Skip to main content

View Diary: Why do we have a 435-member House? (104 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Population gets in the way (6+ / 0-)

    The difficulty is that the country is so large.

    If we could increase the size of the House to about 3x its size, then you could create a system in which each state has at least 3 representatives and representatives are chosen through proportional representation by each state.  That would probably be the best way to get the public will to match congressional allocation; however, it would be terrible for the legislating process and would probably increase, not decrease, corruption.

    •  I'm not clear on why this would lead to more (6+ / 0-)

      corruption.  Seems to me having representatives who are more directly answerable to a manageable number of constituents would be better overall.

      I say go for the constitutionally mentioned number - 1 representative for every 30,000 people.

      “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

      by jrooth on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 12:41:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So we passed a law enabling us to (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        copymark, Aspe4

        circumvent the Constitution?

        How can the Reapportionment Act of 1929 be Constitutional if it essentially contradicts the Constitution?

        if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 07:54:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No more than one representative per 30,000 (0+ / 0-)

          would mean, wouldn't it, that there couldn't be 2 or 3 reps per 30,000 (or 200, for that matter), but the opposite would have to be worded that there would be no FEWER than one representative per 30,000, or more clearly, there must be one representative per 30,000.

          IANAL, however.  Could you imagine trying to govern with 11,000 Representatives?

    •  I can't imagine why it would increase corruption (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      copymark, crankypatriot, leema

      in some ways, I doubt we could increase corruption unless we actually held auctions.

      It would be unwieldy, but nothing's getting done anyway.

      if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 07:52:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site