It's ridiculous that we don't EXPAND the House of Reps to accommodate our expanding population

[Baltimike]

We might have to build a bigger building...so be it.

We cannot acquiesce to a BUILDING our due representation.

[leftieNanner]

1. We could have 800 members of the House

and it wouldn't matter. It's the Senate that's the problem. Wyoming has as many Senators as California, as New York. And there are a lot more states like Wyoming than California. I think if we really want a representative government, we should get rid of the Electoral College. Just MHO.

[dalton99a]

2. +1. And the filibuster

[treestar]

3. Yes, I have read that even the House is now not Democratic

All votes added up can result in: Democrats got the most votes, but the Republicans still control the House, having gotten more representatives.

That's why I have so little patience with all this stuff about Democrats having no "spine," yadda yadda. The system favors the Republicans.

[GemDigger]

4. This might be helpful.

I put part in bold lettering.

Beginning in 1790, after each census, Congress enacted a law that specified the changes in the actual number of Representatives. The law also designated the increase in the ratio of Representatives to the population. Because the House wanted a manageable number of members, Congress twice set the size of the House at 435 voting members. The first law to do so was passed on August 8, 1911. President William H. Taft signed legislation increasing the membership of the House from 391 to 433. (Two more members were added when New Mexico and Arizona became states.)

https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/sites/default/files/documents/resources-and-activities/CVC_HS_ActivitySheets_CongApportionment.pdf

This state only has 1 representative due to its population. I think it can get switched around after the Census is taken but I am not sure on that.

[krispos42]

5. I had an idea on this

First off, we need about 20x the number of representatives to get down to a manageable, representative number. Each Rep is responsible for an average of about 750k people. If we increase it 20 times, then that drops down to about 38k per rep.

Second, we need a improvement on the first-past-the-post system of winning elections, and to gerrymandering.

So here's my idea. We still have 435 representative districts, BUT each district is represented by 20 representatives.

And each district elects its reps with "party list proportional representation"; each party picks a ranked list of 20 candidates and then the people vote for the party. Apportionment would be through the "largest remainder" method.

The states would still have to draw up districts, but with the LR method it's very hard to gerrymander. Maybe impossible!

So in the primaries, the candidates would vie for votes for their ranking on the party list. The top 20 would be on the party list in descending order. Come election day, the people would vote for the party. How the party does in the general election would determine which of the candidates on the party list go to Washington.

Example: Connecticut's 2nd district election in 2018 went like this:

Democratic: 179,731
Republican: 102,483
Green: 3,595
Libertarian: 3,305


Unfortunately, the two-party system limits other parties. In this example, the Democrats would get the top 13 on their list and the Republicans would get 7; no other parts get seats because the minimum needed is 14,456.

But we could be doing this all over the country! Every district would sent at least a few of each party, including minor parties, to the House. No longer is voting a "waste of time" in polarized districts; even if a district is 75% one party you can still get some representatives from your party to Congress!

Anyway, maybe I'm crazy. But it's fun to fantasize about.