The Case for Enlarging the House of Representatives

[ThisIsMe]

The OP never suggested any such thing.

You are correct. He suggests 1625. Either way, it doesn't change the point of my post.

 

[ThisIsMe]

And you failed.

No, I didn't fail, you just disagreed, and you didn't explain why I was wrong...just "you failed".

 

[ThisIsMe]

You aren't addressing the specific point I was to a specific comment by a specific poster.

You said the electoral college has no relevancy to the size of Congress. I explained why I disagreed. I addressed your point exactly.

You are free to explain why I'm wrong. How does the size of Congress have no relevance to the electoral college?

 

[ThisIsMe]

I am not suggesting one for every 30,000. I am suggesting we follow James Madison's plan, which would increase the House to 1,625, which works out to one for every 200,000.

OK, but you say that the number of repubs is about the same as the number of dems. If that is the case, then, proportionally, the number of representation would be the same, right?

For the record, I always thought that dems outnumbered repubs because dems seem to win the popular vote more often. Either there is a large difference in the number of each party, or the repubs just simply don't get out and vote, or more independents vote with dems than they do repubs.

Anyway, if dems and repubs are about the same in numbers, then, sure, with 1625 reps, you'd get a more micro managed approach to representation, but, id think with that many people, things would move much slower. Everyone would want their time in front of a microphone, and on the debate floor. House sessions would take so much longer.

Besides, the 435 we have now don't really represent the people. They all kind of seem to just do their own thing, and then have a town hall every so often, and show up around election time. That's all we need is for 1625 people going to Washington just to enrich themselves.

I'd agree with you if I thought it would improve things, but i don't think it would.

Also, if independents tend to vote more with the dems, it would still change the balance toward a permanent dem majority. I still think this would skew the electoral college toward dems, making repubs have a much steeper hill to climb during presidential elections.

Having said that, if the balance did shift toward the dems, but it made the representation more fair and accurate, then go for it.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Which was an open admission on your part that you don't want the House to accurately represent the People.

No, it wasn't. I never said I was for or against it. I just pointed out what would happen.

 

[ThisIsMe]

It's sad when one needs to consider the ideological make up of these representatives in order to decide whether they are for or against more representation.

It's the same argument with DC statehood. Those who are not for it the biggest reason appears to be that DC would elect people who the poster is not politically aligned with. As though we can't have better democratic representation unless they all agree on the same things.

There are valid arguments against DC statehood (I happen to disagree with them) but they are always secondary after "Oh, you just want the libtards to have two more senators". it's irrelevant.

It's sad when one needs to consider the ideological make up of these representatives in order to decide whether they are for or against more representation.

Come on now happyjoy,, if you all thought for an instant that expanding the size of the congress would result in expanding the number of Republican representatives, you'd be arguing against it, the same as if making dc a state would result in 2 republican Senators, it wouldn't even be a topic of conversation.

"Oh, you just want the libtards to have two more senators

That's relevant because that is exactly the reason the dems want dc to be a state.

 

[ThisIsMe]

You are wrong in that you assume there are more Democrats than Republicans. They are about evenly split. And Independents vastly outnumber both parties, and are not represented in Congress at all.

Your concerns are addressed in the link I provide in the OP:

Other than the highly contentious 2000 election, increasing the House size to 585 would not have changed the outcome of any of the last twelve presidential elections.

They only did an examination of 585 House seats instead of 1625. I would settle for 585.

More information here: The Case for Enlarging the House of Representatives | American Academy of Arts and Sciences

Nationwide Voter Registration Data by Party | Ballot Access News

ballot-access.org

Suggests that independents and "misc" are the 3rd largest party.

Independent voters aren't really all that independent, analysis says | CNN Politics

Voters who identify as independents are rarely actually independent -- and the ones who are tend to not care about politics, according to a new analysis by the Pew Research Center.

www.cnn.com

This article suggests that more independents tend to lean democrat than they do republican. This means that, when you add all the Democratic independent voters to the slightly larger margin of democratic voters, it does give the dems an edge in terms of size. Sure, increasing the number of representatives might give the independents more representation, but there is a good chance they will just end up voting with the dems anyway.

 

[HappyJoy]

Come on now happyjoy,, if you all thought for an instant that expanding the size of the congress would result in expanding the number of Republican representatives, you'd be arguing against it, the same as if making dc a state would result in 2 republican Senators, it wouldn't even be a topic of conversation.



That's relevant because that is exactly the reason the dems want dc to be a state.

If you could deny black people the vote because they elect Democrats, would you? Can you think of any time where I have ever been supportive of taking away Republicans votes? Ever?

Look at someone like g5000. He's more closely aligned with conservative Republicans than any Democrat yet he recognizes how important representation is for all Americans.

 

[GHook20]

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.

Not enough to pack the courts you want to pack the House?

 

[ThisIsMe]

If you could deny black people the vote because they elect Democrats, would you? Can you think of any time where I have ever been supportive of taking away Republicans votes? Ever?

Look at someone like g5000. He's more closely aligned with conservative Republicans than any Democrat yet he recognizes how important representation is for all Americans.

If you could deny black people the vote because they elect Democrats, would you?

No

Can you think of any time where I have ever been supportive of taking away Republicans votes? Ever?

No, and I never accused you of that. My post had nothing to do with peoples right to vote. It was about if you knew that any of these things would lead to a republican advantage, you wouldn't be supportive.of it.

Look at someone like g5000. He's more closely aligned with conservative Republicans than any Democrat yet he recognizes how important representation is for all Americans.

Yes, and I agree, representation is important for Americans. I was merely pointing out that I believe doing what he suggests would wind up with a permanent majority of dems.

 

[Independent thinker]

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.

Talk about big government. Stuff like this would add even more money onto the debt all by itself but the left never think about that.