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.
There have been 435 members of the House since 1929. The population of the US has greatly expanded since then. Would more Representatives make the country more small-d democratic? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reap...nt_Act_of_1929
In 1929 it was one for each 250,000 people, now it is 1 per 750,000.
I'm fine with that, just get rid of the blatant gerrymandering and have the boundaries make common and geographic sense.
Absolutely. There should be one house member for every 200,000 of population not one for every 750,000 like today. We would then have a House with about 1,625 members.
The House will likely enlarge in 2020 after the next census. There are 6 states that are expected to pick up one more Representative, and 3 or 4 that will pick up more than one.
There are also states that are expected to lose some after their populations decreased. There are about 5 of those states.
One of them, Montana, once had 2 Representatives, and then the population decreased and the state lost one. It's now expected to get another in 2020 again.
All in all, the House will probably end up with a few more Representatives in 2020 than it has now. The USA is not growing fast, but it's growing in population.
The House will likely enlarge in 2020 after the next census. There are 6 states that are expected to pick up one more Representative, and 3 or 4 that will pick up more than one.
One of them, Montana, once had 2 Representatives, and then the population decreased and the state lost one. It's now expected to get another in 2020 again.
It will not enlarge. When one state picks up representatives due to relative population gains another losses representatives due to a relative loss in population, normally but lower growth due to less births and people moving out of state
Hech, Senate representation still blows my mind. The states of North Dakota and Vermont, with barely a million people, have the same representation as Texas and California, with 20+ million people.
Hech, Senate representation still blows my mind. The states of North Dakota and Vermont, with barely a million people, have the same representation as Texas and California, with 20+ million people.
That was the compromise that was necessary/struck in order for several functionally independent states to come together and form these United States of America. The small states didn't want to be railroaded over by the larger states. The composition of the US Senate helps to ensure that such does not happen.
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 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.
