Is It Reasonable To Keep The House at 435 Members?

[Napoleon]

No one seems to want to address the fact that the personal relationships keeping Congress working would be scarce and less valuable in a chamber of 1,000.

[All Along The Watchtower]

The real problem is the population of America, but for obvious reasons that won't be addressed.

[Antonio the Sixth]

No one seems to want to address the fact that the personal relationships keeping Congress working would be scarce and less valuable in a chamber of 1,000.

I don't know if "personal relationships" are really a good thing in politics. Representatives need to defend the interest of the American people, and personal relationships can be an obstacle to that.

[All Along The Watchtower]

No one seems to want to address the fact that the personal relationships keeping Congress working would be scarce and less valuable in a chamber of 1,000.

I don't know if "personal relationships" are really a good thing in politics. Representatives need to defend the interest of the American people, and personal relationships can be an obstacle to that.

Oh come on! You know that the best kind of politics is "scratch my back, I won't stab yours...directly" politics.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Well 435 is a lot of members already, but then US is a big country. Britain is smaller and has over 600, Sweden has 349 and we are much smaller. I think it'd be reasonable to have Congressional seats with a population similar to Wyoming, around 500 000. 

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

No one seems to want to address the fact that the personal relationships keeping Congress working would be scarce and less valuable in a chamber of 1,000.

I don't know if "personal relationships" are really a good thing in politics. Representatives need to defend the interest of the American people, and personal relationships can be an obstacle to that.

^
This.

I would much rather have representatives who have personal relationships with their constituents than with other politicians.

[Free Palestine]

while 1 per 100,000 would be ideal on a local basis, I think maybe that should be the goal on the state level. Federally, a 1000 member Congress may be the most appropriate number (but no more than that)

Indeed.  The federal government shouldn't be more representative than the states.

No one seems to want to address the fact that the personal relationships keeping Congress working would be scarce and less valuable in a chamber of 1,000.

Members of Congress are elected to represent their constituents, not their party or their buddies in Congress.

[tpfkaw]

One of the drawbacks to having such a large House is that you'd have no one but Attorneys General running for Senate - yuck.

[Hatman 🍁]

while 1 per 100,000 would be ideal on a local basis, I think maybe that should be the goal on the state level. Federally, a 1000 member Congress may be the most appropriate number (but no more than that)

Indeed.  The federal government shouldn't be more representative than the states.

You know what that's like.

WTF to California. 

State legislatures should operate more like national legislatures and in some cases (eg California) be more representative.  California should not have less state senators than members of congress.

In Canada, some cities have fewer councillors than MLAs, but no province has less MLAs than MPs. (Ontario has the same number, as they use the same districts)

[muon2]

while 1 per 100,000 would be ideal on a local basis, I think maybe that should be the goal on the state level. Federally, a 1000 member Congress may be the most appropriate number (but no more than that)

Indeed.  The federal government shouldn't be more representative than the states.

You know what that's like.

WTF to California. 

State legislatures should operate more like national legislatures and in some cases (eg California) be more representative.  California should not have less state senators than members of congress.

In Canada, some cities have fewer councillors than MLAs, but no province has less MLAs than MPs. (Ontario has the same number, as they use the same districts)

It depends on whether you compare upper houses or lower houses. CA has more state house members than federal house members and more state senators than federal senators. I don't see why a comparison of state senators to federal house members highlights any problem.

[Free Palestine]

Each member of the California State Senate represents more people than a member of the House of Representatives.

I think it would be reasonable to make the California legislature unicameral, unless you do something wonky with how the Senate is elected.  I don't see the point in just having two houses with no difference except the number of people each member represents.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Each member of the California State Senate represents more people than a member of the House of Representatives.

I think it would be reasonable to make the California legislature unicameral, unless you do something wonky with how the Senate is elected.  I don't see the point in just having two houses with no difference except the number of people each member represents.

Yeah, I think the same. The idea of a "State Senate", which is elected the same way than the lower house, at the same time and with the same system is pretty silly.