Since 1929, the representation has been fixed at 435. This gives us 1 representative for every 711,000 people. Washington, Madison et al expressed concern over anything greater than 1:30,000.
By comparison, the English Parliment has 1:95,000. German Bundestag 1:130,000.
0 voters
Yes. The current ratio does not allow for representation. These mega districts are ridiculous.
Logistically they can telecommute and work from their districts.
Why you wanna be like those socialist European countries?
But srsly idk. Will need a bigger capital. It would make party cohesion much harder. Moar congressman moar problems?
Logistically they can telecommute and work from their districts.
Yes. California and Texas need more representation.
We need to repel the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929.
I honestly don’t know.
The phrase “too many chiefs, not enough indians” comes to mind.
Maybe we could I don’t know, break the country down into things, we’ll call them states, and further divide the states into something, lets call them counties. And after that we could take the power away from the federal government and return it closer to the people, where it started out.
The House needs to be (based on the 2010 census) increased to 542, which would satisfy the Wyoming Rule. California would have 66 Representatives to Wyoming’s 1 Representative, which is the actual population proportion of the two States.
435 is not even close to being large enough and excessively benefits the small States at the expense of the large States.
The smaller size also enables gerrymandering, which would be less effective with a larger House size.
Here’s what the House would look like under the Wyoming Rule. As you can see, the number of seats of the smallest States change little or not at all, while the largest States gain the most, putting them at their proper proportion of seats in the House.
Also, one little note. There are different methods of calculating the House size under the Wyoming rule. I use 542, I think Wikipedia gives it as 545 and I have also seen 544 at a couple of sites, but the variation in seat numbers is minimal between methods, 5 at most.
| California | 66 |
|---|---|
| Texas | 44 |
| New York | 34 |
| Florida | 33 |
| Illinois | 23 |
| Pennsylvania | 22 |
| Ohio | 20 |
| Georgia | 17 |
| Michigan | 17 |
| North Carolina | 17 |
| New Jersey | 16 |
| Virginia | 14 |
| Massachusetts | 12 |
| Washington | 12 |
| Arizona | 11 |
| Indiana | 11 |
| Missouri | 11 |
| Tennessee | 11 |
| Maryland | 10 |
| Wisconsin | 10 |
| Colorado | 9 |
| Minnesota | 9 |
| Alabama | 8 |
| Kentucky | 8 |
| Louisiana | 8 |
| South Carolina | 8 |
| Oklahoma | 7 |
| Oregon | 7 |
| Connecticut | 6 |
| Arkansas | 5 |
| Iowa | 5 |
| Kansas | 5 |
| Mississippi | 5 |
| Nevada | 5 |
| Utah | 5 |
| New Mexico | 4 |
| Idaho | 3 |
| Nebraska | 3 |
| West Virginia | 3 |
| Delaware | 2 |
| Hawaii | 2 |
| Maine | 2 |
| Montana | 2 |
| New Hampshire | 2 |
| Rhode Island | 2 |
| South Dakota | 2 |
| Alaska | 1 |
| North Dakota | 1 |
| Vermont | 1 |
| Wyoming | 1 |
| 542 |
Yes, expand the house, and I’m not sure how they limited it without an amendment.
.
.
I think some people look at election maps and look at red/blue areas and think (and I paraphrase): “Hey, we increase the size of the house and because there is more red area than blue, we will get more red representatives than blue.”
Look at election maps as a function of population density and the outcome could be very different.
It’s not real estate that would count toward a new distribution, it is population and where that population occurs in higher density.
.
.
.
.
Watch what you ask for.
.
.
.
.>>>>
Thanks for the insight.
Yes I think the size of the House should be increased.
A regular election map.
.>>>>
An election map skewed by population.
.>>>>
Might help reduce the fringe elements as well. Or grow them I guess 
.
1 rep for almost every three quarters of a million is pretty nuts.
The previous images were based on state for the presidential election.
The center image above is a county level representation as a function of population density and it’s impact on the vote.
(Edit test).
.>>>>
I seem to recall an argument (from the Federalist papers, or a commentary) to the effect that large numbers of representatives does not result in representation.
Any decision making body that is too large cannot act effectively “at large”. To make effective decisions, it has to funnel its workload through a committee structure (or something similar.) (This is a corollary of the old wisdom that a committee is the only known life form with 7 bellies and no brain)
Increasing the number of representatives would not increase the populace’s power over government, it would increase the power of the party bosses (i.e. committee chairs) and the political parties in general.
A government designed for a small rural population (like the 13 colonies) won’t work well (if at all) for governing a huge post-industrial empire (like the current US). The numbers just don’t work. Technology might help matters, but the idea to expand the House doesn’t do that, it just adds to the number. The result will be an increase in power of the political parties and a continuation of the US’s move from a representative democracy (“thats the congress critter that speaks for me”) to a parlimentary type of structure (“I don’t know the candidates but I want the X party to be in control.”)
Bring back the Articles of Confederation?
