The House of Representatives should be doubled in size

[Stormy Daniels]

Im under represented. I would be in almost any area of this country.
I dont want higher debt
I dont want higher taxes
I dont want bigger govt
I want govt to shrink
I dont want religion in schools
I am pro-choice
I want strong borders and their incentives cut off
I dont want religion in politics
I want drugs legalized
I want to get rid of protected classes
Who is going to represent me? How will increasing worthless congressman help me with my representation?

This reflects deeply embedded partisan conditioning--the same kind that causes people to say "not my President" about Donald, just because they don't like him. Also, the kind of thinking that led black people to vote for Obama just because he's black, or women to vote for Clinton just because she's a woman. Whether you are adequately represented has nothing to do with how closely people in government align with your beliefs and priorities, or generally how similar they are to you personally. Representatives of any kind are supposed to represent whole communities, not ideological principles.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

[That doesnt fall back on the voters?
"well this guy dont give a shit about any of us, so lets vote him in again!"

That apathy stems from the massive disconnect and lack of accessibility to the public's nominal representatives.

 

[TNHarley]

Im under represented. I would be in almost any area of this country.
I dont want higher debt
I dont want higher taxes
I dont want bigger govt
I want govt to shrink
I dont want religion in schools
I am pro-choice
I want strong borders and their incentives cut off
I dont want religion in politics
I want drugs legalized
I want to get rid of protected classes
Who is going to represent me? How will increasing worthless congressman help me with my representation?

This reflects deeply embedded partisan conditioning--the same kind that causes people to say "not my President" about Donald, just because they don't like him. Also, the kind of thinking that led black people to vote for Obama just because he's black, or women to vote for Clinton just because she's a woman. Whether you are adequately represented has nothing to do with how closely people in government align with your beliefs and priorities, or generally how similar they are to you personally. Representatives of any kind are supposed to represent whole communities, not ideological principles.

How does it represent the whole communities principles when they win by 3%?
IDK im guess im just trying to say i see no point in this.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

You think there will be organizational issues when you DOUBLE something?

I think you're asking this presumptively instead of analytically. What actual organizational challenges do you think might occur? I also think you may be confusing organizational matters with general logistical matters.

There would obviously need to be planning. One of the biggest initial challenges would be establishing adequate facilities, as the current Capitol building wouldn't accommodate the larger size. But that will ultimately be a temporary problem.

Congress is mainly organized into committees that handle broad sections of interest. Many committees have subcommittees because of the volume and/or diversity of responsibilities. Committees usually draft and evaluate any legislation within their sphere before deciding whether to send it to the full chamber for a vote, and/or perform the actual investigative oversight duties of the chamber, etc. If anything, doubling membership could alleviate any existing organizational issues. Increased membership could allow for smaller committees, and more specialized committees.

If the rules of the house had to change, they might need to give more power to a select few. Then, they would only have to mess with a few and the rets just fall in line.

The rules of the House are mainly about procedure and conduct for members. There's no substantial need to change the rules, except maybe to establish new committees created to leverage the increase in available members.

Why wouldnt there be more legislation? You are talking about doubling or tripling the house! That only makes sense.
Double or triple the legislation wont effect localities? Do you understand what they do? What clerks have to do and know? How they have to get information out to the public?

So are you suggesting that increasing the size of the House will cause the federal government to pass more yearly budgets? What you're suggesting is the equivalent of saying that having a bigger car will cause you to drive more miles on a daily basis. The majority of Congressional legislation is mundane rank and file stuff.

 

[jwoodie]

What a stupid claim.

What a childish response. Do you have any evidence that more districts result in less gerrymandering?

 

[my2¢]

Doubling the House members would make the Electoral College a bit more fair. The way I figure it as it stands with the House at 435 the value of a person vote for president in Wyoming is worth 358% worth that of a Californian. Doubling the House would reduce that to 246%. Simply a case of mathematics, where Wyoming's electoral votes are mainly gained because of the number of Senators, while the more populated states are determined way more by their number of Representatives.

(Number of Representatives + Senators = State's Electoral Votes)

 

[dannyboys]

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.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

How does it represent the whole communities principles when they win by 3%?

You're just repeating the same bias. Representatives are supposed to represent the people, not an ideology. Just because someone didn't vote for them doesn't mean they don't represent those people.

 

[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.

So, you want to pay 870 people to do nothing?

THIS.

These asshats can't get shit done now. You want to add another several hundred to do nothing with our tax dollars? No thank you.

This is another stupid response, based on nothing more than blind hatred of government as a whole. Okay, go pick some secluded corner and declare yourself an independent country and live in anarchy.

 

[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.

Cool story, bro.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

It's chaotic enough already.

If a hospital us chaotic with only three doctors, is that a good reason to avoid hiring more doctors?

 

[TNHarley]

How does it represent the whole communities principles when they win by 3%?

You're just repeating the same bias. Representatives are supposed to represent the people, not an ideology. Just because someone didn't vote for them doesn't mean they don't represent those people.

You just said community principles

 

[TNHarley]

It's chaotic enough already.

If a hospital us chaotic with only three doctors, is that a good reason to avoid hiring more doctors?

Talking about bias

 

[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....

 

[Stormy Daniels]

How does it represent the whole communities principles when they win by 3%?

You're just repeating the same bias. Representatives are supposed to represent the people, not an ideology. Just because someone didn't vote for them doesn't mean they don't represent those people.

You just said community principles

No, I said they are supposed to represent communities, not ideological principles. Do you think Rand Paul represents you because he agrees with legalizing pot? He represents the state of Kentucky, not you. (Assuming you don't live in KY, that is.) His responsibility is to the people of that community. Not just the people who voted for him last time, but all of the people in that community.

Gerrymandering disrupts that, carving out districts intended to preserve ideological alignment majorities, and thereby marginalizing accountability to the whole of the constituency.

 

[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.

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?

 

[TNHarley]

How does it represent the whole communities principles when they win by 3%?

You're just repeating the same bias. Representatives are supposed to represent the people, not an ideology. Just because someone didn't vote for them doesn't mean they don't represent those people.

You just said community principles

No, I said they are supposed to represent communities, not ideological principles. Do you think Rand Paul represents you because he agrees with legalizing pot? He represents the state of Kentucky, not you. (Assuming you don't live in KY, that is.) His responsibility is to the people of that community. Not just the people who voted for him last time, but all of the people in that community.

Gerrymandering disrupts that, carving out districts intended to preserve ideological alignment majorities, and thereby marginalizing accountability to the whole of the constituency.

You are right. I misread

 

[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...

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

many seem to agree with the less they pass the better off we are school of thought.....so then why pay these guys if you dont want them to pass anything?.....why have a congress?...

 

[Harry Dresden]

How does it represent the whole communities principles when they win by 3%?

You're just repeating the same bias. Representatives are supposed to represent the people, not an ideology. Just because someone didn't vote for them doesn't mean they don't represent those people.

a hell of a lot of them only represent the people when they are up for re-election....after they win,it becomes what those useless parties want....

 

[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.