Should the US House of Representatives Have more People?
-
An paper came across my desk that made the argument that the US House of Representatives should be increased in size.
It was never meant to be a continuous size, and I think in the Federal Papers, they said something about it increasing as the population increased.
I dont have an argument on either side. I can see the side that says to increase, because as one person represents a bigger and bigger population, they lose touch with the local issues that are important.
@taiwan_girl said in Should the US House of Representatives Have more People?:
as one person represents a bigger and bigger population
Yes. I believe Wyoming has one representative for the entire state (Rep. Cheney). However, the number of representatives remains determined by the population of the various districts, so, one can say that the proportionality is the same.
But...Gerrymandering...
-
For curious, I looked at how the size has changed.
The size has been the same since 1913 (it had been increasing before that). At that time, each representative had about 210,000 people there.
Now, they have about 760,00 people there.
-
On all fairness, I don’t think you need to triple it... Communications and public opinion polling is lightyears ahead of what it was 90 years ago...
-
The Founding Fathers thought one representative for every ~30k people was the way to go.
Now we have one representative for every 500k (Montana) to 778k (Florida).
If you feel you’re not sufficiently represented, well, yeah, you’re not compared to Americans in years past.The article goes through different principles and methods for scaling the House of Representatives in relation to population growth and population distribution.
-
As I commented earlier, communication technology has made much of the need unnecessary.
But I tell you what… I’ll support growing the House by say 25% if we go back to having the State Legislatures appoint their US Senate representatives.
-
As I commented earlier, communication technology has made much of the need unnecessary.
But I tell you what… I’ll support growing the House by say 25% if we go back to having the State Legislatures appoint their US Senate representatives.
@LuFins-Dad said in Should the US House of Representatives Have more People?:
As I commented earlier, communication technology has made much of the need unnecessary.
But I tell you what… I’ll support growing the House by say 25% if we go back to having the State Legislatures appoint their US Senate representatives.
Horrible idea in my view given the state legislature’s power to construct their house delegations, something never envisioned by the founders.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Should the US House of Representatives Have more People?:
As I commented earlier, communication technology has made much of the need unnecessary.
But I tell you what… I’ll support growing the House by say 25% if we go back to having the State Legislatures appoint their US Senate representatives.
Horrible idea in my view given the state legislature’s power to construct their house delegations, something never envisioned by the founders.
@jon-nyc said in Should the US House of Representatives Have more People?:
@LuFins-Dad said in Should the US House of Representatives Have more People?:
As I commented earlier, communication technology has made much of the need unnecessary.
But I tell you what… I’ll support growing the House by say 25% if we go back to having the State Legislatures appoint their US Senate representatives.
Horrible idea in my view given the state legislature’s power to construct their house delegations, something never envisioned by the founders.
I wouldn’t mind changing the redistricting rules…
-
It’s hard to imagine it being more effective with, say, 700 rather than 435.
And it would put lobbying out of reach of small organizations.
@jon-nyc said in Should the US House of Representatives Have more People?:
It’s hard to imagine it being more effective with, say, 700 rather than 435.
And it would put lobbying out of reach of small organizations.
I'd like to put K Street out of business.
- No elected official or government employee may lobby Congress or the President for ten years after separation of service.
- A congressman's time for visitors must be mandated to include half of his time devoted to people who reside in his home state.
- Lobbyists must be registered.
- Lobbyists will participate in a lottery system for the congressman's time.
- Any lobbyist offering a congressman anything more costly than a decent meal and a couple of drinks in D.C., will be subject to two years at hard labor, no parole. And a fine not to exceed $50,000, paid for by the company that employs him. Meals or minor gifts shall not exceed one per 30 days.
- Any congressman taking anything that cost more than a decent meal and a couple of drinks in D.C., is in violation of congressional ethics and will be immediately thrown out of congress, banned from ever holding any federal elective office and be subject to two years at hard labor, no parole.
- Any lobbyist convicted under item 5, will immediately have the company or consortium of companies who hired him, banned from lobbying congress for five years.
I think that's a good start.
