The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: dutch508 on June 20, 2020, 12:53:41 PM
-
moose65 (1,268 posts)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100213613527
Increase the size of the House!!
I don't know why this idea hasn't gained more traction.
The size of the average US House district is now well over 700,000 people. In some of the states that only have 1 member of Congress, the size of that 1 district is well over a million people. That is WAY too many people for 1 Representative.
The size of the House hasn't been changed in over 100 years. It was routinely increased after every census - including 1910, when the size of the House was set at 435 members. After the 1920 census, the size was not increased, because there were a lot of Representatives who saw that large cities were full of immigrants, and they didn't want them to have more representation (sound familiar)?
We now have the same number of Reps that we did in 1911, before New Mexico, Arizona, Alaska, and Hawaii were states. The US population is now three times what it was then. Plus, women couldn't vote at that time, and neither could most African-American men. After the 2020 census, some states will lose Representatives, even though their populations increased. It's absolutely insane.
Plus, the number of electors is based on the number of Congressional districts. California is woefully under-represented in the Electoral College. California's population is almost 80 times that of Wyoming, but they only have 53 times as many representatives.
The Senate is already undemocratic. The House needs to make up for that!
:whatever:
tinrobot (7,724 posts)
1. I agree 1000%, plus it is the easiest fix we can implement,
We can do it with a simple act of Congress.
lagomorph777 (13,962 posts)
2. Reduce the influence of the Senate! Also, outlaw Gerrymandering!
That would be far more productive. The Senate was created to empower rural (slave) states over populous states so that slavery could be preserved. It is in direct opposition to equal rights under the law (i.e. you have disproportionately lower influence if your state is populous).
Outlawing Gerrymandering would make the House far more representative of the state's population.
:whatever:
Warpy (97,865 posts)
3. Redistribute the EC, while you're at it
It's a stupid, antidemocratic anachronism that has been disastrous the three times it has overruled the wishes of the American people. Reapportioning it would end that, as depopulated states in the interior would have far less clout. I say that as a person from a low population state. It is insane to have a state with about 2,000,000 people has 5 electors, while CA, with a population 20 times that, has 55 electors, a factor of only 11. Clearly, this is utterly insane and open to horrific manipulation, which we saw both in 2000 and in 2016.
Getting rid of this dinosaur might prove problematic, constitutional amendments are very hard to get passed. Pulling its teeth would do about the same thing and the country would be better for it.
Instead of being a barrier to electing populist disasters, it has facilitated them.
:bird:
Star Member PoindexterOglethorpe (13,757 posts)
4. Eliminate the Electoral College entirely.
Under the current system, most people's votes simply don't count, especially if your preferred political party is in the minority in your state.
If we actually elected the President by popular vote, they'd have to campaign in more of the country. Or at least send good surrogates.
:bird: :bird: :bird:
Star Member PoindexterOglethorpe (13,757 posts)
7. The whole point of the Senate is to have a separate body not influenced by population.
Not sure making number of senators population dependent is such a good idea.
RicROC (245 posts)
13. the Senate is now obsolete, too
Get rid of the electoral College and while they are at it, get rid of the Senate.
Voter Representation should rely on population and not on land mass.
I do think that states should be represented by 'someone' who is elected by the entire state, as opposed from just a district.
Maybe combine the Senate with the House?
Warpy (97,865 posts)
11. Sure, just wave a magic wand and it shall be done
The problem is that a lot of low population states would yowl about that and it would be a very tough sell both in Congress and to the states to get it repealed.
Reapportioning it wouldn't take an amendment. It would be a much easier process.
Star Member Wounded Bear (36,884 posts)
8. Expanding the number of House seats would automatically do that...
Right now this is the core form of gerrymandering in place, that didproportionate representation of small, largely rural states.
Bumping the House by 50 seats would cure a lot of that.
RicROC (245 posts)
14. increase the # of seats depending on population
1) Right now the # of Representatives is fixed. I suggest we 'uncouple' it from a fixed #. That after the census, every 10 years, the formulation of the House of Rep is changed based on a formula of population and not try to fit population into 435 seats or a fixed # of seats. It's' possible that the House could be increased to 600 members.
2) One positive result is that the # of people in each district is decreased, therefore, each Rep (or as I call it , MC Member of Congress) should be able to have more intimate and closer contact with his constituents.
3) and now for something completely different.....instead of gerrymandering, draw political districts based on school districts/combination of school districts.
Voters would have a much better idea what their voter districts look like.
For large population centers, draw districts based on the look of the high school draw area.
moose65 (1,268 posts)
17. I guess the next question would be:
How many seats should the House have? The population has tripled since the last increase, but I don’t know how well the idea of 1,300 Representatives would go over!
At the very least, the most egregious things need to be fixed:
DC needs a full-fledged voting member of the House. It should be treated just like a state in redistricting.
No state should lose representatives unless the population has decreased since the previous census.
There should be a formula for automatically increasing the House size after every census.
The number of Reps for NM, AZ, AK and HI should be added to the total, at least, since they weren’t states the last time the size was increased. Let’s see: Alaska has 1, Hawaii has 2, New Mexico has 3, and Arizona has 9. Along with 1 for DC, that’s 16 more seats at minimum. I think we need more to account for population growth. Here’s a random number: 90 more seats, for a total of 525.
:whatever:
-
1. Proportional representation is still proportional.
2. The Electoral College design is in the USC. Good luck in amending that! And the EC was designed to dilute the power of populous states, because the writers of the USC foresaw that a strict popular vote election would result in populous states oppressing and exploiting less populous states, IOW, what DU-folk want to do. :rotf:
-
Star Member PoindexterOglethorpe (13,757 posts)
4. Eliminate the Electoral College entirely.
Under the current system, most people's votes simply don't count, especially if your preferred political party is in the minority in your state.
If we actually elected the President by popular vote, they'd have to campaign in more of the country. Or at least send good surrogates.
Good lord. How stupid ARE these people?? If it was based on popular vote the candidates would go to 3 cities. That’s it. Why worry about what the rest of us need? It wouldn’t matter.
KC
-
They are in a full blown panic. They feel everything slipping away.
-
To sum up what the primitives have said, it’s the 2020 version of “Burn down the Reichstag!” We all know where going down that road lands us.
.
-
Good lord. How stupid ARE these people?? If it was based on popular vote the candidates would go to 3 cities. That’s it. Why worry about what the rest of us need? It wouldn’t matter.
KC
They aren't stupid. They are well aware of this fact. They can then say, well, conservative flyover states had their say but "the will of the people wants the democrat".
-
They claim they want democracy but then demand 3 cities rule the country.
-
So, DUpipo want to eliminate gerrymandering, but want to manipulate House Representation and the Electoral College to get the result they desire. And don't see their hypocrisy.
-
moose65 (1,268 posts)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100213613527
Increase the size of the House!!
Hahahahaha.
No.
-
RicROC (245 posts)
13. the Senate is now obsolete, too
Get rid of the electoral College and while they are at it, get rid of the Senate.
Voter Representation should rely on population and not on land mass.
I do think that states should be represented by 'someone' who is elected by the entire state, as opposed from just a district.
I agree. Maybe they should have 2 people for this important role, have them serve 6 year terms and give them their own chamber while we are at it?
-
I agree. Maybe they should have 2 people for this important role, have them serve 6 year terms and give them their own chamber while we are at it?
Boy, that DUmmie you quoted sounds a lot like those idiots at the CHAZ.
"we're going to do away with police. Once that's done we're going to come up with a set of rules and then put some people in charge of making sure those rules are followed, not matter what it takes!"
:o
KC