Is it time to increase the number of members in the US House of representatives?

[g5000]

They won't spend so much time fund raising for a job that only pays $100K a year and is a part time job.

The reason our politicians have to spend to much time begging for campaign cash is because we have given the federal government so much power that special interests donate large sums of money to capture that power. They are buying our politicians to get them to legislate in their favor.

The politician who raises the most money from special interests wins. And then he is beholden to them if he wants to stay in power.

If we reduce the amount of power vested in the federal government, we would remove the incentive for special interests to buy our politicians.

This is why I have said hundreds of times on this forum we need to ban tax expenditures.

 

[my2¢]

You have just highlighted the problem, and shown why we need to increase apportionment.

Yes, one way would be to increase the number of seats in the House. Another way is to keep the number of representatives at 435 and giving each seat a weighted value based on the state's population. As the population grew the first method grew troublesome.

 

[g5000]

Yes, one way would be to increase the number of seats in the House. Another way is to keep the number of representatives at 435 and giving each seat a weighted value based on the state's population. As the population grew the first method grew troublesome.

That is a very weak argument. Population growth has not been a problem for the states.

As I pointed out earlier, New Hampshire's state house has 400 representatives for a population of 1.36 million.

 

[struth]

Is it time to increase the number of members in the US House of representatives?

The U.S. House of Representatives has one voting member for every 747,000 or so Americans in 2023.

The U.S. House of Representatives has one voting member for every 250,000 or so Americans in 1923.

Can a congress member represent 750,000 people effectively?

Yes, 750K isn't all that much. especially when they really only are in session roughly 6 months out of the year.

Frankly, the folks with more people in their district, like the 750K, have smaller districts too, less area....so should be easier to connect.

 

[BackAgain]

Well, I guess it should not surprise me you need common sense explained to you.

Let's take your TardLogic™ and take it to the extreme to show its obvious flaw.

Let's have one Congressman for each state. That way, the urban areas can run roughshod over the rural areas.

Let's take Alabama for example. Rural areas make up 95 percent of the state. Yet 59 percent of the population lives in urban areas while only 41 percent live in the rural areas.

Would you rather have the urban areas controlling one representative, or would you rather give the rural areas a fighting chance by apportioning more representatives to the state?


Fewer representatives also make it much easier for special interests to capture one or a handful of Congressman rather than many.


Like I said. I should not have been surprised this had to be explained to you.

Read the Federalist Papers. It's worth your time.

It comes as no surprise that you couldn’t explain the concept of actual common sense since you’re a libtard and have zero capacity with regard to anything along such lines.

I’d advise you to re-read the Federalist Papers. Only this time, see what you can do to understand them.

 

[my2¢]

That is a very weak argument. Population growth has not been a problem for the states.

As I pointed out earlier, New Hampshire's state house has 400 representatives for a population of 1.36 million.

Let me get this straight, is it your contention that added seats in the House would straighten the position of smaller states? If so, that's totally opposite of reality. The more the number of seats in the House increase, the greater it shifts power to states with higher populations. It's all in the math.

Easiest way to see that is by using the Electoral College as example.

Currently of the 538 electoral votes, 153 of those have fixed allocation. That's based on 2 Senators and a minimum of 1 Representative per state with the District of Columbia accounting for the additional 3. That leaves 385 of the 538 (71%) of the electoral vote based on population.

Now if the House was expanded then that's a shift in power to the bigger states. Let's say they increase the number of seats by 200. We'd still have the same allocated 153 seats, but now we have 585 of the 738 (79%) based on population.

I doubt Republicans would go for it because it shifts power to the popular vote in the presidential election.

End of example. It would have the same affect overall.

 

[Kondor3]

What an intellectual response. You sure put a lot of thought into that one.

But it DOES cut to the crux of the argument, though, doesn't it?

 

[Kondor3]

No... the US House of Representatives is too big and unwieldy already.

Adding more Representatives merely increases the virtual "Fat" in the House.

Given how large the support staff are for these people, both locally and in DC...

They should be able to handle a large constituent base...

And, if not, it's OK to hire-on another staffer-or-two at each end, at taxpayer expense, to keep the No. of Reps down...

Frankly, I'd like to see the House SHRINK by a hundred-and-fifty reps or so...

But that's about as likely to happen as are Term Limits...

Perhaps in some other karmic lifetime...

 

[sealybobo]

The reason our politicians have to spend to much time begging for campaign cash is because we have given the federal government so much power that special interests donate large sums of money to capture that power. They are buying our politicians to get them to legislate in their favor.

The politician who raises the most money from special interests wins. And then he is beholden to them if he wants to stay in power.

If we reduce the amount of power vested in the federal government, we would remove the incentive for special interests to buy our politicians.

This is why I have said hundreds of times on this forum we need to ban tax expenditures.

Tax expenditures? Do I need to go do some homework?

Campaign Finance Reform is what we need.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

But it DOES cut to the crux of the argument, though, doesn't it?

Only if you have the critical thinking skills of a tomato

 

[Kondor3]

Only if you have the critical thinking skills of a tomato

Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and the idea that "we don't need more politicians" has some merit, eh?

 

[sealybobo]

Only if you have the critical thinking skills of a tomato

What I don't like is the Senate. It gives little Kentucky just as much power as California. Mitch, a goober from that small state, is the minority leader?

 

[kyzr]

What I don't like is the Senate. It gives little Kentucky just as much power as California. Mitch, a goober from that small state, is the minority leader?

Read and learn...

What Was The Great Compromise of 1787?

The Great Compromise of 1797 resolved disputes by creating a bicameral legislature with proportional and equal representation in the Senate and House.

www.thoughtco.com

 

[kyzr]

The Constitution will NEVER be amended again. 38 States will never agree on anything.
They are trying to have a Convention of States, and even that is having a hard time gaining enough states.

So what part of NO don't they understand?

 

[sealybobo]

Read and learn...

What Was The Great Compromise of 1787?

The Great Compromise of 1797 resolved disputes by creating a bicameral legislature with proportional and equal representation in the Senate and House.

www.thoughtco.com

View attachment 848287

Ok I get that. What's a scam is the electoral college. Did you know the people of a state can vote for one candidate and the electoral college, if they feel like it, can give their votes to the other candidate.

And the GOP and DNC are private organizations who don't have to support the person who wins the primaries. Like the GOP could say they don't care that Trump won, they won't support him. He then could run as a third party. Point is, the party is a private group that can do whatever they want. We put all our faith in them they'll do the right thing but as we can see in the House of Reps and Trump administration, sometimes government can be corrupted.

Mark Meadows Granted Immunity In DOJ Case Against Trump: Reports

The former Trump chief of staff reportedly said he warned his boss that allegations of voter fraud in the 2020 election were unsubstantiated.

www.huffpost.com

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Is it time to increase the number of members in the US House of representatives?

The U.S. House of Representatives has one voting member for every 747,000 or so Americans in 2023.

The U.S. House of Representatives has one voting member for every 250,000 or so Americans in 1923.

Can a congress member represent 750,000 people effectively?

Why do we want more? They continually run up the debt, war it up, and create more govt. NO THANKS.

 

[there4eyeM]

Increase by 1; a SPEAKER.

 

[my2¢]

I ran the numbers if House members were reduced by 150 and again if it were increased by 150. The change in the number of seats each state would lose/gain compared to the present 435 members is seen below.
The math can be found here: Equal Proportions Method

state	population	435 Reps	285 Reps	585 Reps
CA	39,576,757	52​	-19​	18​
TX	29,183,290	38​	-13​	14​
FL	21,570,527	28​	-10​	10​
NY	20,215,751	26​	-9​	10​
PA	13,011,844	17​	-6​	6​
IL	12,822,739	17​	-6​	6​
OH	11,808,848	15​	-5​	6​
GA	10,725,274	14​	-5​	5​
NC	10,453,948	14​	-5​	4​
MI	10,084,442	13​	-5​	5​
NJ	9,294,493	12​	-4​	4​
VA	8,654,542	11​	-4​	4​
WA	7,715,946	10​	-3​	4​
AZ	7,158,923	9​	-3​	4​
MA	7,033,469	9​	-3​	3​
TN	6,916,897	9​	-3​	3​
IN	6,790,280	9​	-3​	3​
MD	6,185,278	8​	-3​	3​
MO	6,160,281	8​	-3​	3​
WI	5,897,473	8​	-3​	2​
CO	5,782,171	8​	-3​	2​
MN	5,709,752	8​	-3​	2​
SC	5,124,712	7​	-3​	2​
AL	5,030,053	7​	-3​	2​
LA	4,661,468	6​	-2​	2​
KY	4,509,342	6​	-2​	2​
OR	4,241,500	6​	-2​	2​
OK	3,963,516	5​	-2​	2​
CT	3,608,298	5​	-2​	1​
UT	3,275,252	4​	-1​	2​
IA	3,192,406	4​	-1​	2​
NV	3,108,462	4​	-1​	2​
AR	3,013,756	4​	-1​	1​
MS	2,963,914	4​	-1​	1​
KS	2,940,865	4​	-1​	1​
NM	2,120,220	3​	-1​	1​
NE	1,963,333	3​	-1​	1​
ID	1,841,377	2​	0​	1​
WV	1,795,045	2​	0​	1​
HI	1,460,137	2​	-1​	1​
NH	1,379,089	2​	-1​	0​
ME	1,363,582	2​	-1​	0​
RI	1,098,163	2​	-1​	0​
MT	1,085,407	2​	-1​	0​
DE	990,837	1​	0​	1​
SD	887,770	1​	0​	1​
ND	779,702	1​	0​	0​
AK	736,081	1​	0​	0​
VT	643,503	1​	0​	0​
WY	577,719	1​	0​	0​
	331,108,434	435​	-150​	150​

(Spreadsheets are fun)