Should the House of Representatives be increased in size?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

No. There are already enough seats to be gerrymandered, there is no need to add even more.

That's...a really weird argument. Overall size doesn't inherently affect malapportionment or gerrymandering, which are issues involving relative size and strengths of parties.

Smaller districts would tend to force greater compactness in terms of real distance. The shapes may not be any less atrocious, but gerrymandering would be less likely to result in a community far removed from the home community of its representative. That in itself is an argument for increasing the number of representatives.  Also I would think that due to the scale at which the parties are distributed geographically, to result in the level of partisan gerrymandering of some states would require increasingly absurd geometries in order to pull off as the size of the districts get smaller.

[muon2]

No. There are already enough seats to be gerrymandered, there is no need to add even more.

That's...a really weird argument. Overall size doesn't inherently affect malapportionment or gerrymandering, which are issues involving relative size and strengths of parties.

Smaller districts would tend to force greater compactness in terms of real distance. The shapes may not be any less atrocious, but gerrymandering would be less likely to result in a community far removed from the home community of its representative. That in itself is an argument for increasing the number of representatives.  Also I would think that due to the scale at which the parties are distributed geographically, to result in the level of partisan gerrymandering of some states would require increasingly absurd geometries in order to pull off as the size of the districts get smaller.

With larger districts the majority party in a state will tend to pick up a greater proportion of the seats. Consider the extreme case of reducing to a single district in a state, where the majority would get 100% of the seats. However, smaller districts can be fairly contorted. As an example look at the current Chicago ward map, which though all Dem is designed to protect certain factions within the party to keep them in the majority on city council. The districts are about 54 K people each. Here's the detail of central Chicago and the gerrymandering is pretty obvious. The lime green 2nd ward was designed to knock Fioretti off the council, which it did as he ran for mayor instead.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I stand corrected. But that just makes the original argument even stranger.

[andrew_c]

If states were not allowed to lose representation, the size of the House would be 598 members.  That's still smaller than the British House of Commons.

[Slander and/or Libel]

If states were not allowed to lose representation, the size of the House would be 598 members.  That's still smaller than the British House of Commons.

What point in history are you starting that rule at to get to 598?

[AggregateDemand]

I still don't understand the argument for expansion. The federal government is not supposed to be pondering local matters. We have local government for local matters.

Expanding the House merely guarantees gridlock and increases corruption, while usurping the power of local governments with an tacit statement of federal authority over local issues. The Hosue balances the Senate and the Senate balances the House. Balance is the purpose of bicameral legislative branch, and balance should determine the number of members.

[Slander and/or Libel]

That makes no sense. Why set it at 435 then? Wouldn't 400 be better by your logic? Wouldn't 300?

[AggregateDemand]

That makes no sense. Why set it at 435 then? Wouldn't 400 be better by your logic? Wouldn't 300?

Yes, within reason. If it reached 100 members, it would serve virtually no purpose. We don't need 1,000 members to balance the territorial sovereignty inherent to the Senate model of representation.

[King]

A reduction in House membership would make gerrymandering more difficult. But lobbying a lot easier.

Give and take.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Wyoming or Cube Root rule. Whichever is larger. May lead to third party representatives that many of us want.

[andrew_c]

If states were not allowed to lose representation, the size of the House would be 598 members.  That's still smaller than the British House of Commons.

What point in history are you starting that rule at to get to 598?

Independence would be the starting point, excluding states that were split out of another state. 

[Slander and/or Libel]

If states were not allowed to lose representation, the size of the House would be 598 members.  That's still smaller than the British House of Commons.

What point in history are you starting that rule at to get to 598?

Independence would be the starting point, excluding states that were split out of another state. 

Because I ran the numbers for something like this, but allowing a state to lose representation if it had lost population, and the number is something upwards of 3,000.

[DrScholl]

No. There are already enough seats to be gerrymandered, there is no need to add even more.

That's...a really weird argument. Overall size doesn't inherently affect malapportionment or gerrymandering, which are issues involving relative size and strengths of parties.

With the way partisanship is, the parties would get creative with more seats on the table. Without an overall fair process, adding more seats wouldn't necessarily be a positive, it would only result in more political fiefdoms popping up.

[AggregateDemand]

A reduction in House membership would make gerrymandering more difficult. But lobbying a lot easier.

Give and take.

True, but lobbying is an innocuous pastime compared to gerrymandering, which is nothing more than a conspiracy to make sure people are not represented. Lobbying is just paying to get better treatment, which doesn't necessarily harm society.