U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Halloween!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
View Poll Results: What would be the best ratio?
Over 1,000,000 People 1 11.11%
1,000,000 People 1 11.11%
700,000 People (current) 1 11.11%
500,000 People 3 33.33%
100,000 People 1 11.11%
50,000 People 1 11.11%
10,000 People 0 0%
5,000 People 0 0%
1,000 People 0 0%
Less than 1,000 People 1 11.11%
Voters: 9. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-24-2012, 08:59 PM
 
Location: Missouri
30 posts, read 5,829 times
Reputation: 30
Default Number of constituents per US House Representative

What sounds like a reasonable number of constituents that each member of the US House of Representatives should represent? For nearly a hundred years, the US House of Representatives has been capped at 435 members. Over the past 100 years, this means that each representative is responsible for more and more people, and currently each representative is accountable to around 700,000 constituents. Should we strive for a lower number or perhaps a higher number?


Personally I am in favor of drastically lowering the number of people each representative represents. I believe this will set the stage for representatives to be held more accountable to their constituents come election time, as well as make it easier for citizens to reach their representative (and subsequently for representatives to reach their constituents). I also believe this will allow for more third-party and independent candidates to contest and win elections. Having a higher number of representatives would also allow for elections to be more hotly contested in local areas and make individual votes count more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-24-2012, 09:34 PM
 
Location: NC
10,009 posts, read 4,778,353 times
Reputation: 2986
It would probably not be doable, but 1-100,000 is a good number. That is about what it is in the UK and members of parliament seemed to be able to be very responsive to their constituencies if they wanted to be.

In North Carolina the ratio of people to state House member is about 1-68,000 and their is quite good access to representatives.

The problem is such a group would be very unwieldy for the purpose of getting legislation passed. Even so the 1-700,000 ratio essentially means that legislatures cannot be very responsive to individual constituents, and rely on big money which makes the whole system less representative.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2012, 09:38 PM
 
13,333 posts, read 4,563,639 times
Reputation: 4150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
It would probably not be doable, but 1-100,000 is a good number. That is about what it is in the UK and members of parliament seemed to be able to be very responsive to their constituencies if they wanted to be.

In North Carolina the ratio of people to state House member is about 1-68,000 and their is quite good access to representatives.

The problem is such a group would be very unwieldy for the purpose of getting legislation passed. Even so the 1-700,000 ratio essentially means that legislatures cannot be very responsive to individual constituents, and rely on big money which makes the whole system less representative.
If each rep had 100,000 constituents, the house would have 3147 voting members.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2012, 06:31 AM
 
Location: Austin
18,171 posts, read 5,236,209 times
Reputation: 4034
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
If each rep had 100,000 constituents, the house would have 3147 voting members.
And that would be 3000 more idiots trying to spend more of our money to get reelected.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2012, 06:54 AM
 
Location: OH->FL->NJ
2,741 posts, read 3,987,685 times
Reputation: 918
Just more hyper polarized loons from both sides unless we do something NATIONALLY to make the drawing of districts to be neutral and fair. This means more GOPS in CA and more Dems in OH where in each the other party makes IDIOTIC districts to favor themselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2012, 06:56 AM
 
Location: Atlanta
3,255 posts, read 1,427,607 times
Reputation: 2162
The LAST thing we need is more politicians playing politics on the tax payers dime.. !
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2012, 07:12 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
33,394 posts, read 28,007,444 times
Reputation: 15343
New Hampshire has 435 Representatives for about 1.3 million people and that legislature is almost completely non functional. When almost anyone can be a Representative the collection of fools is really remarkable. I suggest we reform both districting and campaign financing by having a computer program set the district lines based solely on population distribution and have campaigns financed by human individuals, not corporations, with limited contributions. Advertizing time would be contributed by the media as part of their corporate charters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2012, 07:32 AM
 
Location: Austin
18,171 posts, read 5,236,209 times
Reputation: 4034
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
New Hampshire has 435 Representatives for about 1.3 million people and that legislature is almost completely non functional. When almost anyone can be a Representative the collection of fools is really remarkable. I suggest we reform both districting and campaign financing by having a computer program set the district lines based solely on population distribution and have campaigns financed by human individuals, not corporations, with limited contributions. Advertizing time would be contributed by the media as part of their corporate charters.

I've been saying that for years. Drawing district boundaries should be a mathematical exercise with no social engineering.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2012, 09:40 AM
 
10,325 posts, read 3,374,479 times
Reputation: 3349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
And that would be 3000 more idiots trying to spend more of our money to get reelected.
And at their current rate, that's an extra $471,888,000 a year we'd be paying in congressional salaries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2012, 09:43 AM
 
13,333 posts, read 4,563,639 times
Reputation: 4150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero View Post
And at their current rate, that's an extra $471,888,000 a year we'd be paying in congressional salaries.
Don't forget their pensions and other benefits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top