The Case for Enlarging the House of Representatives

[Dr Grump]

LOL very little gets done with 435 what makes you think 1600 would work?

Why have 435? Why not have two!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Why have 435? Why not have two!

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.

 

[Rogue AI]

Each new law would have to pass more than half of the larger House.

This did not occur to you?

Yup. They would pass huge bills packed with pork and nonsense. There would be more riders and amendments attached than whatever the bill was supposed to be for. It would be a disaster.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

So you are of the same opinion as Californians. Less representation is better.

There's plenty of representation at the state and local levels. There should be less laws and legislation at the federal level to represent the whole.

We don't need them telling us at the federal level that biological males can use the women's room or telling us to social distance and get the jab or dictating that we can't have some guns because they look scary. If the state and local governments want to make those kind of laws and legislation then they can wonder why they get voted out, recalled, or lose tourism dollars because no one wants to go there.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

Please explain why having more representatives that we have now equates to not growing up and having logic or common sense.

The only reason he wants more is he thinks it will lead to more of HIS party winning.

Who is his party?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Yup. They would pass huge bills packed with pork and nonsense.

So just like now?

 

[Rogue AI]

So just like now?

Times 4.

 

[Kondor3]

The Bill of Rights was originally going to be 12 Amendments instead of 10.

James Madison wanted the First Amendment to be a formula for apportioning the House of Representatives.* If his Amendment had been accepted, the House would currently have 1,625 members instead of 435.

Instead, the ratio of one House member for every 30,000 constituents was enshrined in the Constitution. By 1800, it was 34,609 constituents per. By 1900, it was 193,167 per.

In 1929, Congress froze the number of Representatives at 435, even though we had only 48 states and a population of 121 million at the time.

Today, with 50 states and frozen at 435 representatives, the ratio is 762,000 constituents per House member, and climbing.

Our Representatives are completely out of touch with the People.

It is time to rethink apportionment.

Lots of stuff to think about here: The Case for Enlarging the House of Representatives


*The second of the 12 amendments proposed later became the 27th Amendment.

We can cut down on the number of Representatives by stopping the counting of Illegal Beaners.

 

[JoeMoma]

Yes, everybody can print their own money. Just as long as it's not a copy of U.S. federal dollars.

Most money today is simply numbers stored in bank computers. Most transactions don't use printed money today.

 

[whitehall]

The constitutional mission of congress is to make new laws. Good or bad, every new law takes away a little bit more freedom. Since we really don't need to enlarge the power of federal, state and local government, perhaps we should consider trimming the House to a more manageable 200 or so congress people.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I'm not surprised by the knee-jerk responses to this. They were more than predictable because most of you don't take the time to see the bigger picture. Your initial reaction is , "Eek! More representatives! More government! More corruption!" The problem is there is no evidence that would be the case and in fact, having more representatives might actually fix a lot of those problems.

As pointed out earlier, the average Congressional district is over 700,000 people. No one person can effectively represent that many people. It's too diverse of a group and too large. How many of you have ever tried to get face to face access with your Congressman? Good luck. It's damn near impossible and if you do manage to be one of the lucky few you'll be privileged to have more than five minutes with that person. Cut that number of constituents in half or even a third and that person can be far more responsive to the individual. You'd have smaller districts so they would likely better reflect the local politics of the region as opposed to these massive districts that can span multiple counties or even an entire state.

Second, having more representatives can actually help curb corruption as opposed to increasing it. There are 435 members of the House. For lobbyists to get favorable legislation through they only need to get 218 votes on their side. Imagine the House was twice its current size or three times its current size. Now you're talking about needing to lobby 436 Congressmen or 653 Congressmen. Like I asked before, who is easier to bribe, 218 or 653? The larger the Congress is the more lobbyists would need to spend and since the districts would have fewer people in them the constituents can hold their Congressman more accountable to the influence of lobbyists because they'd have more equal access to them.

It would also take less fundraising to run for office because you're running in a smaller area and that would open the door for more "average Joe's" to run for Congress. This would also help more independent or third party candidates get elected and increase our political diversity in Washington.

Furthermore, we are in the 21st century now. There is no reason why every vote needs to have a quorum in D.C. with all the technology we have. Use modern technology to allow the members of Congress to spend most of their time in their offices in their home districts. Let them cast their votes remotely. They don't need to spend so much time in Washington. They can spend more time at home with their local constituents and farther away from the influences of K Street. Smaller districts, more time at home, better representation.

And as far as this idea some of you are pushing that this would help the Democrats that is complete utter nonsense and pure paranoia that has absolutely no bearing in fact. As always, the political winds will shift back and forth regardless of whether you have 435 members or 1625. The bottom line is this country is continuing to grow and as each Congressional district gets more and more people our elected representatives are becoming further detached from the people they were elected to represent.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The constitutional mission of congress is to make new laws. Good or bad, every new law takes away a little bit more freedom. Since we really don't need to enlarge the power of federal, state and local government, perhaps we should consider trimming the House to a more manageable 200 or so congress people.

Great way to breed more corruption. Have every member of Congress represent a few million people. You'll never get a chance in your lifetime to talk to them, but you can bet your ass every lobbyist on K Street will have their attention everyday. It will be piece of cake to influence that few number of members.

 

[my2¢]

The only case I can make for enlarging the number of Representatives is that ever since it was set at 435 it has bastardized the Electoral College process. But I would rather see that fixed by giving states its 2 electoral votes for each senator and then an additional electoral vote for every 30,000 of its population.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Please explain why having more representatives that we have now equates to not growing up and having logic or common sense.


Who is his party?

He is a progressive so whether he admits it or not he wants dems in charge. As for logic and common sense, explain in detail how have 1600 representatives makes it more likely government functions and less likely for corruption and pandering. Remember instead of a little over 200 to pass a bill you will need to appease 800 people, that means MORE corruption more pork more padding and pandering.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

He is a progressive so whether he admits it or not he wants dems in charge.

You're free to prove that at anytime. Evidently, you're one of "The Binars." You exist in a world of zeroes and ones. You think anyone who doesn't agree with you in lock step must be part of the "other side." It completely escapes you that someone can have independent thought because you don't have independent thought.

As for logic and common sense, explain in detail how have 1600 representatives makes it more likely government functions and less likely for corruption and pandering.

Already did. See Post 52

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You're free to prove that at anytime. Evidently, you're one of "The Binars." You exist in a world of zeroes and ones. You think anyone who doesn't agree with you in lock step must be part of the "other side." It completely escapes you that someone can have independent thought because you don't have independent thought.


Already did. See Post 52

No you just addressed Outside sources. Needing 800 votes means 800 people with agenda's and even constituents that want things like bridges roads access to markets and a myriad of things to ensure the congress critter gets reelected.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

No you just addressed Outside sources. Needing 800 votes means 800 people with agenda's and even constituents that want things like bridges roads access to markets and a myriad of things to ensure the congress critter gets reelected.

All of those things are wanted now regardless of whether there are 800 people or 400 people.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

All of those things are wanted now regardless of whether there are 800 people or 400 people.

200 people means less to bargain away then 800 dumb ass.

 

[whitehall]

Great way to breed more corruption. Have every member of Congress represent a few million people. You'll never get a chance in your lifetime to talk to them, but you can bet your ass every lobbyist on K Street will have their attention everyday. It will be piece of cake to influence that few number of members.

We can't get congress to agree today. What do you think would happen if we had a thousand of those rascals?

 

[ThisIsMe]

The Bill of Rights was originally going to be 12 Amendments instead of 10.

James Madison wanted the First Amendment to be a formula for apportioning the House of Representatives.* If his Amendment had been accepted, the House would currently have 1,625 members instead of 435.

Instead, the ratio of one House member for every 30,000 constituents was enshrined in the Constitution. By 1800, it was 34,609 constituents per. By 1900, it was 193,167 per.

In 1929, Congress froze the number of Representatives at 435, even though we had only 48 states and a population of 121 million at the time.

Today, with 50 states and frozen at 435 representatives, the ratio is 762,000 constituents per House member, and climbing.

Our Representatives are completely out of touch with the People.

It is time to rethink apportionment.

Lots of stuff to think about here: The Case for Enlarging the House of Representatives


*The second of the 12 amendments proposed later became the 27th Amendment.

Instead, the ratio of one House member for every 30,000 constituents was enshrined in the Constitution.

But the constitution doesn't say this. It says that the number of representatives is not to exceed 1 per 30,000 people. It doesn't say there should be no more than 30 000 per representative. They just put a bottom limit, not an upper limit.

It doesn't prohibit having more representatives, as long as you don't have more than 1 per 30,000, but it doesn't really say that you have to either. You could have 1 representative for 10 million people, and that would be perfectly constitutional, but to have 2 for 28,000 would be against the Constitution.

At least this is how I understand it.

Anyway, the end goal of this would be to have a permanent Democrat majority. If you do this, also you should make Puerto Rico and dc states, so you can also have a permanent democratic senate. By doing this, every Democrat president would always win, and even republican president would always fail, because they would always be up against a filibuster proof democratic majority.

Go for it.