The Case for Enlarging the House of Representatives

[22lcidw]

I want this because a Representative cannot possibly be responsive to 762,000 people. Instead, they are answerable to whoever shouts the loudest and are reduced to pandering to the zealots.

Under Madison's system, there would be one Representative for every 200,000 constituents today.

They warned us about keeping a Republic. We are not that anymore. We are a Democracy as we are told over and over. And if anything tells you about big budget Bills we have seen it. We have seen politicians putting their own citizens in danger for political purposes with the riots while the same has become authoritarian nazis to their own citizens with the virus. It is clear that extremist judges have been put into the court systems to override anything that the Progs do not like. Prog District Attorneys and State attorney generals turning people into criminals for defending themselves.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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

A. Less to bargain what away? Your argument is not making any sense.

B. You must feel really confident in your argument if you have to call me a dumb ass. Is this your example of having “grown up” and realizing common sense and logic?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Anyway, the end goal of this would be to have a permanent Democrat majority.

Yes, you guys keep pulling this claim completely out of thin air yet not a single one of you can explain how that’s even a rational assumption.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Actually, the more i think about this, 1200 more representatives is exactly what we need. 1200 more people to not represent the will of the people, and only the interest of their own pocket book.

1600 representatives mean they would end up stumbling over each other all the time and not getting anything done.

The floor debates would be magnificent! As slow as things move now, having 1600 people wanting to voice their concerns in the debates, each bill would take a year!

Can you imagine the house committe hearings? They'd have to build new buildings, but with 120 people on a committee, the hearings would be brilliant! Would take a week for a hearing. The witnesses would be like "look....I gotta go, OK? Can we take a vacation or something?"

Actually, seeing that make make government more interesting!

I say yes!!

 

[ThisIsMe]

Yes, you guys keep pulling this claim completely out of thin air yet not a single one of you can explain how that’s even a rational assumption.

Well, if the dems population in the u.s. is higher than the repub population, it only stands to reason that, if the added 1200 representatives, the majority of then would go to dems, no?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Well, if the dems population in the u.s. is higher than the repub population, it only stands to reason that, if the added 1200 representatives, the majority of then would go to dems, no?

The number of Democrats has been higher than the number of Republicans since the great depression. Are you trying to claim the Republicans have never had a congressional majority in 90 years?

Try again and do a better job this time.

 

[HappyJoy]

I'm mixed on this.

The positives are that each representative would be more accessible to their constituents. A larger body would be less corruptible and more expensive to lobby. I'm down with that. I also think gerrymandering would be almost a thing of the past since it would be more difficult to split up major voting blocks into sections of larger districts.

I think the challenge (other than getting Congress to enact this in the first place) is logistical. The House debates each issue, what does that look like when everyone wants to say their piece? How many members on each committee and again, how long would a hearing last if everyone talks? I'm sure there are answers to all of this but it would seem to be unwieldly without some major organizational change.

As far as this is g5000 opportunity to get more progressives in is laughable and the responses from the wingnuts have been nothing short of predictable.

 

[candycorn]

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.

If the nation were run by adults, we would have done it decades ago. Because of the electoral college it is now a non-starter.

 

[g5000]

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.

Every rider/amendment on a bill has to pass a majority of the House. Did you not know this?

That means it would be more difficult to get an amendment passed since there would be ,more representatives to convince.

 

[g5000]

View attachment 578334

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*****

So you are in favor of being like California which only has 60 representatives for their entire state of 39.5 million people.

How's that working out? What state has the strictest environmental laws? What state coddles the transgender people you hate?

It is so much easier to get shit done without an abundance of legislators in the way. It's so much easier to get shit done when you don't have to answer to your constituents as much as a Wyoming state representative does.

 

[g5000]

Times 4.

Nope. It would actually be more difficult to pass any new laws.

 

[g5000]

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

Wrong. Just because I hate the thoroughly corrupt Trump does not mean I like progressives, idiot. That's a classic false dichotomy.

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.

Wrong again. Every piece of pork requires a majority of the larger House to pass it. It is far easier to horse trade with 435 people than it is to horse trade with 1,625.

 

[g5000]

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

A lot less legislation!

 

[g5000]

Anyway, the end goal of this would be to have a permanent Democrat majority.

How so?

 

[g5000]

Liz Cheney.

Liz Cheney only represents a little over half a million people. Every other Congress critter represents 762,000.

Cheney has a huge advantage.

But under Madison's system, Wyoming would have at least one more Representative. Maybe even two more.

Cheney's power over the state would be diminished, and an opponent would have a much easier time unseating her.

 

[BackAgain]

The “case” to enlarge the House is silly. A good case can be made, instead, to return the selection of Senators to the various States’ respective legislatures. As “checks and balance” go, Federalism is a high priority.

Frankly, given the direct election of the Senators by the respective States’ voters, there is no reason to even have a no-cameras Federal legislature. There is no reason to even HAVE a Senate via direct elections,

 

[CrusaderFrank]

America 2021: The case for eliminating income tax, having States appoint Senators, zero based budgeting, and eliminating all Federal functions not specifically enumerated in the Constitution

 

[Alan Stallion]

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.

I'm open to the idea.

The UK has a population of 67 million and there are 650 MPs in the House of Commons.

New Hampshire has a population of 1.36 million and there are 400 representatives in their lower chamber.

Conversely, California has a population of 39.5 million and only 80 representatives in their lower chamber.

As a California resident, I'll comment on this part.

Since the Reynolds vs. Sims decision of 1964 (which I disagree with), this ruling changed and took the balance between urban vs. rural counties and concentrated power toward the large population centers, such as San Francisco Metro and Los Angeles.

State Senate is now based on population as is the State Assembly. The two chambers are basically the same thing with no checks and balances.

With each State Senate district equal to two State Assembly districts, I would rather eliminate the "upper chamber" and just make the California legislation a unicameral body, with an increased number of districts.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

If the nation were run by adults, we would have done it decades ago. Because of the electoral college it is now a non-starter.

The Electoral College has no relevancy to the size of Congress.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're concerned that it would be harder for them to pass laws? That's a rather ironic position for a so-called small government conservative to take, isn't it?