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 2 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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-10-2015, 12:34 AM
 
9,742 posts, read 9,307,871 times
Reputation: 2049

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
That actually makes a lot of sense. The House might better reflect the country under this method.
I agree. It's proportional. What exactly is the metric we currently use?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-10-2015, 12:37 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,054 posts, read 29,425,983 times
Reputation: 7829
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn View Post
Yes. At least twice as many.

Ask yourself why they haven't yet. Power.
Red state power basically because why would less populated red states want to give blue states more representatives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 09:57 AM
 
12,050 posts, read 11,111,780 times
Reputation: 9999
Oh absolutely -- we should consider making it 10 times as large. That would greatly enhance the responsiveness of congress people to their constituents and make it much harder for special interests to influence them. It would be difficult to manage a governing body of 4,350 but doable with modern technology. In fact, with modern communication tools, you don't really have to have a centralized meeting point in Washigton any longer. Why not do virtual sessions and having congress people live in their districts full time?

While we're at it, we should also standardize the way congressional districts are drawn up to eliminate gerrymandering.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 10:31 AM
 
29,075 posts, read 15,309,183 times
Reputation: 19809
Nope.

Too many chefs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 11:50 AM
 
Location: Washington State
18,222 posts, read 9,448,493 times
Reputation: 15532
I say cut it in half.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 11:54 AM
 
Location: North America
14,210 posts, read 10,071,549 times
Reputation: 5546
If we go by a Country such as GB as a guide the house should have about 1200 members and the Senate 600.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 11:56 AM
 
Location: North America
14,210 posts, read 10,071,549 times
Reputation: 5546
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn View Post
Yes. At least twice as many.

Ask yourself why they haven't yet. Power.
That's basically it. Because they would then have to return to an early 20th century seniority model. No one would care about newly elected Congressman Ryan if he is one of 1250 members. The news would only focus on the big names then.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 12:00 PM
 
36,486 posts, read 15,977,952 times
Reputation: 8284
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
population is going to keep growing so your solution wont work unless we just keep adding to the House of Representative forever.

If we capped the number at 500,000 constituents, that would still mean a few states would be over represented and others under represented.

I dont think Republicans would go for that though. congressional maps would be more favorable to Democrats that way.

500,000 means you cant "crack" democrats and spared them across multiple districts in small population states. And in big states, they cant pack them all into city districts.

take my home state of Alabama for example, with 500,000 as the stopping point for district size, then Alabama would have 10 reps instead of 7(6-1) republican.

Mobile and Baldwin Counties alone in the bottom left corner of the state have 500,000+ residents. The current 1st congressional district consist of those 2 counties plus all or part of 4 more.

Splitting the districts apart in any kind of logical pastern would create 2 new Democratic districts in the state around Birmingham and Montgomery, and one Republican one in the South.
"unless we just keep adding to the House of Representative forever."

And what is wrong with that?

If the population grows, so should the H of R.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 12:02 PM
 
36,486 posts, read 15,977,952 times
Reputation: 8284
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
population is going to keep growing so your solution wont work unless we just keep adding to the House of Representative forever.

If we capped the number at 500,000 constituents, that would still mean a few states would be over represented and others under represented.

I dont think Republicans would go for that though. congressional maps would be more favorable to Democrats that way.

500,000 means you cant "crack" democrats and spared them across multiple districts in small population states. And in big states, they cant pack them all into city districts.

take my home state of Alabama for example, with 500,000 as the stopping point for district size, then Alabama would have 10 reps instead of 7(6-1) republican.

Mobile and Baldwin Counties alone in the bottom left corner of the state have 500,000+ residents. The current 1st congressional district consist of those 2 counties plus all or part of 4 more.

Splitting the districts apart in any kind of logical pastern would create 2 new Democratic districts in the state around Birmingham and Montgomery, and one Republican one in the South.
Your idea still will NOT stop gerrymandering.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 12:06 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
66,197 posts, read 33,593,322 times
Reputation: 14149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egbert View Post
The size of the US house of representatives has been more or less fixed by statute at 435 for about 102 years, at that time the average house district was 210,000 people. Now because of population grow and fixed size we now have our first >1,000,000 person house district in Montana, and we will likely get more as Rhode Island loses a seat and Delaware grows in population. This issue is likely to become even worse if Puerto Rico becomes a US state.

Given this what do people think of slightly increasing the size of the House of Representatives to allow for smaller districts with fewer constituents.
Say 500 because that is a good number to go with 50 states.
Then divide it all up as evenly as possible by county and parish lines, based upon population.
Sure some counties would get split(which should be a straight line across the county, be it north/south, east/west, or even a diagonal.) and of coarse some counties would be combined(their boundaries must touch)


Texas, California and New York would still have more seats available, because of the higher populations.
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 $104,000 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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:55 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top