Blow up the House of Representatives? (play on words, not really)

[Sgent]

If and when we get control of the House back, we should either shrink it or enlarge it. According to the Constitution (Article I, Section 2):

The actual Enumeration ... and within every subsequent Term of ten
Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of
Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State
shall have at Least one Representative...

Get rid of the gerrymandering -- by increasing the size of the House, you increase the weight of the popular vote, and decrease the importance Senator's play in the electoral college. Right now 20% of votes cast for our president have nothing to do with population -- a number that largely favors Republicans. If there 900 members of the House, it would make it much harder to gerrymander republican / democratic districts, and give states like CA and NY (and TX unfortunately) more power in national elections.

The 435 number is over 100 years old, its time for it to go.

[Ioo]

1. Please change the title...

I agree with you, but your title of your post may get you in trub...

I say we add 150 people...

[BushOut06]

9. Why? Ann Coulter can advocate poisoning a Supreme Court judge

As long as you end it with "that's only a joke", anything you say is okay. :sarcasm:

[Rocknrule]

11. You forget

She's a Republican, you're not. The rules don't apply to her.

[BushOut06]

12. I know - it's the IOIYAR rule

Which excuses many outrageous statements that RWers make in public.

[yurbud]

2. please change your subject line so you don't get DU blown up

[Bluzmann57]

3. If there were 900 members

it may be awfully confusing. Thats a lot to keep track of. And who's to say that 600 out of the 900 wouldn't be republicans anyway?

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. Because in the real world, dems and independents outnumber

repubs.

It would also open the door for more 'other party' members - Greens, libertarians, socialists, whatever.

[berni_mccoy]

4. Bad Subject Title, Excellent Idea

BUT, I would recommend that these guys get a pay cut so we can afford to add more...

[ChairmanAgnostic]

5. precisely. Today a congresscritter represents more people

than the senators of 1790 did.
The most populous state was mass, with 260,000.
today a congresscritter represents 680,000 people. That is just plain untenable. The end up representing lobbyists, not the citizens.

If we tripled the size of congress, it would be both more responsive and less beholden to powerhouse lobbyists etc.

[kenny blankenship]

10. Compared to other countries, US has very little representation in its

so-called "representative democracy". At an average of only 91,000 citizens per parliamentarian in the House of Commons, a citizen of UK has over 6 times the representation per person than is enjoyed by their counterpart in the United States. Moreover, the upper house of Parliament, has been relegated to a ceremonial status and thus they cannot wield a lopsided veto over the will of a majority of the people as happens ALL THE TIME in the United States Senate, where Senators representing perhaps less than 15% of the overall population can stop anything passed out of the House of Representatives and desired by substantial popular majorities.

[Democrats_win]

6. An interesting idea. I'd finally be in favor of term limits. Uhmhm Byrd!

[stepnw1f]

8. Change the Title! (nt)