U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
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

 
 
Old 10-24-2012, 09:59 PM
 
Location: Missouri
30 posts, read 6,977 times
Reputation: 30

Advertisements

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.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-24-2012, 10:34 PM
 
Location: NC
10,009 posts, read 5,010,814 times
Reputation: 2999
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.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2012, 10:38 PM
 
14,259 posts, read 5,063,585 times
Reputation: 4544
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.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2012, 07:31 AM
Status: "Rand Paul 2016 !!!" (set 28 days ago)
 
Location: Austin
18,968 posts, read 5,739,068 times
Reputation: 4213
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.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2012, 07:54 AM
 
Location: OH->FL->NJ
2,741 posts, read 4,098,145 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.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2012, 07:56 AM
 
Location: Atlanta
3,372 posts, read 1,542,081 times
Reputation: 2228
The LAST thing we need is more politicians playing politics on the tax payers dime.. !
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2012, 08:12 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
33,797 posts, read 29,215,017 times
Reputation: 15646
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.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2012, 08:32 AM
Status: "Rand Paul 2016 !!!" (set 28 days ago)
 
Location: Austin
18,968 posts, read 5,739,068 times
Reputation: 4213
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.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2012, 10:40 AM
 
10,423 posts, read 3,616,031 times
Reputation: 3386
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.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2012, 10:43 AM
 
14,259 posts, read 5,063,585 times
Reputation: 4544
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.
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.


 
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