General Discussion

NCjack

(10,280 posts)

57. I suspect that it is an acknowledgment that if the number goes up,

Sun Dec 2, 2018, 05:16 PM

Dec 2018

Last edited Mon Dec 3, 2018, 08:47 AM - Edit history (1)

it reduces the cash amount of bribes per Rep to unacceptable levels. (Assumes that each lobbyist has a cap on each issue for bribes.)

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

73 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why is the number of Representatives arbitrarily capped at 435? [View all] guillaumeb Dec 2018 OP

Some states, while growing in population, are losing seats. Kaleva Dec 2018 #1

Exactly. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #2

Ohio will lose a seat after the 2020 census; will go from 15 to 14, I believe. No Vested Interest Dec 2018 #9

At some point a cap makes sense. Do we really want 10,000 representatives? unblock Dec 2018 #3

But this cap shifts power to the smaller states. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #4

Slice cities up into grids of 2x2? 3x3? Roland99 Dec 2018 #5

Drawing up Districts is left to each state. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #10

Computers exacerbated our current situation... Wounded Bear Dec 2018 #39

I think the British Parliament has something like 600+ MPs BumRushDaShow Dec 2018 #8

The cap is far too low, and with Gerrymandering, even the lower house is not very democratic... Humanist_Activist Dec 2018 #11

To make the math work, some Representatives would have to cover more than one state NotASurfer Dec 2018 #12

Amendment? Representatives covering multiple states? GulfCoast66 Dec 2018 #23

It worked for the Senate of the Galactic Republic Qutzupalotl Dec 2018 #26

I think that it is now one Rep per 600,000+. Blue_true Dec 2018 #29

cap it relative to the population of the least-populous state, then Spider Jerusalem Dec 2018 #66

There would still be major discrepancies. Garrett78 Dec 2018 #67

Thanks for posting. I've too, have wondered how they came up w/ this number. nt SWBTATTReg Dec 2018 #6

This is one of those things that I wish got more attention moose65 Dec 2018 #7

Well said. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #14

As southern cities grow, they are losing power. Blue_true Dec 2018 #30

Voter supression is also a tactic that they use. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #41

Add in DC and Puerto Rico as states Lithos Dec 2018 #28

DC does have a representative in the House. former9thward Dec 2018 #46

Yes, and because of that.... moose65 Dec 2018 #52

It is not a state. former9thward Dec 2018 #56

Montana has over a million people and only one representative... cynatnite Dec 2018 #13

And 2 Senators. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #15

It's crazy, ain't it? n/t cynatnite Dec 2018 #16

Crazy, or designed that way? guillaumeb Dec 2018 #17

Both, most definitely. n/t cynatnite Dec 2018 #18

Yes, the senate versus house *was* designed that way. Igel Dec 2018 #38

The senate is dictated by the constitution GulfCoast66 Dec 2018 #24

So why did Democrats go along with it? Polybius Dec 2018 #32

Go along with what? moose65 Dec 2018 #34

I meant go along with voting for The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 Polybius Dec 2018 #42

The Democrats were not in control in 1929 GulfCoast66 Dec 2018 #36

Maybe never win another House Majority? LakeSuperiorView Dec 2018 #35

Thank you. My bad. GulfCoast66 Dec 2018 #37

Chicago has 7 representatives. former9thward Dec 2018 #47

The suburbs have less population. eom guillaumeb Dec 2018 #50

No, they don't. former9thward Dec 2018 #55

Only if you make the metro area nearly everything north of I-80. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #58

I am not making anything. former9thward Dec 2018 #60

Bless your little heart for again pretending a sentiment no one has implied LanternWaste Dec 2018 #62

Yes moose65 Dec 2018 #19

I try to educate people on this all the time sarah FAILIN Dec 2018 #20

The problem with small states having oversized influence isn't because of the House, but the Senate SFnomad Dec 2018 #21

The House is a problem as well dflprincess Dec 2018 #27

Those numbers, while not balanced, are nowhere near the problem I described SFnomad Dec 2018 #31

Agree with the math for both. :) We actually shrank Hortensis Dec 2018 #33

At 1 Representative per 30,000 persons, we'll have 10,857 Representatives. And counting. Garrett78 Dec 2018 #22

I've always understood Freddie Dec 2018 #25

You answered your own question. MineralMan Dec 2018 #40

At the very least, the districts should have equal populations treestar Dec 2018 #43

They're supposed to be approximately the same already. Garrett78 Dec 2018 #44

Clearly wrong, RI should have only one then treestar Dec 2018 #45

Without having far fewer people per district, there's no escaping disproportionality. Garrett78 Dec 2018 #48

True a state with less than the minimum treestar Dec 2018 #54

No, it's not wrong. Jim Lane Dec 2018 #61

as long as Montana gets another seat after the next census treestar Dec 2018 #63

Whether that happens will depend on the mathematical formula. Jim Lane Dec 2018 #65

Drastically reducing the number of persons/Representative is the way... Garrett78 Dec 2018 #64

The law was finalized in 1941 not 1929. former9thward Dec 2018 #49

It should grow with the new Census. PatrickforO Dec 2018 #51

All that will grow is the average number of people per district. Garrett78 Dec 2018 #53

I suspect that it is an acknowledgment that if the number goes up, NCjack Dec 2018 #57

A very important consideration. eom guillaumeb Dec 2018 #59

The good news is it's an Act --not something in the Constitution. pnwmom Dec 2018 #68

But what should the cap be raised to? Or should there not be a cap? Garrett78 Dec 2018 #69

This is from the NY Times Editorial Board, whose expert suggests 593. pnwmom Dec 2018 #72

Better but insufficient. Garrett78 Dec 2018 #73

All that is lacking is the political will. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #71

Yes scarletlib Dec 2018 #70