The Case for Enlarging the House of Representatives

[g5000]

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*****

You would not be giving California any more voice than what would be given to all states.

California is a prime example of what happens when you have too few representatives.

You are clearly not getting it.

*****SMILE*****

 

[g5000]

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 ...

We've had budgets passed all through our history with much smaller ratios of representatives to constituents.

And at no point have I said it should be 1/30,000. And neither did James Madison.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The OP never suggested any such thing.

Agreed but still 1600 is way to many

 

[g5000]

Under James Madison's plan, for every additional 100 members of Congress, district sizes would increase by 10,000 people.

1 for every 50,000 was the appropriate divisor until the House reached 300 members, at which point district sizes would be 60,000 until the House reached 400 members, and so on.

Which would bring us to 1,625 members today.

 

[g5000]

Agreed but still 1600 is way to many

Well, the proposal in the OP link suggests 585. I could live with that.

That would be one Representative for every 547,000 constituents.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well, the proposal in the OP link suggests 585. I could live with that.

That would be one Representative for every 547,000 constituents.

That I could live with also it isnt to many to be any more unwieldy then now.

 

[g5000]

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.

That is precisely the problem we have right now with too few representatives. The federal government is the boss instead of the People. With more representation, the People return to being the boss.

See post 35. Congress is CLEARLY not responsive to the People.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ya gotta understand I am very conservative any change I dislike until I get used to it.

 

[g5000]

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.

The reason the 17th Amendment came to pass is because state legislatures became such a morass of partisan hackery, there were several states which went years without appointing a Senator.

 

[g5000]

Bingo, we can't control the corruption as is it.

Increasing the size of the House would reduce corruption for the reasons I have stated repeatedly.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Increasing the size of the House would reduce corruption for the reasons I have stated repeatedly.

No it would not actually as individual members want things to go along with legislation and increasing the number means more horse trading more pork and just more crap.

 

[g5000]

If you expand the size of the House of Representatives, wouldn't the larger states like California, Texas, NY, and Florida get more seats than states that have a smaller populations like Alaska and Maine?

States with bigger populations already have more seats than smaller states. The only real effect would be that Representatives would each represent half a million people instead of the current three-quarters of a million people.

 

[g5000]

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.

Exactly.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Exactly.

That is reality and life and ignoring the true effects is stupid.

 

[g5000]

Agreed but still 1600 is way to many

Okay. I can live with 585.

 

[g5000]

That is reality and life and ignoring the true effects is stupid.

It is partisan hackery.

And the assumptions made by the hacks were incorrect.

 

[HappyJoy]

You would not be giving California any more voice than what would be given to all states.

California is a prime example of what happens when you have too few representatives.

You are clearly not getting it.

*****SMILE*****

I'm from California and how they attempt to be more of a direct democracy by having citizens vote on 2 dozen propositions every election is a joke. It always comes down to wanting things and then voting down the funding for them. It's not a right or left thing it's a California thing. They should increase the size of their lower chamber and let them vote budgeting issues and other laws like they are supposed to.

 

[Rogue AI]

That is precisely the problem we have right now with too few representatives. The federal government is the boss instead of the People. With more representation, the People return to being the boss.

See post 35. Congress is CLEARLY not responsive to the People.

How is adding more federal employees to spend more of the people's money going to benefit the people at all? We need less representation and lateral movement from federal dollars back to the states, where the people can choose to have more representation or less as they see fit. The bloated mess that is the federal government is an abomination.

 

[HappyJoy]

How is adding more federal employees to spend more of the people's money going to benefit the people at all? We need less representation and lateral movement from federal dollars back to the states, where the people can choose to have more representation or less as they see fit. The bloated mess that is the federal government is an abomination.

That's going to hurt the southeast.

 

[MisterBeale]

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.

Whatever. And you people are fucking disingenuous liars.

He's a globalist.

Of course they all believe in "austerity" ostensibly.

Till they don't.

There was never a bank or corporate bail-out they didn't like. It is always 'bout their portfolios. His motivations are as transparent as a pain of glass. As are yours, like usual.

How's your Pfizer investments doing? Eh?

He doesn't give a shit about the nation, or it's people. Only the financialization of what the cultural, financial, and political elites can extract from the nation and the world is of interest to folks like this. National sovereignty and the destiny of little people are of very little real concern to folks like him. Nor is the real destiny of the nation.

If stripping folks liberty and creating a police state will lead to more profit? Oh well. . .