Expanding the House a bit

[Harry]

Currently our House of Representatives contains districts at roughly 1 district per 660,000 people.  The number is set a 435 people, based on numbers from the 1910 census. . . This to me is ridiculous.  Setting a cap is not right.  I propose changing it to one representative per 475,000 persons, and no total cap.

The follow map would be of electoral votes with this proposal.  Subtract 2 and get the number of reps.

I also propose:
Make Puetro Rico/Virgin Islands one state with 10 electoral votes.
The District of Colombia gets one voting representative and one electoral vote.
The Pacific territories are combined into the District of Pacifica with one voting representative and one electoral vote.
This would have a total of 102 senators, 616 representatives, and 718 electoral votes.
What do you think?

[Siege40]

I actually like this idea a lot. Democracy is important, and the less people per Congressperson the better. And I like the idea of expanding democracy to the territories overseas. Good plan.

But in my view the Constitution was written by people afraid of the masses, America would of benefitted greatly from a Parliamentary system. I've been learning more about your electoral process... it strikes me as really undemocratic when compared to the Canadian Parliamentary system.

Siege40

[dunn]

very interesting, though not a chance it will ever happen

[Emsworth]

But in my view the Constitution was written by people afraid of the masses, America would of benefitted greatly from a Parliamentary system. I've been learning more about your electoral process... it strikes me as really undemocratic when compared to the Canadian Parliamentary system.

Both nations' Senates seem undemocratic. In the United States, California is represented as much as Wyoming; DC is not represented at all. In the Canadian Senate, the Maritimes are significantly overrepresented. Furthermore, Canadian Senators are not even elected.

[Siege40]

But in my view the Constitution was written by people afraid of the masses, America would of benefitted greatly from a Parliamentary system. I've been learning more about your electoral process... it strikes me as really undemocratic when compared to the Canadian Parliamentary system.

Both nations' Senates seem undemocratic. In the United States, California is represented as much as Wyoming; DC is not represented at all. In the Canadian Senate, the Maritimes are significantly overrepresented. Furthermore, Canadian Senators are not even elected.

True, true very true. BUT! The Senate does not have a lot of real power and they are really kind of... undefined. Senators really look out for the interests of their region. The reason the Maritimes are overly represented is because since Confederation there was a fear that the Central government would ignore them. Therefore to protect them this measure has been enacted.

In America the Senate is meant to be unfair! Before you yell hear me out. It goes back to the Virginia and New Jersey Plans. One supported Rep by Pop. the other State vote. Ben Franklin came along and developed a compromise. (Good old womanizing Ben). The House of Representitives worked based on Rep by Pop. and the Senate operated on the State vote system.

You say that its not fair to California that Wyoming has the same number of Senators, that's the point! That's what Congress is for.

Siege40

[CTguy]

I chose yes but this would obviously never pass in the current Republican political climate as this proposal would obviously benefit democrats...

Alaska, Wyoming and North Dakota gain no members in the House but California gains 20.

[Siege40]

Well from a quick look the Republicans are guarenteed (well almost) to get about 342 seats. That leaves 376 to the Democrats. Of course if a few of those go Republican they could win. It isn't impossible, just unlikely.

Siege40

[CTguy]

Nah it would be far worse for Republicans since there are a ton of Republicans that win their districts marginally, especially in the Northeast and Midwest...  If the districts split up the Republicans would not get any of those additional seats...  Whereas democratic districts are much more solid and if Manhattan gets split up into one more district it clearly would do democratic.

[Harry]

It's not necessarily unfair to any side. . . . the number of people doesn't change.  CA would gain D and R districts.   ND has a democrat represntative.

[CTguy]

Doing that would hurt smaller states, that tend to be more conservative and where Republicans do better in.

[12th Doctor]

No way.  I don't want to have 1000 House members running around someday.  That would be nuts and ultimatly harmful to the county.

The only way I would add new Reps, would be if we added new states.

[Gustaf]

Based on the 2000 result I get a Dem win, 360-358.

[zachman]

We don't need more congressmen or more gerrymandering.

[Dave from Michigan]

while it would make each district smaller we don't need anymore congresspeople.

[Emsworth]

Currently our House of Representatives contains districts at roughly 1 district per 660,000 people.  
The number is set a 435 people, based on numbers from the 1910 census. . .
This to me is ridiculous.  Setting a cap is not right.  I propose changing it to one representative per 475,000 persons, and no total cap.

What if a state has 474,999 persons more than another? Does it then not get an additional representative?

[Harry]

It's rounded to the nearest whole number.

[Kghadial]

I think we do need to increase the number of representatives, probably not as drastically as you have it though.

We have added 2 states since they set that number, and so we ought to have an extra 3 or 4 congressman.  I think perhaps that we should add 2 for every state that we add to the union. So retroactively that would give us four more, and if/when DC or Puerto Rico become states we will increase the number too.  It would be pretty bad if four states all had to lose a seat because we added a those to the union, states should lose seats only because they grow slower than the nation as a whole.

[CTguy]

I have a better proposal.

Subtract 10 Congressional seats from Texas and Florida.  Divide the number of seats Alabama, Mississippi and Georgia have in two...  and give all of them to Rhode Island.

[WMS]

It has been suggested before...and by some interesting people! I think it's a good idea, as long as 1.) You get gerrymandering out of it and 2.) You lower the salaries of the representatives as you increase the number of districts. Here's a link that talks about it: http://www.fairvote.org/action/commentary.htm

Among the arch-liberals who dare to suggest expanding the government are those notorious Big Government supporters Robert Novak and George Will...

[opebo]

I'm very much against expanding the House in this way, but I would like to change one thing about the House - we should gaurantee that all states get at least TWO representatives, just like Senators.  This would help to offset the unfair advantage populous states have, and would help the GOP.

[Emsworth]

You lower the salaries of the representatives as you increase the number of districts.

Lowering the salaries of representatives will do little to reduce Government spending. I don't think that the reduction is necessary.

[dunn]

I wonder why republcans do not offer do gave congressional districts by county. 2439 members with at least 60% republicans

[Vasall des Midas]

The catch is: Increasing the number of Representatives (which I totally support, the current districts are absurdly large) would decrease the small state's power in the EC. As Gustaf has pointed out, Harry's proposal would be enough to swing the 2000 election to Al Gore. And that's why it ain't gonna happen, folks...

[Harry]

I have a better proposal.

Subtract 10 Congressional seats from Texas and Florida.  Divide the number of seats Alabama, Mississippi and Georgia have in two...  and give all of them to Rhode Island.

Let's see....no

[Harry]

The catch is: Increasing the number of Representatives (which I totally support, the current districts are absurdly large) would decrease the small state's power in the EC. As Gustaf has pointed out, Harry's proposal would be enough to swing the 2000 election to Al Gore. And that's why it ain't gonna happen, folks...

just barely. . .. the proposal doesn't really help any party