lawsuit seeks to increase House of Representatives

[FoBoT]

http://www.reuters.com/article...7-Sep-2009+PRN20090917
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09...s/18baker.html?_r=2&hp
http://www.clarionledger.com/a...lenges-U.S.-House-size
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule

Despite the U.S. population more than tripling in the last 100 years (from
less than 100 million to over 300 million people), the number of House
representatives over the same time has remained identical at 435 members. Why
has this inequity in voting rights and representation never been formally
corrected or challenged?

By PETER BAKER
Published: September 17, 2009
WASHINGTON ? In America, democracy follows the simple principle of one person, one vote, right?
Unless, that is, you live in Montana, where your vote carries a little more than half as much weight in the House of Representatives as that of someone living in Rhode Island. Or if you live in Utah, where your vote counts about two-thirds as much as it would in Iowa.

"If you compare Mississippi to Wyoming, for every 100 votes in Wyoming it takes 144 voters in Mississippi to equal the voting power that both have in Congress,"

would this help break the 2 party system? wouldn't it be easier for 3rd party and independent candidates to get elected in smaller districts?

i think it would bring some power back to the people and weaken the oligarchy of the Democrat and Republican parties

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
http://www.reuters.com/article...7-Sep-2009+PRN20090917
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09...s/18baker.html?_r=2&hp
http://www.clarionledger.com/a...lenges-U.S.-House-size
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule

Despite the U.S. population more than tripling in the last 100 years (from
less than 100 million to over 300 million people), the number of House
representatives over the same time has remained identical at 435 members. Why
has this inequity in voting rights and representation never been formally
corrected or challenged?

By PETER BAKER
Published: September 17, 2009
WASHINGTON ? In America, democracy follows the simple principle of one person, one vote, right?
Unless, that is, you live in Montana, where your vote carries a little more than half as much weight in the House of Representatives as that of someone living in Rhode Island. Or if you live in Utah, where your vote counts about two-thirds as much as it would in Iowa.

"If you compare Mississippi to Wyoming, for every 100 votes in Wyoming it takes 144 voters in Mississippi to equal the voting power that both have in Congress,"

would this help break the 2 party system? wouldn't it be easier for 3rd party and independent candidates to get elected in smaller districts?

i think it would bring some power back to the people and weaken the oligarchy of the Democrat and Republican parties

Count me in as a yes vote. Keep the Senate as is, but the house should represent smaller districts to have a more rooted representative.

 

[FoBoT]

i believe there is support from both liberal and conservatives on this
http://www.fairvote.org/?page=866

House of Representatives? Hardly.
May 21, 2001

The following ?Dear Colleague? letter was sent by the office of Rep. Alcee Hastings to other Members of the U.S. House of Representatatives.

Dear Colleague:

In the past 90 years, the U.S. has become the second most underrepresented democracy in the entire world, but the size of the House of Representatives has remained the same. In the past 90 years, U.S. population has more than tripled, but the size of the House of Representatives has remained the same. In the past 90 years, four states have joined the Union, but the size of the House of Representatives has remained the same. In fact, in the past 90 years, Congress has addressed permanently increasing the size of the House of Representatives only once.

British House of Commons


659 Members

1 Member per 90,288 people

Canadian House of Commons

301 Members

1 Member per 103,924 people

South Africa National Assembly

400 Members

1 Member per 108,553 people
German Bundestag

669 Members

1 Member per 123,752 people
Austrailia House of Representatives

148 Members

1 Member per 129,521 people
Japan Shugi-in

500 Members

1 Member per 253,100 people
Russia State Duma


450 Members

1 Member per 324,447 people
Nigeria House of Representatives

360 Members

1 Member per 342,605 people
Brazil Camara dos Deputados

513 Members

1 Member per 467,190 people
U.S. House of Representatives

435 Members

1 Member per 645,632 people
Indian Lok Sabha

552 Members

1 Member per 1,836,963 people

 

[Brainonska511]

I could see it helping to break the two parties by making it easier for a non-party affiliated representative to rise up in smaller districts. But it could be a gigantic mess - 900+ people in the House; crazy.

Edit:
Seeing the stats FoBot just posted, maybe not so crazy. I could get on board with this.

 

[lupi]

people keep voting in the well known idiots, how would this change anything.

 

[Dari]

Great, just what we need. More fringe lunatics in Congress is not the solution to the current status quo. What we need is less gerrymeandering. This'll help weed out the loonies.

 

[n yusef]

If you really want to increase the viability of multiple parties we should move away from physical districts altogether. My state, Massachusetts, sends ten people to the House of Representatives, all Democrats. But, not all MA residents are Democrats; many people are not represented. Imagine: instead of being tied into districts where Democrats almost always get 55~75% of the vote, all MA residents voted for a political party. We might have 7 Democrat Representatives, and 3 Republicans; or 5 Democrats, 2 Republicans, 2 Greens, and 1 Libertarian. Similarly, Red States would have more left-wing representation and viable non-mainstream parties.

 

[Sedition]

I am sorry, as much as I would be all for more representation, this would just mean more and more people doing nothing. Think about it. The only way things get done in congress is when enough palms are greased. Hence the reason why all our laws benefit companies and lobbies. Would having double the amount of reps really matter? Think of all the campaigning and bs they'd have to do. Even more time they'd not be in congress lawmaking.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: n yusef
If you really want to increase the viability of multiple parties we should move away from physical districts altogether. My state, Massachusetts, sends ten people to the House of Representatives, all Democrats. But, not all MA residents are Democrats; many people are not represented. Imagine: instead of being tied into districts where Democrats almost always get 55~75% of the vote, all MA residents voted for a political party. We might have 7 Democrat Representatives, and 3 Republicans; or 5 Democrats, 2 Republicans, 2 Greens, and 1 Libertarian. Similarly, Red States would have more left-wing representation and viable non-mainstream parties.

I think that would be worse - then there would be no specific representative for your district.

After reading Dari's post, the best way would be to end the ridiculous practice of gerrymandering - random L shaped districts that twist this way and that like rivers to keep incumbents in power.

 

[Cuda1447]

I am for this bill. Direct representation is what this country was founded on and I think we should try to move back to that.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
I am for this bill. Direct representation is what this country was founded on and I think we should try to move back to that.

False.

This country was founded on anything but direct representation. Look at the Constitution - the only position which was directly elected was the House. Senators were appointed by state governments, the president is selected by electors, judges are appointed by the president and approved by the Senate.

The founding fathers feared direct democracy - they feared 'mobocracy'.

 

[babylon5]

This will hurt corporate interests to control the government. If this passes, corporate interests will have to either pony up more cash or spread out their corruption money to politicians, so each will get less gifts/cash bonus/free vacation from corporations to do their bidding. How outrageous!

Can you live yourself if your politicians supposedly representing you, can no longer afford his hookers or mistress on the side? Think about it really.

 

[woodie1]

This does seem interesting. I still think there should be term limits. Wouldn't limited terms get some fresh blood and ideas into government? Might help in diluting the 2 party system now in play.

 

[Dari]

I'm not sure why people keep focusing on the two party system. Look all around the world where multi-party democracy exists and you will see them all gravitate towards a two-party majority with a buch of minor parties that do nothing but hamper the majors. I can't imagine America being any different. Furthermore, there are already other parties in America but, again, the political system gravitates towards a two-party system.

 

[Zensal]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
I am for this bill. Direct representation is what this country was founded on and I think we should try to move back to that.

False.

This country was founded on anything but direct representation. Look at the Constitution - the only position which was directly elected was the House. Senators were appointed by state governments, the president is selected by electors, judges are appointed by the president and approved by the Senate.

The founding fathers feared direct democracy - they feared 'mobocracy'.

True.

But as you stated, the House is supposed to be the direct representation branch of the federal government. Moving to a system where there is a smaller number of people to please or annoy should mean that if I personally wanted something to change, I could talk to a majority of people in my district.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Dari
Great, just what we need. More fringe lunatics in Congress is not the solution to the current status quo. What we need is less gerrymeandering. This'll help weed out the loonies.

Smaller districts will make gerrymadering much more difficult.

 

[charrison]

This is a good idea. I think benefits will far outweight the negatives(more politicians )

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Dari
Great, just what we need. More fringe lunatics in Congress is not the solution to the current status quo. What we need is less gerrymeandering. This'll help weed out the loonies.

Smaller districts will make gerrymadering much more difficult.

But they will re-inforce the spirit of gerrymandering, namely getting an extremist in office. This is true considering Americans are moving into areas where others share the same views.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Dari
Great, just what we need. More fringe lunatics in Congress is not the solution to the current status quo. What we need is less gerrymeandering. This'll help weed out the loonies.

Smaller districts will make gerrymadering much more difficult.

But they will re-inforce the spirit of gerrymandering, namely getting an extremist in office. This is true considering Americans are moving into areas where others share the same views.

Possibly, but it also would lower the bar to enter into politics race.

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: charrison

Possibly, but it also would lower the bar to enter into politics race.

this is what i think, why i think it could combat the oligarchy, right now, it is a small group of people that control policy decisions in the 2 major parties

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: charrison

Possibly, but it also would lower the bar to enter into politics race.

this is what i think, why i think it could combat the oligarchy, right now, it is a small group of people that control policy decisions in the 2 major parties

Please. You must not have read Animal Farm.

 

[heyheybooboo]

This makes no sense. Why would anyone want to expand the number of elected persons in the House? We live in a representative democracy whereby you will never successfully 'equalize' district representation between states. A district elects an individual to represent them - not be phone buddies. If you don't care for their representation don't elect them. Adding more seats just makes it more convoluted.

Is it going to be easier for a House member to return 360,000 phone calls as opposed to 720,000? If you want personal access to your House member you need to do it the old fashioned way ---- buy it.

First off:

Is there a problem with the level of constituent services between single rep states like Wyoming (with a population of 540,000) and Delaware (with a population of 900,000) ? They each have a single representative. That is what this question is about ----- constituent services, NOT personal access. Want your opinion heard? Write a letter or send an email. Call the office. Register your opinion. Raise the money and place an ad in the newspaper. Why do you think that your single voice carries more significance than that of any over resident of your district who does not require 'face' time?

Let's say you double the number of representatives and apportion as to the 2010 Census - 870 reps into population of 312 million equals 359,000 per district

Are you going to give Wyoming a second representative without giving Delaware 2 additional representatives?

New Math: Wyoming = 279k per district / Delaware = 300k per district (and you have tripled the number of districts). Idaho will have around 1.55 million people and when 'doubled' ---> 4 reps, or 385k per district. Do you add +1 to reduce to 308k per district? Which state is going to lose that district? Remember the reapportion is 359k per district.

Texas currently has 32 districts - and nearly 25 million people by the Census. 69 seats = 358k per district. 68 seats = 363k per district. 67 seats = 367k per district. Where do you stop?

What have you fixed?

My point is that at each margin you will have states fighting for the extra district, and at every reapportionment some states are going to lose each Census.

Ask Utah about North Carolina

 

[LunarRay]

435 Reps is fine, I think. I do like the notion of voting for a party and if that party gets the 675,000 qualified votes they get a Rep. Smaller population States would get what they get with the second rep coming when they get the population to enjoy it.
The above seems more Representative to me and does away with the convoluted districts. It would also insure that the party in power may have gotten there by virtue of 'forming a government' to insure 'Green' party folks get their share of the pie.

 

[PJABBER]

This is more insane than most any other proposal I have heard in the last year.

Just what we need - more politicians sucking at the tax teat.

Only way we should go this route is if we limit the legislative term to the three months of June, July and August when DC is an f'ing sauna and pay them no more than $50,000 total for the three months of "work" they will do, including all expenses.

I am feeling generous tonight - I will throw in one round trip coach class airfare ticket to DC each year for the legislative session.

No benefits and no retirement benefits unless they last three consecutive terms. And then they have to take mandatory retirement with a $3,000 a year pension for their service. Any other retirement money they get counts toward the $3K, though. Lose one election and you have to start over again. I am not THAT generous.

And when they campaign, they have to limit campaign expenditures to no more than $100K per year. I don't want to have all kinds of political ads cluttering up my spam folder. :evil:

Maybe we should prohibit them from using any kind of motorized vehicle when they campaign. It will make for an environmental statement, they will be in good physical shape when they are done and they will REALLY get to know their constituents.

 

[Fenixgoon]

offhand, i'd say representation should simply be recalculated to accommodate the population changes - over doubling the number of politicians isn't going to make getting things done in america any easier.