The House of Representatives should be doubled in size

[Remodeling Maidiac]

At 435 members, the House of Representatives represents the 326 million US population at a rate of roughly one representative to every 750,000 people. This effectively guarantees the federal government will be controlled the elitist few who can ignore the will of the people all too easily. By contrast, the UK's House of Commons has 650 members for a 65.5 million population, yielding a representation ratio of approximately 100,000 to one.

Increasing the size of the House will allow for smaller districts, which helps to combat gerrymandering, and improves the government's accountability to the people.

No

 

[Harry Dresden]

At 435 members, the House of Representatives represents the 326 million US population at a rate of roughly one representative to every 750,000 people. This effectively guarantees the federal government will be controlled the elitist few who can ignore the will of the people all too easily. By contrast, the UK's House of Commons has 650 members for a 65.5 million population, yielding a representation ratio of approximately 100,000 to one.

Increasing the size of the House will allow for smaller districts, which helps to combat gerrymandering, and improves the government's accountability to the people.

you raise a good point....but having more politicians just seems like more bullshit will come out of DC...

As opposed to sending more quality into DC?

quality?....you think much higher of these people than i do....

So that's why you want these people to retain a vice grip on power? As opposed to diluting their grip on power?

you got that out of what i said?..........apparently you have never read my posts on these pieces of shit....

 

[Defiant1]

At 435 members, the House of Representatives represents the 326 million US population at a rate of roughly one representative to every 750,000 people. This effectively guarantees the federal government will be controlled the elitist few who can ignore the will of the people all too easily. By contrast, the UK's House of Commons has 650 members for a 65.5 million population, yielding a representation ratio of approximately 100,000 to one.

Increasing the size of the House will allow for smaller districts, which helps to combat gerrymandering, and improves the government's accountability to the people.

you raise a good point....but having more politicians just seems like more bullshit will come out of DC...

Or maybe less, with this plan even more would have to agree to the bullshit, which might stop some of it.

The less they pass the better off we are


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Exactly. The reason so much bullshit comes out of Congress is because they aren't really accountable to the people anymore.

Why do you say that?

My Congressman is very accountable to me.
The Dems in the district may have a different opinion.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

At 435 members, the House of Representatives represents the 326 million US population at a rate of roughly one representative to every 750,000 people. This effectively guarantees the federal government will be controlled the elitist few who can ignore the will of the people all too easily. By contrast, the UK's House of Commons has 650 members for a 65.5 million population, yielding a representation ratio of approximately 100,000 to one.

Increasing the size of the House will allow for smaller districts, which helps to combat gerrymandering, and improves the government's accountability to the people.

The last thing the LIBs want is a larger House.

Actually, that is exactly what they want. Say we increased the House seats by 50%, where do you think most of those seats will go? Wyoming? I don't think so, they're going to go to the big population centers, which are controlled by who? The Democrats.

Idiots like you make me wish we could give a math test before people can vote. Changing the size of the House doesn't change the population proportionality.

 

[task0778]

At 435 members, the House of Representatives represents the 326 million US population at a rate of roughly one representative to every 750,000 people. This effectively guarantees the federal government will be controlled the elitist few who can ignore the will of the people all too easily. By contrast, the UK's House of Commons has 650 members for a 65.5 million population, yielding a representation ratio of approximately 100,000 to one.

Increasing the size of the House will allow for smaller districts, which helps to combat gerrymandering, and improves the government's accountability to the people.

The last thing the LIBs want is a larger House.

Actually, that is exactly what they want. Say we increased the House seats by 50%, where do you think most of those seats will go? Wyoming? I don't think so, they're going to go to the big population centers, which are controlled by who? The Democrats.

Idiots like you make me wish we could give a math test before people can vote. Changing the size of the House doesn't change the population proportionality.

I'm the idiot? You want more Reps in the House for the same number of people, no? Which changes the representation ratio, which is what you're talking about in the 1st place, no?

Your attitude kinda sucks, Stormy. Might wanna work on that.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

At 435 members, the House of Representatives represents the 326 million US population at a rate of roughly one representative to every 750,000 people. This effectively guarantees the federal government will be controlled the elitist few who can ignore the will of the people all too easily. By contrast, the UK's House of Commons has 650 members for a 65.5 million population, yielding a representation ratio of approximately 100,000 to one.

Increasing the size of the House will allow for smaller districts, which helps to combat gerrymandering, and improves the government's accountability to the people.

The last thing the LIBs want is a larger House.

Actually, that is exactly what they want. Say we increased the House seats by 50%, where do you think most of those seats will go? Wyoming? I don't think so, they're going to go to the big population centers, which are controlled by who? The Democrats.

Idiots like you make me wish we could give a math test before people can vote. Changing the size of the House doesn't change the population proportionality.

I'm the idiot? You want more Reps in the House for the same number of people, no? Which changes the representation ratio, which is what you're talking about in the 1st place, no?

No, idiot, the ratio changes. If I cut a pizza into four slices and hand them out my kids in a ratio of one slice for every meal they will eat away from home today, and then give my oldest one slice, she ends up with 25% of the pizza. If I cut the pizza into eight slices and give out two slices for every meal they'll eat away from home and then my oldest two slices, she'll still have 25% of the pizza. The ratio of slices to meals has changed, but the proportional share of the pizza has not.

Representatives are apportioned relative to population size. Each state will receive approximately the same proportion of Representatives, regardless of the gross size of the House. The only changes that will happen would be the result of increased accuracy attributable to smaller base groups. While there will always be some degree of over/under representation, the smaller denominator from a larger House will ultimately favor smaller, under represented states by eliminating waste. Even if larger, more influential states like California try to lobby for favorable apportionment, they won't be able to tie up as much waste, leaving more representatives available to be allotted to smaller states.

With a 870 member House of Representatives, the base ratio of representation would reduce from roughly 750,000 to one, to 375,000 to one. Let's take Montana as an example. With 1.05 million people, Montana currently receives a single representative, which leaves the state effectively under represented. But under the double sized House model Montana likely receive 3 total representatives (375,000 * 3 = 1,125,000), increasing its effective representation by 50%, with only a very slight deviation from the denominator of 75,000 residents.

Meanwhile, California's 39.54 million population would likely receive 105 representatives. That would be a slight reduction in effective representation of less than 1%, with a relatively small deviation from the denominator of 165,000 residents.

Your attitude kinda sucks, Stormy. Might wanna work on that.

Stop failing at middle school level math and my attitude might improve.

 

[task0778]

At 435 members, the House of Representatives represents the 326 million US population at a rate of roughly one representative to every 750,000 people. This effectively guarantees the federal government will be controlled the elitist few who can ignore the will of the people all too easily. By contrast, the UK's House of Commons has 650 members for a 65.5 million population, yielding a representation ratio of approximately 100,000 to one.

Increasing the size of the House will allow for smaller districts, which helps to combat gerrymandering, and improves the government's accountability to the people.

The last thing the LIBs want is a larger House.

Actually, that is exactly what they want. Say we increased the House seats by 50%, where do you think most of those seats will go? Wyoming? I don't think so, they're going to go to the big population centers, which are controlled by who? The Democrats.

Idiots like you make me wish we could give a math test before people can vote. Changing the size of the House doesn't change the population proportionality.

I'm the idiot? You want more Reps in the House for the same number of people, no? Which changes the representation ratio, which is what you're talking about in the 1st place, no?

No, idiot, the ratio changes. If I cut a pizza into four slices and hand them out my kids in a ratio of one slice for every meal they will eat away from home today, and then give my oldest one slice, she ends up with 25% of the pizza. If I cut the pizza into eight slices and give out two slices for every meal they'll eat away from home and then my oldest two slices, she'll still have 25% of the pizza. The ratio of slices to meals has changed, but the proportional share of the pizza has not.

Representatives are apportioned relative to population size. Each state will receive approximately the same proportion of Representatives, regardless of the gross size of the House. The only changes that will happen would be the result of increased accuracy attributable to smaller base groups. While there will always be some degree of over/under representation, the smaller denominator from a larger House will ultimately favor smaller, under represented states by eliminating waste. Even if larger, more influential states like California try to lobby for favorable apportionment, they won't be able to tie up as much waste, leaving more representatives available to be allotted to smaller states.

With a 870 member House of Representatives, the base ratio of representation would reduce from roughly 750,000 to one, to 375,000 to one. Let's take Montana as an example. With 1.05 million people, Montana currently receives a single representative, which leaves the state effectively under represented. But under the double sized House model Montana likely receive 3 total representatives (375,000 * 3 = 1,125,000), increasing its effective representation by 50%, with only a very slight deviation from the denominator of 75,000 residents.

Meanwhile, California's 39.54 million population would likely receive 105 representatives. That would be a slight reduction in effective representation of less than 1%, with a relatively small deviation from the denominator of 165,000 residents.

Your attitude kinda sucks, Stormy. Might wanna work on that.

Stop failing at middle school level math and my attitude might improve.

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.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

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.

 

[Skull Pilot]

At 435 members, the House of Representatives represents the 326 million US population at a rate of roughly one representative to every 750,000 people. This effectively guarantees the federal government will be controlled the elitist few who can ignore the will of the people all too easily. By contrast, the UK's House of Commons has 650 members for a 65.5 million population, yielding a representation ratio of approximately 100,000 to one.

Increasing the size of the House will allow for smaller districts, which helps to combat gerrymandering, and improves the government's accountability to the people.

Yeah we need more corrupt politicians

 

[CowboyTed]

At 435 members, the House of Representatives represents the 326 million US population at a rate of roughly one representative to every 750,000 people. This effectively guarantees the federal government will be controlled the elitist few who can ignore the will of the people all too easily. By contrast, the UK's House of Commons has 650 members for a 65.5 million population, yielding a representation ratio of approximately 100,000 to one.

Increasing the size of the House will allow for smaller districts, which helps to combat gerrymandering, and improves the government's accountability to the people.

While I agree with you on more representation...

The main problem and I have repeated this many time... US use First Past the Post/One Man One Vote system... This archaic nearly every other country have moved to other ways to vote...

Instead having one congress man districts, have 3, 4 & 5 congressman districts. Also have preference voting... This allows a voter to vote 1,2,3,.... down a card in order of preference... This allows voters to vote who they want with out wasting a vote, instead of voting for the less of two evils they get a real choice.

In Ireland in the last Parliament Vote (similar to congress) we have this... These were the results. I live in a 5 seater district...

Yes you can see 9 parties and number of independents... Two Independents won...

I voted
1. John Connolly first(by the way a pro lifer but a nice guy)
2. Eamon O'Cuiv
3. Niall O'Tuathall
4. Noel Grealish
.....
So my vote went to John first until he was discounted on the 12th count and because Eamon was elected (he past the Quota) and Niall was gone in the 11th count, my vote went to Noel...

You vote stays alive (as long as you go down the card 1,2,3...) until you get a candidate who won or the last remaining looser...

Counts usually last a few days and can be quite exciting, Irish are actually very involved with it and never accepted machine counting (they prefer the drama unfold more slowly)...

 

[Stormy Daniels]

The main problem and I have repeated this many time... US use First Past the Post/One Man One Vote system... This archaic nearly every other country have moved to other ways to vote...

That is an entirely separate matter.

Instead having one congress man districts, have 3, 4 & 5 congressman districts. Also have preference voting... This allows a voter to vote 1,2,3,.... down a card in order of preference... This allows voters to vote who they want with out wasting a vote, instead of voting for the less of two evils they get a real choice.

What you are suggesting is a to completely replace the House of Representatives with an entirely different entity.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I understand the point in this. I just dont think thats an acceptable fix. Especially since it could end up causing many more problems.

More representatives equals smaller districts, making them more accountable to the people they represent. New Hampshire is one of the smallest states and has the largest state legislature with over 400 members.

 

[WorldWatcher]

.

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.


.>>>>

 

[evenflow1969]

There are some cons to consider
Would the rules of the house have to change? If so, to what?
Would they have to give more power to a few in house? Would that make lobbying easier?
Would that mean MORE legislation? <thats a big one for me>
Could they handle all the legislation? We cant increase the hours in a day. Could the states, counties and cities handle it?

Srgt. Baggs covered my biggest worry congress has skirted it's duties and given the power to the president so they are not held responsible for out comes at the polls. If that continues we are just paying more people to do nothing! Hopefully killing gerrymandering would make our reps more responsive, that remains to be seen. They have gotten way to good at passing the buck!

 

[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.

 

[evenflow1969]

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.

Ya, the funny thing about fractions is when applied to larger numbers the percentages remain the same. If the same formula is used that is used currently no percentage difference in respresentation occurs. It is likely that the republicans would actually increase seats as many suburbs would likely get their own rep as opposed to being tossed in with the larger urban community. It again boils down to how the election areas are defined.

 

[CowboyTed]

The main problem and I have repeated this many time... US use First Past the Post/One Man One Vote system... This archaic nearly every other country have moved to other ways to vote...

That is an entirely separate matter.

Instead having one congress man districts, have 3, 4 & 5 congressman districts. Also have preference voting... This allows a voter to vote 1,2,3,.... down a card in order of preference... This allows voters to vote who they want with out wasting a vote, instead of voting for the less of two evils they get a real choice.

What you are suggesting is a to completely replace the House of Representatives with an entirely different entity.

Stormy,

No replacing but merging districts today in 3, 4 & 5 seater districts...

This would mean with preference voting that major parties would be be putting out multiple candidates... In hope of winning more than one seat. Look at my example...
The House of Representatives should be doubled in size

The two major parties put up 3 candidates each in hope to win two seats... This takes the pressure of a candidate appealing to their base and to more representative of all the population.

You also see smaller parties and independents picking up seats as well... More diversity...

Gerrymandering is a lot harder to do as well as you can see only handful of votes (<1500) separate the pack... So a small swing for or against you could get your last candidate in...

In practice it creates less divisive candidates with gravitate towards the center rather than appeal to their base. You still get outliner candidates due to the nature of better choice but when it comes going to Washington they want to appeal to everyone...

Negative campaigning is usually not rewarded as it turns people as much from you as it does the person you are attacking. There is plenty of choice and people vote for someone else...

 

[CowboyTed]

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...

 

[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.

 

[CowboyTed]

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...