The Case for Enlarging the House of Representatives

[g5000]

The Bill of Rights was originally going to be 12 Amendments instead of 10.

James Madison wanted the First Amendment to be a formula for apportioning the House of Representatives.* If his Amendment had been accepted, the House would currently have 1,625 members instead of 435.

Instead, the ratio of one House member for every 30,000 constituents was enshrined in the Constitution. By 1800, it was 34,609 constituents per. By 1900, it was 193,167 per.

In 1929, Congress froze the number of Representatives at 435, even though we had only 48 states and a population of 121 million at the time.

Today, with 50 states and frozen at 435 representatives, the ratio is 762,000 constituents per House member, and climbing.

Our Representatives are completely out of touch with the People.

It is time to rethink apportionment.

Lots of stuff to think about here: The Case for Enlarging the House of Representatives


*The second of the 12 amendments proposed later became the 27th Amendment.

 

[kyzr]

Nope. NFW.
More pols in DC is always a bad idea.

 

[g5000]

The UK has a population of 67 million and there are 650 MPs in the House of Commons.

New Hampshire has a population of 1.36 million and there are 400 representatives in their lower chamber.

Conversely, California has a population of 39.5 million and only 80 representatives in their lower chamber.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The Bill of Rights was originally going to be 12 Amendments instead of 10.

James Madison wanted the First Amendment to be a formula for apportioning the House of Representatives.* If his Amendment had been accepted, the House would currently have 1,625 members instead of 435.

Instead, the ratio of one House member for every 30,000 constituents was enshrined in the Constitution. By 1800, it was 34,609 constituents per. By 1900, it was 193,167 per.

In 1929, Congress froze the number of Representatives at 435, even though we had only 48 states and a population of 121 million at the time.

Today, with 50 states and frozen at 435 representatives, the ratio is 762,000 constituents per House member, and climbing.

Our Representatives are completely out of touch with the People.

It is time to rethink apportionment.

Lots of stuff to think about here: The Case for Enlarging the House of Representatives


*The second of the 12 amendments proposed later became the 27th Amendment.

I've been saying this for YEARS, but it's never going to happen because they like having their fiefdoms and it would dilute the power of each individual legislator. It would probably take the states forcing an amendment.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

When communist democrats lose, they want to rig the outcome.

Which has nothing to do with the topic, but thanks for chiming in with your usual partisan mental masturbation.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Nope. NFW.
More pols in DC is always a bad idea.

Why?

 

[g5000]

I've been saying this for YEARS, but it's never going to happen because they like having their fiefdoms and it would dilute the power of each individual legislator. It would probably take the states forcing an amendment.

Actually, it does not require a Constitutional amendment. All it would take is a repeal of the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929.

 

[Esdraelon]

It'd be like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. IMO, the problem isn't the math, it's the money. Our system is so thoroughly corrupted that DC is like the Capitol in the Hunger Games. BOTH parties are the uniparty and they play a game for our sakes while doing only what benefits THEM. The current abomination in power seems to have decided it's time to do away with the charade and seize power, permanently.

Using fear of the pandemic, they just may pull it off. They've already killed our economy. It's on the verge of a level of inflation that will kill the dollar. Hard times are coming and their BOOT on our neck will be part of it.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Actually, it does not require a Constitutional amendment. All it would take is a repeal of the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929.

Yeah, I understand. I'm saying it's unlikely you'll get Congress to do it. It would probably take a Constitutional Convention by the states.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It'd be like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. IMO, the problem isn't the math, it's the money. Our system is so thoroughly corrupted that DC is like the Capitol in the Hunger Games. BOTH parties are the uniparty and they play a game for our sakes while doing only what benefits THEM. The current abomination in power seems to have decided it's time to do away with the charade and seize power, permanently.

Who is harder to pay off, 435 members or 1,625?

 

[Richard-H]

Since we have the internet, we should just move to a pure democracy. Everyone gets to propose bills, and everyone gets to vote on all bills.

Absolute CHAOS!!!!

 

[excalibur]

... If his Amendment had been accepted, the House would currently have 1,625 members instead of 435. ...

That number is unworkable.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We need:

1. Less Government, or
2. More Government

 

[excalibur]

Since we have the internet, we should just move to a pure democracy. Everyone gets to propose bills, and everyone gets to vote on all bills.

Absolute CHAOS!!!!

Can I legally print money too?

 

[Richard-H]

Can I legally print money too?

Yes, everybody can print their own money. Just as long as it's not a copy of U.S. federal dollars.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Did we pick up some new states so we can start putting blue stars on the strips along the farthest edge from the flagpole?

Philippines, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Taiwan, Bahamas, even Japan and Mexico, would be a nice addition, there's less border along Mexico's southern end. Unless you want to offer a package deal and offer all the present countries down to Panama the same opportunity as an all or none. Panama definitely has less border than Mexico and then we could add bananas as an American produce product.

After all if they want to come here so bad they should be willing to provide a little incentive to the United States for taking them in.

*****HAPPY SMILE*****

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

That number is unworkable.

Why?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Can I legally print money too?

Yes. Did you not know this?

 

[MisterBeale]

Why?

Because already, the government and bureaucracy has become a stake holder. They have come to influence and corrupt elections and policy itself.

This has perverted the course of the nation, and is destroying the freedoms, civil liberties, and civil rights of the people. The law, is no longer blind in this nation.

Folks seem to have this misunderstanding, that the government actually produces something, which it does not.

It is a parasite. So is the bureaucracy.

Necessarily, creating MORE parasites is always a bad idea. Parasites eventually, if not kept in check, will overwhelm and kill the host.

Even the economy has become warped and skewed because of this corruption. AND? It has now gone global.

 

[Lastamender]

The Bill of Rights was originally going to be 12 Amendments instead of 10.

James Madison wanted the First Amendment to be a formula for apportioning the House of Representatives.* If his Amendment had been accepted, the House would currently have 1,625 members instead of 435.

Instead, the ratio of one House member for every 30,000 constituents was enshrined in the Constitution. By 1800, it was 34,609 constituents per. By 1900, it was 193,167 per.

In 1929, Congress froze the number of Representatives at 435, even though we had only 48 states and a population of 121 million at the time.

Today, with 50 states and frozen at 435 representatives, the ratio is 762,000 constituents per House member, and climbing.

Our Representatives are completely out of touch with the People.

It is time to rethink apportionment.

Lots of stuff to think about here: The Case for Enlarging the House of Representatives


*The second of the 12 amendments proposed later became the 27th Amendment.

All aboard the gravy train.