435 Congress (Reps)

[serryjw]

Is it time for a change....This article was written 12 years ago! and obviously NOTHING was ever done. Why do we freeze representation at 435? How do we change it..with the country tripling in size, Unless we do, the reps have NO WAY to REPRESENT THE PEOPLE!

Congressional districts must be small enough, in terms of population, for individuals to feel a real influence in the nomination,election and behavior of Representatives. A congressional voter is now one-in-600,000; back in 1910, that voter's grandfather was one out of 200,000. Before World War One, the House was frozen at 435 seats. Districts have since tripled in size. No wonder alienation and apathy have taken over...

http://www.lermanet.com/cos/why435.html


Please disregard where this article came from. It really should be addressed regardless of source.

[CatholicEdHead]

1. What size would it be if we

overturn this? The Senate will not change, but the House will, what double?

[serryjw]

3. Not sure if I understand your question?

The Seante would stay the same BUT the Congress is supposed to represent the PEOPLE. MOST PEOPLE have no idea whom their REP is because the districts are so large.

[CatholicEdHead]

9. Total number of seats

by the population change in the past century when this rule was first put in place. The House will grow by how many seats?

And the others raise good questions, where is the space in the House, and how will more bodies effect the workings of the Congress?

[Renew Deal]

16. Somewhere I read that it should be 1 in 30,000.

That would be like 9300 reps. That would be interesting.

[serryjw]

19. Now that is silly!

Where would anyone PUT THEM? I think 1/200,000 as it was 100 yrs ago is a good start.

[LiberalFighter]

12. Should be easier to know who their rep is because there are fewer

If there were 20 instead of 10 they would have to figure out which of the 20 is their rep vs. which of the 10.

I bet it wouldn't make any difference how many districts even if it was just one district too many would still not know who is their Congress person.

[Renew Deal]

2. I was thinking about this the other day.

I think we should add abuot 100 more reps. It'a about a 20% increase and it's worth it.

[serryjw]

4. We REALLY need to DOUBLE it BUT

someone told me we can't because we have NO PLACE to put them! The chamber is not large enough.

[Renew Deal]

5. Change the chamber.

Lets do it.

[KharmaTrain]

7. What's The Advantage In More Beaurocrats?

This is don't follow...enlighten me if you will.

100 new seats mean 100 more elections to be corrupted and manipulated, 100 staffs and opportunities to featherbed public payrolls with relatives and "associates"...and you're not gonna get better goverment, just more egos.

I'd spend the time working on getting representation for Eleanor Holmes Norton and the District of Colombia and then on some kind of greater representation for Guam, Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands.

The current system still pretty well represents population distribution...our job is just to spread more blue across purple and fringe red areas...then things could change for the better in a hurry.

[Renew Deal]

11. Why do we get more representation for Guam, Puerto Rico and the VI

and not for us?

Are you saying that we should cancel all elections as far as you're concerned because they are corrupt and manipulated? I never imagined that having more representation instead of less would be a negative thing.

[KharmaTrain]

13. How about serious party building

in red and purple areas and outst a bunch of Repugnicans from the House in 2006. That'd solve a lot of problems. Also get out the checkbooks and shoe leather and get Democratic Secretaries of States, Governors and legislatures elected...that'll cure a lot of voting problems, too.

More representation is a good thing when it's actually more representation...that's not the Congress we have now...it's the best money can buy. You're just giving more opportunities for the money to work it's way in to this mess and not the voices of the people I'm sure you're intending to be heard.

I advocate greater representation for those other areas since they contribute a lot to this country and have little say about their destinys other than who collects the garbage. Actually DC deserves at least 3 representatives.

The reform we need is within the system...and within the Democratic party.

[Renew Deal]

14. I don't think that we should do this in place of party building.

I really believe that we need to expand the legislature. We also need to work on party building. I agree with your general sentiment. I think that adding reps would make those individuals even more responsible to people, even with the financial influence. I also support strong campaign finance reform that bars cash from organizations and corporations.

[Hippo_Tron]

6. We need non-partisan district drawing in all 50 states

And there need to be as many competative districts as possible.

[CatholicEdHead]

8. Something on the Iowa model

is what is needed.

[serryjw]

10. I agree the gerrymandering is a huge problem

BUT I still believe that a rep that represents 3X the number of people in the last century can not no their job properly. 600,000 people is way to much.

[Hippo_Tron]

17. The trouble is that the a legislative body that is too big

Is largely unable to function properly. Granted, committees are where almost all of the House's work is done and floor "debate" is kind of a joke, so it definately would be somewhat practical. At least moreso than increasing the size of the Senate.

[Renew Deal]

15. That's for sure.

The funny problem is that there are more registered Dem's in Kentucky. Have fun drawing that up. Kentucky is already 5-1 rep.

[Renew Deal]

18. kick

:kick:

[Solon]

20. OK I'll bite...

since I did in the other thread, OK, a couple of ideas, one is to get rid of the cap on Representatives in the House, then decide on the ratio of reps per people, somewhere around 1/100,000 sounds like a good ratio. Next, get rid of districting entirely, and elect Representatives from each state "At Large" through either candidate or party preference, depending on state law. For example, under this system, you have a state like Texas that needs about 100 seats filled in the coming election, so you have the parties present their slate of candidates under the party vote system, so the ballots are cast, and here are the results:

Republicans: 45%
Democrats: 45%
Constitution Party: 3%
SPUSA: 2% <--hey, it could happen! :)
Libertarian Party: 2%
The Green Party: 3%

I made the math really simple, and they are arbritary numbers, but the fact remains that at the end of the day, all parties are ultimately represented in the government, as well as no one having to worry about being delegated to being in a district where they are not represented due to gerrymandering, either racial or political. Also, if you look at the numbers, even though they are arbritary, they do roughly represent the people of the country, which means that even the Major parties will have to cater to the minor ones to pass certain legislation, an extra check against two party dominance.