Skip to main content

View Diary: Sen. Udall Says He Has 51 Votes for Filibuster Reform (170 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Triple Wyoming Rule, anyone? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ericlewis0, elwior

    Starting with the 2022 House elections, I propose that the size of the House be determined by the following formula:

    R=(T/L)*3, rounded up

    R is the number of Representatives in the House
    T is the total population of all 50 states
    L is the population of the state with the lowest population

    It's worth noting that Wyoming, currently the least populous state, is growing quite a bit faster than the U.S. as a whole, and Vermont, currently the second-least populous state, is growing at a slower rate than the U.S. as a whole, so Vermont may actually be the least populous state in the country when the 2020 Census comes around.

    Elizabeth Warren on the Senate Banking Committee is a BFD!

    by DownstateDemocrat on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 10:15:05 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  pretty much along those lines (4+ / 0-)

      basically every 10 years take the least populous state and then divide the population by 3 that sets district size then use that number to find how many districts has (I think in the end our math works out the same mine just avoids rounding)

      it's absurd that the house hasn't been adjusted in 70 some years

    •  So what is your calculation? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ericlewis0, elwior

      downstateDemocrat, I assume that you've looked up all the numbers since you've created the formula.

      If the numbers are crunched according to your formula, on today's data, how big would the House be?

      •  I know this isn't precisely to me (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ericlewis0, elwior

        but if i remember right the last time I looked at it the House would be 2-3 times the size it is now with about 3 representatives per about half million citizens

        •  There's definitely something to be said for that, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ericlewis0, elwior

          but where would we put them all?;-)

          Srsly, I'd love more responsive representation, but that would be an unwieldy body.

          "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

          by sidnora on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 05:58:59 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, the UK parliament has 650 members (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ericlewis0, elwior, duhban

            in the House of Commons. That works out to about 100,000 people per member.

            The actual chamber of the House of Commons only sits 450, so apparently they've decided that putting them somewhere isn't really a problem.

            I'd be interested in seeing some sort of comparison among countries on the basis of the ratio of people to members of the lower house. Of course, a lot of countries have proportional representation, so it could get tricky, but I think it would be an interesting data set.

            Oh, wait—there's always Google:

            http://www.economist.com/...

            (Either they're also counting the House of Lords, or my back-of-the envelope calculation for the UK is way off.)

            •  Whoops. Looks like it may be 408 seats (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ericlewis0, sidnora, elwior, duhban

              for 650 members. Basically, at any one time, about 1/3 of MP's are stuck with Standing Room Only tickets.

              •  Kidding aside, (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                elwior

                how would they seat them?

                I could imagine an easier time with that in a parliamentary system like England's, where the different parties could make sure that they are sufficiently represented as a bloc for any given vote, but how would the emocratic party decide who gets that last available seat if it were a choice between Alan Grayson and Heath Shuler (I know he's gone, he was just the first Blue Dog to pop into my head)? They're both Democrats.

                "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

                by sidnora on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 10:29:21 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  I don't think so (0+ / 0-)

            and in point of fact the whole point of the independent commision would be to insure that each representitve has roughly equal population. Thus major cities like LA or NYC would indeed have a lot of representives but then again how 'fair' or realitist is that some representives have literally more then a million consitutes and others only represent hundreds of thousands?

            The House was always supposed to be the body of the big states but having been capped it has allowed small states a huge amount of power in the senate and the House

        •  At least it would keep the millionaires from being (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ericlewis0, sidnora, elwior, duhban

          able to buy them all, or find them all jobs as lobbyists.

          "I watch Fox News for my comedy, and Comedy Central for my news." - Facebook Group

          by Sychotic1 on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 07:14:15 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  1,641 Seats (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elwior

        ... using 2010 census numbers.  Maybe a bit unwieldy.  The CA delegation itself would have 198 members.

        Republican motto: " The only thing we have is fear itself."

        by lgrabowski on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 11:22:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site