500 House seats = Gore officially wins the 2000 election (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 20, 2024, 02:45:59 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results
  2000 U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  500 House seats = Gore officially wins the 2000 election (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: 500 House seats = Gore officially wins the 2000 election  (Read 9491 times)
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

« on: February 27, 2007, 12:00:14 AM »

Interesting. I've always been a supporter of a larger House, but not for this reason. More seats means that each Representative becomes more responsible to his or her individual community and makes it easier to launch localized campaigns on low budgets.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

« Reply #1 on: February 27, 2007, 08:54:39 PM »


...Or just keep increasing the size at each Census like was supposed to happen. Setting the House at 1,000 would cause the same problems of a lack of individual representation half a century from now.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

« Reply #2 on: March 27, 2007, 12:19:48 PM »
« Edited: March 27, 2007, 12:28:02 PM by Verily »


...Or just keep increasing the size at each Census like was supposed to happen. Setting the House at 1,000 would cause the same problems of a lack of individual representation half a century from now.

I can't imagine how such an enormous body could function.  Would it really be plausible to have a House so large?  I'm definitely an advocate for increasing the House to 499 or 501 (to prevent a tie) but 1,000 just seems like way to many people to be effective. 

Britain's House of Commons has 646 members (it was 653 until the 2005 reorganization in Scotland that made Scottish constituencies equal to English ones and will be 654 after the next election), and the House of Lords is even larger. They never have a problem functioning.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

« Reply #3 on: March 31, 2007, 09:05:01 PM »


...Or just keep increasing the size at each Census like was supposed to happen. Setting the House at 1,000 would cause the same problems of a lack of individual representation half a century from now.

I can't imagine how such an enormous body could function.  Would it really be plausible to have a House so large?  I'm definitely an advocate for increasing the House to 499 or 501 (to prevent a tie) but 1,000 just seems like way to many people to be effective. 

Britain's House of Commons has 646 members (it was 653 until the 2005 reorganization in Scotland that made Scottish constituencies equal to English ones and will be 654 after the next election), and the House of Lords is even larger. They never have a problem functioning.
Your numbers are wrong. Tongue

(Was 659, will be 650. Is 646 is correct.)

I guess I should stop trying to do the addition in my head. I used to be good at math...

Although Wikipedia says that 17 constituencies are being abolished, and 25 are being created from scratch, so 654 should be correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_change_recommendations_for_the_next_UK_general_election
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.022 seconds with 12 queries.