Right-Wing Areas

[rotorhead]

Just imagine how interesting and vastly entertaining political coverage would be if we had the barely-civil chaos of the Italian multi-party system, where parlimentarians are just as likely to be porn-stars or opera singers as accountants and attourneys. Here in the US of A we just have the Big-Money-Party-with-a-D and the Big-Money-Party-with-an-R...two virtually identical gaggles of cryptokleptocrats that all go to the same country clubs....boring....

If I wanted to watch a bunch of rich lawyers argue over who is gonna steal the most money, I'd just keep an eye on Wall Street instead, it shouldn't be on C-Span too.

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by rotorhead

Correct me if I'm wrong (yes, it happens occasionally) but isn't the original reason for the US Census apportionment of representatives in the House? The number of US Senators is limited to two per state, but the number of representatives in the House is based on each states population and changes every ten years or so according to the latest Census figures.

Yes and no. In 1911, the House size was fixed at 433 with provision for the addition of one seat each for Arizona and New Mexico when they became states (US Statutes at Large, 37 Stat 13, 14 (1911)). The House size, 435 members, has been unchanged since, except for a temporary increase to 437 at the time of admission of Alaska and Hawaii as states.

While the US Census continues to occur every decade, the number of House representatives does not change, only how they are apportioned among the various states. So while we do have congressional apportionment, we have not had proportional representation since 1911. With proportional representation the number of House Representatives would increase if the population increased, or decrease if the population decreases.

[Marty Van Diest]

Glitch, good civics lesson.

So we small states not only have a proportionally greater influence on the electoral college, we also have more than our share of pull in the house.

That's great as far as I'm concerned, since we smaller states also tend to be the right wingers as well.

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by Marty Van Diest

Glitch, good civics lesson.

So we small states not only have a proportionally greater influence on the electoral college, we also have more than our share of pull in the house.

That's great as far as I'm concerned, since we smaller states also tend to be the right wingers as well.

The chief difference between apportioned representation and proportional representation is how much we, as individuals, are being represented. With appointment the amount of representation decreases as the population increases. It is always the same number of representatives, regardless of the size of the population. With proportional representation (what our founding fathers originally intended, and what was in place in the US for 120 years) the level of representation always remains the same regardless of the population.

In 1911 the US population was 93,863,000. With 435 House Representatives that works out to one Representative for every 215,477 US citizens. Currently the US population is 301,139,947 which works out to one Representative for every 692,276 US citizens. So in the 96 years since proportional representation ended in the US we have become more than three times less represented, and it will only get worse.

[rotorhead]

Gotcha, fixed number of reps, didn't know that. I guess I was drooling on the desk that day in Civics 101. So it's a zero-sum game? If one state gains another rep by population increase, another must lose one? I'll bet that's hit the rust-belt states pretty hard.

So if I'm getting this right, we oughta have about 1397 members of the house (instead of the current 435) if they'd have kept the original ratio? What you wanna bet the overriding consideration was pretty much for conveience sake, so they don't have to build a bigger capital building?

Of course, some would argue that that means 962 less pigs at the federal trough, which isn't TOTALLY a bad thing.

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by rotorhead

Gotcha, fixed number of reps, didn't know that. I guess I was drooling on the desk that day in Civics 101. So it's a zero-sum game? If one state gains another rep by population increase, another must lose one? I'll bet that's hit the rust-belt states pretty hard.

So if I'm getting this right, we oughta have about 1397 members of the house (instead of the current 435) if they'd have kept the original ratio? What you wanna bet the overriding consideration was pretty much for conveience sake, so they don't have to build a bigger capital building?

Of course, some would argue that that means 962 less pigs at the federal trough, which isn't TOTALLY a bad thing.

That is correct. With apportioned representation the total number of Representatives never changes, only how they are distributed among the various states. Which is why districts are redrawn larger and larger after every Census. In the last 2000 Census Arizona, Florida, Texas and Georgia each gained two Representatives, while Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Mississippi each lost one Representative and New York and Pennsylvania lost two Representatives each.

The US Constitution does not set the the maximum number of citizens per Representatives, but it does set a minimum limit of 30,000 US citizens per Representative (requested by George Washington). Congress can set any upper limit they want.

The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative. -- Excerpt from Article I, Section 1, Clause 2 of the US Constitution

If you use the 1911 population and number of Representatives at that time as a guide, you are right, we would have 1,397 total House Representatives. It would also require a minimum of 749 Electoral College votes for someone to become President. You can argue that more House Representatives is not necessarily a good thing, but I would argue that with more Representatives we would not have the culture of corruption we see so frequently in Congress today. It is precisely because we have so few representing so many that we see criminal activity in our Representatives.

[Xa'at]

Originally Posted by Glitch

I would argue that with more Representatives we would not have the culture of corruption we see so frequently in Congress today. It is precisely because we have so few representing so many that we see criminal activity in our Representatives.

I don't know... I tend to believe that politics are inherently corrupt- "adding" or "taking away" government isn't likely to change that. As long as the politicians are being tempted by special interest groups, we will continue to see this corruption.

[rotorhead]

Yes, all politicians eventually turn out to be corrupt, but ahhh, in ALASKA it turns out that they're SO affordable.

I mean, if Vic Kohring could be bought for a couple of $7k credit-card bills and Uncle Teddy for the price of a home remodel, that means that even average people can afford their very own corrupt politician. It doesn't take millions of dollars to buy highway exits and alter tax codes like it does in other states.

I mean, if we'd have know that 'ol Vic was going so cheap, we could have just had a couple of potluck dinners and maybe a pancake breakfast as fundraisers and we could have had our OWN bill in the state legislature, bought and paid for. It would have been so much cheaper for the borough here than actually having to pay for the swimming pool repairs that Gov. Sara vetoed, for example.

If only we'd have known....sigh....