The House of Representatives should be doubled in size

[task0778]

So under your model, Montana gets an increase of 2 Reps but California gets 52 more Reps (105 is up 52 from the current 53). The most populous states would get the most new Reps, wouldn't they? Gee, I wonder which party benefits the most from that?

I don't think anything will improve your attitude towards anyone who disagrees with you.

Okay boys and girls, it's time for elementary school math class!

Today we're going to talk about why task0778 is a raging dumbfuck. Turn to pay 217 in your textbook.

You're going to see two fractions. I want you to tell which fraction is bigger. Here's the first problem.

53/435 and 105/870. Which number is bigger?

task0778: 105/870.​

No, that is incorrect.

task0778: B-but, both the numbers are bigger.​

Yes, but that's not how fractions work. The second fraction is made up of more pieces, and it might have more pieces, but those pieces are smaller. So 105 pieces in the second fraction still equal less than the first fraction.

task0778: B-but, both the numbers are bigger.​

Yes, well, smoking and drinking during pregnancy is dangerous. Let's go on to the next problem. 1/435 and 3/870.

task0778: They're the same.​

And there we have it, everyone! Big, giant idiot votes without an understanding of grade school level math.

Yes, well, smoking and drinking during pregnancy is dangerous. Let's go on to the next problem. 1/435 and 3/870.

task0778: They're the same.

Did I say that? NOOO, of course not. So we have the Lib/Dem once again spouting another lie. You're real good at putting words in someone else's mouth that they didn't say, what is it they tell us about stats and numbers? Figures don't lie but liars can figure. You fall into the latter category.
​

You can take your fractions and stick 'em where the sun don't shine. You are going to increase California's Reps by 52 and Montana's by 2. So, how many more Reps will Wyoming get? One? Maybe? Cherrypick much? You are not fooling anyone with your BS, you simply want more Reps from the big population states to re-engineer the Electoral College so it's more favorable to the Dems. You don't give a shit about better representation, you only care about getting Dems elected to the WH. You just don't have the integrity to admit it. Since we know you're not smart enough to figure this out for yourself, why don't you provide the link to where you got the idea from.

So you have a problem with democracy...

Uh, no. Care to explain how you arrived at that conclusion? We've already got a democracy, bro.

You want one set Americans to have more votes in Congress per voter than another....

What's wrong with every Americans having equal representation? It is not democracy when you have a vote but one set are given more say than another...

They have votes in China too...

So, you are actually trying to back into another call for doing away with the Electoral College and just going with the popular vote. That's fine, I don't agree with that but that's why we already have a democracy in place, you get to have your say and I get to have mine and our elected reps vote on whatever changes are proposed. Which definitely IS a democracy, you just don't like the current version of it.

As for China, you do realize that point is ridiculous, right? Their elections are nothing but show, the winner is already known. Which is obviously not the case here.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

.

Doubling the number of Representatives means going from 435 to 870. The average personal staff for each representative is 14.

That's 6,090 more government employees for the taxpayer to support not counting increases in other staff positions such as Committee Staff (which are separate from personal staff) and other support staff. Such as the Congressional Research Office which has to research and respond to representative questions. More representatives more question.


Ya, what could go wrong with this picture.


.>>>>

Staffers don’t get paid jack shit so it’s a drop in the bucket. Plus, with smaller districts maybe they don’t need as many staff

 

[longknife]

The House is limited in size because of
The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. @ The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives
with more information @ United States congressional apportionment - Wikipedia

There is no reason whatsoever that Congress cannot change the size of the House by legislative action. As someone pointed out, current districts can be so big that there is no way representative can even begin to know their districts and the people who live there.

I don't know why the House should not mirror its similar bodies in the various states - see List of United States state legislatures - Wikipedia

 

[WorldWatcher]

Staffers don’t get paid jack shit so it’s a drop in the bucket. Plus, with smaller districts maybe they don’t need as many staff

Maybe you are thinking of interns?

"The national average salary for a congressional staffer is around $59,500 a year, according to the Politician Salary website."

$59,500 (average salary) * 14 (average number of paid staff) * 435 (doubling the size of the house) = $362,355,000

The Average Salary of Congressional Staffers

*************************************************************

The range of office budgets for congressman runs $1.27 million to $1.546 million. Of which the average office staff salaries above are included, but congressman have other expenses.

If you use a conservative $1,300,000 per that is...

$1,300,000 * 435 = $565,500,000


How much does it cost to run a congressional office?


.>>>>

 

[CowboyTed]

Okay boys and girls, it's time for elementary school math class!

Today we're going to talk about why task0778 is a raging dumbfuck. Turn to pay 217 in your textbook.

You're going to see two fractions. I want you to tell which fraction is bigger. Here's the first problem.

53/435 and 105/870. Which number is bigger?

task0778: 105/870.​

No, that is incorrect.

task0778: B-but, both the numbers are bigger.​

Yes, but that's not how fractions work. The second fraction is made up of more pieces, and it might have more pieces, but those pieces are smaller. So 105 pieces in the second fraction still equal less than the first fraction.

task0778: B-but, both the numbers are bigger.​

Yes, well, smoking and drinking during pregnancy is dangerous. Let's go on to the next problem. 1/435 and 3/870.

task0778: They're the same.​

And there we have it, everyone! Big, giant idiot votes without an understanding of grade school level math.

Yes, well, smoking and drinking during pregnancy is dangerous. Let's go on to the next problem. 1/435 and 3/870.

task0778: They're the same.

Did I say that? NOOO, of course not. So we have the Lib/Dem once again spouting another lie. You're real good at putting words in someone else's mouth that they didn't say, what is it they tell us about stats and numbers? Figures don't lie but liars can figure. You fall into the latter category.
​

You can take your fractions and stick 'em where the sun don't shine. You are going to increase California's Reps by 52 and Montana's by 2. So, how many more Reps will Wyoming get? One? Maybe? Cherrypick much? You are not fooling anyone with your BS, you simply want more Reps from the big population states to re-engineer the Electoral College so it's more favorable to the Dems. You don't give a shit about better representation, you only care about getting Dems elected to the WH. You just don't have the integrity to admit it. Since we know you're not smart enough to figure this out for yourself, why don't you provide the link to where you got the idea from.

So you have a problem with democracy...

Uh, no. Care to explain how you arrived at that conclusion? We've already got a democracy, bro.

You want one set Americans to have more votes in Congress per voter than another....

What's wrong with every Americans having equal representation? It is not democracy when you have a vote but one set are given more say than another...

They have votes in China too...

So, you are actually trying to back into another call for doing away with the Electoral College and just going with the popular vote. That's fine, I don't agree with that but that's why we already have a democracy in place, you get to have your say and I get to have mine and our elected reps vote on whatever changes are proposed. Which definitely IS a democracy, you just don't like the current version of it.

As for China, you do realize that point is ridiculous, right? Their elections are nothing but show, the winner is already known. Which is obviously not the case here.

We were talking about Congress which is meant to represent the people fairly... The Senate has the advantage for the smaller states...

Nothing to do with the Electoral College...

 

[Darkwind]

So under your model, Montana gets an increase of 2 Reps but California gets 52 more Reps (105 is up 52 from the current 53). The most populous states would get the most new Reps, wouldn't they? Gee, I wonder which party benefits the most from that?

I don't think anything will improve your attitude towards anyone who disagrees with you.

Okay boys and girls, it's time for elementary school math class!

Today we're going to talk about why task0778 is a raging dumbfuck. Turn to pay 217 in your textbook.

You're going to see two fractions. I want you to tell which fraction is bigger. Here's the first problem.

53/435 and 105/870. Which number is bigger?

task0778: 105/870.​

No, that is incorrect.

task0778: B-but, both the numbers are bigger.​

Yes, but that's not how fractions work. The second fraction is made up of more pieces, and it might have more pieces, but those pieces are smaller. So 105 pieces in the second fraction still equal less than the first fraction.

task0778: B-but, both the numbers are bigger.​

Yes, well, smoking and drinking during pregnancy is dangerous. Let's go on to the next problem. 1/435 and 3/870.

task0778: They're the same.​

And there we have it, everyone! Big, giant idiot votes without an understanding of grade school level math.

Yes, well, smoking and drinking during pregnancy is dangerous. Let's go on to the next problem. 1/435 and 3/870.

task0778: They're the same.

Did I say that? NOOO, of course not. So we have the Lib/Dem once again spouting another lie. You're real good at putting words in someone else's mouth that they didn't say, what is it they tell us about stats and numbers? Figures don't lie but liars can figure. You fall into the latter category.
​

You can take your fractions and stick 'em where the sun don't shine. You are going to increase California's Reps by 52 and Montana's by 2. So, how many more Reps will Wyoming get? One? Maybe? Cherrypick much? You are not fooling anyone with your BS, you simply want more Reps from the big population states to re-engineer the Electoral College so it's more favorable to the Dems. You don't give a shit about better representation, you only care about getting Dems elected to the WH. You just don't have the integrity to admit it. Since we know you're not smart enough to figure this out for yourself, why don't you provide the link to where you got the idea from.

So you have a problem with democracy...

Every thinking human being should have a problem with mob rule.

 

[task0778]

Yes, well, smoking and drinking during pregnancy is dangerous. Let's go on to the next problem. 1/435 and 3/870.

task0778: They're the same.

Did I say that? NOOO, of course not. So we have the Lib/Dem once again spouting another lie. You're real good at putting words in someone else's mouth that they didn't say, what is it they tell us about stats and numbers? Figures don't lie but liars can figure. You fall into the latter category.
​

You can take your fractions and stick 'em where the sun don't shine. You are going to increase California's Reps by 52 and Montana's by 2. So, how many more Reps will Wyoming get? One? Maybe? Cherrypick much? You are not fooling anyone with your BS, you simply want more Reps from the big population states to re-engineer the Electoral College so it's more favorable to the Dems. You don't give a shit about better representation, you only care about getting Dems elected to the WH. You just don't have the integrity to admit it. Since we know you're not smart enough to figure this out for yourself, why don't you provide the link to where you got the idea from.

So you have a problem with democracy...

Uh, no. Care to explain how you arrived at that conclusion? We've already got a democracy, bro.

You want one set Americans to have more votes in Congress per voter than another....

What's wrong with every Americans having equal representation? It is not democracy when you have a vote but one set are given more say than another...

They have votes in China too...

So, you are actually trying to back into another call for doing away with the Electoral College and just going with the popular vote. That's fine, I don't agree with that but that's why we already have a democracy in place, you get to have your say and I get to have mine and our elected reps vote on whatever changes are proposed. Which definitely IS a democracy, you just don't like the current version of it.

As for China, you do realize that point is ridiculous, right? Their elections are nothing but show, the winner is already known. Which is obviously not the case here.

We were talking about Congress which is meant to represent the people fairly... The Senate has the advantage for the smaller states...

Nothing to do with the Electoral College...

If you increase the number of seats in the House then you have increased the number of electors in the EC. And I think that most of the those would go to the high-pop urban areas on the east and west coast corridors. The fly-over country would have less political influence.