The Case for Enlarging the House of Representatives

[HappyJoy]

The Electoral College has no relevancy to the size of Congress.

Though the size of Congress is relevant to the number of electoral college votes.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Though the size of Congress is relevant to the number of electoral college votes.

Which isn't relevant to the discussion at hand. The EC is the EC whether it's 535 votes or 1070.

 

[candycorn]

The Electoral College has no relevancy to the size of Congress.

Increasing the membership of the House wouldn't increase the number of electors? I always thought the 538 was born out of 100 Senators, 435 Representatives and 3 electors from DC.

 

[Rogue AI]

Every rider/amendment on a bill has to pass a majority of the House. Did you not know this?

That means it would be more difficult to get an amendment passed since there would be ,more representatives to convince.

You miss the point, some spending is necessary, like defense, a whole lot of garbage added now, it would get worse. We wouldn't find out what is in bills until after they passed. Huge bills would be rushed through. Just look at the covid free money scam. Americans were supposedly hurting, but thank goodness the Kennedy Center got a makeover. It would that sort of bullshit times four. No thanks.

 

[HappyJoy]

Which isn't relevant to the discussion at hand. The EC is the EC whether it's 535 votes or 1070.

True however a larger Congress which more closely represented the spread of the population throughout the states would at least be more accurate and rural states would lose some of their advantage. So, since we are talking about the pros and cons of increasing the size of the House I would say it's relevant.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The number of Democrats has been higher than the number of Republicans since the great depression. Are you trying to claim the Republicans have never had a congressional majority in 90 years?

Try again and do a better job this time.

The number has been capped at 435. Remove the cap and assign new representatives, one for every 30,000 people, like the op is suggesting, and I think you'll find the number of dem representatives grows exponentially, because of the supposed number of people who lean dem as opposed to the number of people who lean repub.

 

[ThisIsMe]

How so?

Explained in my responses to taz

 

[ThisIsMe]

The Electoral College has no relevancy to the size of Congress.

Doesn't the number of electoral votes derive from the number of Senators and representatives? So, if you boost the number of representatives to 1600, then the number of electoral votes goes to..what...1803?

Current there are 538 electoral votes.

200 for Senators
435 for members of the house
Plus 3 for dc

That's 538

If you increase the size if the house, the number if electoral votes does too.

If I am correct that the increase of number of reps would tend to lean left, then not only would it mean that there would be a permanent majority in the house, but also a permanent democratic president also.

Interesting. Simply by adding more representatives, the dems could completely erase the republican party.

Here's my reasoning for this. Currently you have 435 reps. Those 435 represent a total mix of people, both dems and repub. At present, we have states that are generally guaranteed to go blue and some red. Those electoral votes essentially automatically assigned.

If you now increase the number of representatives to say, 1600, and the total electoral pool is at 1803, then you'd have to assume that you'd need about (guessing) 950 electoral votes to win.

If you increase.the representation, you increase the number of congressional districts, if those districts (because there are more dems than repubs) tend to align blue, it means you get more automatic electoral votes that are blue. Basically, you edge closer to election by popular vote.

Imagine if you had an area that has 2 million dems, but only 500,000 repubs. Let's say the dems are represented by 4 and the repubs are represented by 2. If you go the 30,000 route, the dem representation jumps to 67 and the repub representation jumps to 17.

Those aren't actual numbers but you get my point. You end up increasing dem representation, and number of automatic electoral votes in an exponential way.

Am I wrong here? I'm thinking that an increase in number of representatives can only benefit the dems when it comes to elections. Where am I wrong?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

So you are in favor of being like California which only has 60 representatives for their entire state of 39.5 million people.

How's that working out? What state has the strictest environmental laws? What state coddles the transgender people you hate?

It is so much easier to get shit done without an abundance of legislators in the way. It's so much easier to get shit done when you don't have to answer to your constituents as much as a Wyoming state representative does.

Not my fault California has been turned into a cesspool by their state and local legislators.

That being said...

Why should I even want to contemplate giving them more of a voice at the federal level?

*****SMILE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Yeah! I haven't seen anything marked made in California for years now.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Pellinore]

Terrible idea. It would take forever to get even the simplest budget resolution passed. 435 is a good number.

Also, with one Rep per 30,000 people, we would have more than 10,000 Electoral Votes. You think voting is a mess now ...

 

[MisterBeale]

we have what we have 1600 is un workable. I once thought it was a good idea to have more representatives too but then I grew up and learned logic and common sense. The only reason he wants more is he thinks it will lead to more of HIS party winning.

BINGO!

You hit the nail on the head. He is sore as hell this Green New Deal didn't sail right on through, that it even had to be negotiated. . .

And the fact that it failed? That infuriates the globalists, the socialists, and all the commies.

I still am skeptical that they won't somehow bribe some folks in the GOP with something, in order to get it passed. IF they can get some on board for that ACA, why not this?

 

[yidnar]

So just like now?

just like now and even more so ...

 

[Snouter]

Shut it down. With the exception of 5 or 6 representatives, the House is a basketcase of racist, Europhobic maniacs who seek to destroy the country White people created out of nothing.

 

[Rogue AI]

Why would there even be a need for more representatives? If two Senators can handle a state's business in addition to their other responsibilities, how would more of the lesser congress critters be needed? Seems like an attempt to increase the federal government's influence on the citizens.

 

[22lcidw]

True however a larger Congress which more closely represented the spread of the population throughout the states would at least be more accurate and rural states would lose some of their advantage. So, since we are talking about the pros and cons of increasing the size of the House I would say it's relevant.

The Founding Fathers put 'checks and balances" into the Constitution. It gave us "brakes" to think what we are doing. The 17th Amendment was one of the "Checks and balances" steam rolled over. For the selection of Federal Senators by State Legislatures would have mad what we see today a lot more difficult. There would be no 50 year careers like Biden. These people even with flaws gave us documents of freedom. We see today the totalitarianism building.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A. Less to bargain what away? Your argument is not making any sense.

B. You must feel really confident in your argument if you have to call me a dumb ass. Is this your example of having “grown up” and realizing common sense and logic?

Well you are either stupid or playing games. Pretending you dont understand what I mean.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Electoral College has no relevancy to the size of Congress.

LOL yes it does it is BASED on the size of Congress.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

BINGO!

You hit the nail on the head. He is sore as hell this Green New Deal didn't sail right on through, that it even had to be negotiated. . .

And the fact that it failed? That infuriates the globalists, the socialists, and all the commies.

I still am skeptical that they won't somehow bribe some folks in the GOP with something, in order to get it passed. IF they can get some on board for that ACA, why not this?

The most consistently vocal opponent of out of control spending and the debt on this forum no matter who is POTUS is now a progressive because he does not worship Trump.

Fucking hey, you people are just fucking ignorant.

 

[basquebromance]

i agree. also the senate should be abolished unless some reforms are put in place. Let’s get rid of the filibuster and let’s get to work...Dems have gotta get serious about passing big things.