The Case for Enlarging the House of Representatives

[The Original Tree]

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.

Split California in half between the Conservatives and the whackamole Batshit Crazy Left, then I will agree to that.

 

[g5000]

Can I legally print money too?

We actually had that system for a while in the US.

 

[22lcidw]

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.

You promote this because you want the free stuff that the modern politician provides with the unbridled freedom of the fiat currency that is running amok and out of control. The real race is for those who stay ahead of the pack in a free falling declining nation to maintain it. Progs take credit for a lot of things. But never take the blame for their failures from the things they approve.

 

[blackhawk]

More politicians voting along party lines sounds like a major improvement.

 

[g5000]

You promote this because you want the free stuff that the modern politician provides with the unbridled freedom of the fiat currency that is running amok and out of control. The real race is for those who stay ahead of the pack in a free falling declining nation to maintain it. Progs take credit for a lot of things. But never take the blame for their failures from the things they approve.

I want this because a Representative cannot possibly be responsive to 762,000 people. Instead, they are answerable to whoever shouts the loudest and are reduced to pandering to the zealots.

Under Madison's system, there would be one Representative for every 200,000 constituents today.

 

[alang1216]

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.

You get what you pay for. We don't fund our elections so we expect others to do it for us and we are shocked that they use their influence for thing we don't like. We want honest politicians but put them at the head of a trillion dollar company and then pay them like a manager at Walmart.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

I want this because a Representative cannot possibly be responsive to 762,000 people. Instead, they are answerable to whoever shouts the loudest and are reduced to pandering to the zealots.

Under Madison's system, there would be one Representative for every 200,000 constituents today.

What makes you think we need a zillion legislators to guarantee everyone their basic rights?

What we need is less burdensome laws and legislation on the books not more.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Votto]

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.

Yay

All we need are more Congressmen.

 

[g5000]

View attachment 578320

What makes you think we need a zillion legislators to guarantee everyone their basic rights?

What we need is less burdensome laws and legislation on the books not more.

*****SMILE*****

I also believe we need less burdensome laws and legislation. This is not incompatible with a better balance of representation. In fact, they are quite compatible when you consider our representatives would have to be more responsive to the People.

 

[g5000]

From the link in the OP:

District size also affects who runs for office. An obvious advantage of enlarging the House is that the regular addition of new districts would create open seats, offering opportunities for a new generation to serve in Congress. At the very least, an expansion of the House would be the quickest way to make Congress more diverse without resorting to term or age limits. Smaller districts do more than create opportunities for more people to serve in Congress. They lower the obstacles to run for Congress in the first place.

 

[yidnar]

the last thing we need is more mini kings and queens in congress ....

 

[g5000]

If you wanted to run for Congress, you would only have to reach 200,000 voters instead of 762,000.

This gives the little guy a better shot at being elected.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

I also believe we need less burdensome laws and legislation. This is not incompatible with a better balance of representation. In fact, they are quite compatible when you consider our representatives would have to be more responsive to the People.

That's why they're voted in every few years.

If they're not responsive to the will of the people they're not reelected.

*****SMILE*****

 

[g5000]

View attachment 578322

That's why they're voted in every few years.

If they're not responsive to the will of the people they're not reelected.

*****SMILE*****

Despite approval of Congress being almost in the single digits, the House of Representatives has a 98 percent re-election rate.

Does that sound like they are responsive to you?

 

[g5000]

Congress and the Public

Do you approve or disapprove of the way [ROTATED -- The Republicans in Congress. The Democrats in Congress.] are handling their job? Do you approve or disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job?

news.gallup.com

Congress has a 20 percent approval rate. That's much worse than Biden!

Clearly, the American people do not feel Congress is responsive to them.


And yet:

Reelection Rates Over the Years

Few things in life are more predictable than the chances of an incumbent member of the U.S. House of Representatives winning reelection. With wide name recognition, and usually an insurmountable advantage in campaign cash, House incumbents typically have little trouble holding onto their seats.

www.opensecrets.org

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Despite approval of Congress being almost in the single digits, the House of Representatives has a 98 percent re-election rate.

Does that sound like they are responsive to you?

I have no reason to believe that putting more hogs at the feed trough will mean I can feed them less.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I also believe we need less burdensome laws and legislation. This is not incompatible with a better balance of representation. In fact, they are quite compatible when you consider our representatives would have to be more responsive to the People.

LOL very little gets done with 435 what makes you think 1600 would work?

 

[g5000]

View attachment 578325

I have no reason to believe that putting more hogs at the feed trough will mean I can feed them less.

*****CHUCKLE*****

So you are of the same opinion as Californians. Less representation is better.

 

[Rogue AI]

I also believe we need less burdensome laws and legislation. This is not incompatible with a better balance of representation. In fact, they are quite compatible when you consider our representatives would have to be more responsive to the People.

Right, because more lawmakers wouldn't write more laws. Wow. If you quadrupled the House you have federal laws on every little thing. Each new member would need to make a name for themselves. No thanks.

 

[g5000]

Right, because more lawmakers wouldn't write more laws. Wow. If you quadrupled the House you have federal laws on every little thing. Each new member would need to make a name for themselves. No thanks.

Each new law would have to pass more than half of the larger House.

This did not occur to you?