Should the amount of House representatives, and consequently EVs, increase?

[DPKdebator]

Should the United States House increase how many representatives there are (hasn't been done since the early 1900s), and consequently EVs? A major pro I could see in this is giving more "local" representation (i.e. some areas with lesser population could be made into their own district instead of being grouped with a region with a completely different demographic), but a major con would be having too many representatives.

[jimrtex]

Should the United States House increase how many representatives there are (hasn't been done since the early 1900s), and consequently EVs? A major pro I could see in this is giving more "local" representation (i.e. some areas with lesser population could be made into their own district instead of being grouped with a region with a completely different demographic), but a major con would be having too many representatives.

EVs and representatives should be decoupled.

[muon2]

Based on 2016 population (323.1M) the cube root rule would recommend 686 members of Congress. The WY rule (586K divided into the total population) would recommend a House of 551 members. Add 100 Senators and that equals 651 which isn't so different than the cube root result. Since the poll asks about the size of the House I voted 550-600 which covers both cases.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

It should have, like, a thousand House members.

[MarkD]

I (arbitrarily) chose a number in the 550-600 range.
Capitol Hill will have to undergo a bit of a remodeling, though.

On a related note, I also support an increase in the number of seats in one particular state legislature -- California. Instead of 40 Senators and 80 Assemblymen, it ought to be increased to 75 Senators and 225 Assemblymen.

[catscanjumphigh]

Only with term limits.  Somebody please explain to me why it's acceptable for someone to have a combined 60 years in both houses?  There's other things in life to do. I'd support this with term limits and a limit on spending in federal campaigns.

[muon2]

I (arbitrarily) chose a number in the 550-600 range.
Capitol Hill will have to undergo a bit of a remodeling, though.

On a related note, I also support an increase in the number of seats in one particular state legislature -- California. Instead of 40 Senators and 80 Assemblymen, it ought to be increased to 75 Senators and 225 Assemblymen.

If the cube root rule applied to CA there would be about 334 members of the legislature in 2010. Your suggestion of 300 total is consistent with that.

[JustinTimeCuber]

Only with term limits.  Somebody please explain to me why it's acceptable for someone to have a combined 60 years in both houses?  There's other things in life to do. I'd support this with term limits and a limit on spending in federal campaigns.

Let me flip that on its head: Why is it acceptable to ban someone from running for office if their constituents like them?

[muon2]

Only with term limits.  Somebody please explain to me why it's acceptable for someone to have a combined 60 years in both houses?  There's other things in life to do. I'd support this with term limits and a limit on spending in federal campaigns.

Let me flip that on its head: Why is it acceptable to ban someone from running for office if their constituents like them?

I would say that the problem is rarely with popular, but ordinary rank-and-file legislators. They are usually good for their constituents but aren't likely to drive the problems seen by the public. The issue is usually with leaders who have amassed power in their position, and use that in ways the public disapproves. A term limit for leadership posts can often be accomplished by a rule in the body itself. So the question is whether the rank-and-file members want to limit their leaders.

[Leinad]

I'd like to see ~100-200 ~4-winner STV districts.

[jimrtex]

Only with term limits.  Somebody please explain to me why it's acceptable for someone to have a combined 60 years in both houses?  There's other things in life to do. I'd support this with term limits and a limit on spending in federal campaigns.

Let me flip that on its head: Why is it acceptable to ban someone from running for office if their constituents like them?

What if the reason that most representatives get elected is that they get earmarks for pork-barrel projects? If they don't, they may face a challenger backed by the beneficiaries of the projects. Instead they get a comfortable position for life if they want, they get pampered by lobbyists.

It can be a corrupting system, and the representatives are no longer representative of their communities.

[MarkD]

Only with term limits.  Somebody please explain to me why it's acceptable for someone to have a combined 60 years in both houses?  There's other things in life to do. I'd support this with term limits and a limit on spending in federal campaigns.

Let me flip that on its head: Why is it acceptable to ban someone from running for office if their constituents like them?

What if the reason that most representatives get elected is that they get earmarks for pork-barrel projects? If they don't, they may face a challenger backed by the beneficiaries of the projects. Instead they get a comfortable position for life if they want, they get pampered by lobbyists.

It can be a corrupting system, and the representatives are no longer representative of their communities.

According to George F. Will's book, Restoration, the reason for term limits is indeed that members of Congress get pork-barrel projects for their states and districts which are crucial to ensure their re-election. But according to the way Will argued the point, the voters share the blame; voters will always re-elect a politician who brings home lots of bacon. Will was not critical of lobbyists; he was critical of politicians who make a career out of buying votes from their constituents by using their own tax money. Vote for me because I'm the best at bringing home the bacon!

[muon2]

Only with term limits.  Somebody please explain to me why it's acceptable for someone to have a combined 60 years in both houses?  There's other things in life to do. I'd support this with term limits and a limit on spending in federal campaigns.

Let me flip that on its head: Why is it acceptable to ban someone from running for office if their constituents like them?

What if the reason that most representatives get elected is that they get earmarks for pork-barrel projects? If they don't, they may face a challenger backed by the beneficiaries of the projects. Instead they get a comfortable position for life if they want, they get pampered by lobbyists.

It can be a corrupting system, and the representatives are no longer representative of their communities.

According to George F. Will's book, Restoration, the reason for term limits is indeed that members of Congress get pork-barrel projects for their states and districts which are crucial to ensure their re-election. But according to the way Will argued the point, the voters share the blame; voters will always re-elect a politician who brings home lots of bacon. Will was not critical of lobbyists; he was critical of politicians who make a career out of buying votes from their constituents by using their own tax money. Vote for me because I'm the best at bringing home the bacon!

Restoration was an accurate portrayal of the voters in 1992, but less so today. The polarization of the electorate and increased partisan gerrymandering has created a cadre of legislators and their constituents who are uninterested in the bacon and more so for the votes on key issues. The 2005 transportation bill (with the infamous bridge to nowhere) led to a huge outcry about pork, including from many districts getting some of that pork.

[impactreps]

I (arbitrarily) chose a number in the 550-600 range.
Capitol Hill will have to undergo a bit of a remodeling, though.

On a related note, I also support an increase in the number of seats in one particular state legislature -- California. Instead of 40 Senators and 80 Assemblymen, it ought to be increased to 75 Senators and 225 Assemblymen.

[JGibson]

YES.

+30 to bring it to 465.

465+100=565+DC's 3 EVs=568, meaning 285 to win for EC purposes if it stays.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes, the House should have about 1000 members to bring back some degree of representation.

[Starpaul20]

Yes, it should be increased to at least 547 (Wyoming Rule).

[jojoju1998]

Only with term limits.  Somebody please explain to me why it's acceptable for someone to have a combined 60 years in both houses?  There's other things in life to do. I'd support this with term limits and a limit on spending in federal campaigns.

If we do Term Limits, which I totally agree with, I think we could also extend the Terms out a little.

4 Years for Representatives rather than 2.

[President Johnson]

Yes, to around 600. And get rid of gerrymandering by installing a non-partisan redistricting commission.

I think it's crazy that Germany (with 82 million people) has a legislature with currently 630 members, while the US (320 million) has only 435 members of the House.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I have supported this for years.

I prefer 675, which is about what the Cube Root Rule generated at the beginning of the decade.

[muon2]

I have supported this for years.

I prefer 675, which is about what the Cube Root Rule generated at the beginning of the decade.

Though I would suggest that since Congress is bicameral, the cube root rule should apply to the sum of all members of the House and Senate.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

With the admittance of PR, it will happen, sooner rather than later.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I loathe term limits. But I think Yankee gets it exactly right. Let's expand the House to 675 members.

[BuckeyeNut]

Wyoming Rule for the love of God.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

To be perfectly frank there should be a couple thousand Reps at this point. I'm unapologetically prioritizing representation over ease of governance, though.