Time to Expand the House?

Each representative speaks for 760,000 people. This number is clearly too large for effective representation.


Most would be gerrymandered, of course. But there will be more purple districts if we increase the number. The larger issue is, of course, how to expand it and to what number. I don’t know the former. The latter...we need to essentially double the size of the house. Espansion should take place in three stages over 16 years. This would eleviate any shocks to the system to where there are too many of any one party elected at once. Whats more is that this can (and likely will) create seats for third parties since it will tkae fewer voters to win a seat in Congress.
I think everyone should have their own Representative. Our needs are sooooooo unique we need bespoke representation
 
The premise is all wrong. The existing politicians in the house DO NOT represent their local constituents, they represent the Big Money donors and lobbyists that fund them, and they represent the Party they belong to. Ditto for the senators. If We The People want better representation we have to do it at the local level where our voices can actually be heard. This means transferring as much power as possible away from the federal government and giving it back to the states. If the states can't give the people the representation they deserve then you transfer as much power as possible down to the county level. And if the country can't get it done you transfer it down even further.
Increasing the number of reps MAY devalue the office in the eyes of a lobbyist or PAC.
 
How many citizens per congressman do you feel would be appropriate?

I think at at least doubling the current size would be sufficient. Also, why does every vote require a physical quorum in D.C.? We're in the 21st century now. They should be spending most of their time in their home districts where they are more accessible to their constituents and less so to D.C. lobbyists. With the technology we have, there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to vote from their local offices.
 
I think at at least doubling the current size would be sufficient. Also, why does every vote require a physical quorum in D.C.? We're in the 21st century now. They should be spending most of their time in their home districts where they are more accessible to their constituents and less so to D.C. lobbyists. With the technology we have, there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to vote from their local offices.

We should apply that metric to all sorts of things. No way in hell it should take 3 months to inaugurate a new President. Given the recent bullsheeet with the blob we need to codify a few things.

November--you settle the election. By law the latest a US Presidential election can be held is November 8. That gives states 22 days to settle the election. More than enough time. Currently they have until mid December. Hire staff if you have to. Not that hard! The yummiest BS of Trumpisim is the lie that elections used to be settled in one day. We knew the winner of the Presidential election because we were not so divided back then and we knew, pretty much, what states were going to be won by whom and what yet to be reported districts were strong for which candidate. The last day in November...the Congress confirms the winner.

December--December 1. The President Elect’s transition team is legally obligated (and able) to co-desk with the current cabinet secretaries. They open their books. No more sandbagging the incoming team.

January--Starting on the 2nd, the new Senate starts confirming the incoming cabinet secretaries. After inauguration, other confirmable positions can be done. None of this idiotic “waiting” until the inauguration. We all know who the new President is going to be.
 
Back
Top Bottom