck for any of it. They have plenty of time for a real job.
 

Forum List

Back
Top