Thoughts on increasing the House size

[Seattle Husker]

Have you ever changed your mind?

What did Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton and even Obama once say about gay marriage. Have they always been on board?

What about immigration enforcement?

Shall we post all these things?

This is a real circle jerk and the people being defended by us (including you) do not deserve our time or our enabling.

Have you ever seen a non-religious person suddenly become religious without ever attending church before or after their "conversion"? You can't seriously believe that suddenly Trump espouses the Evangelical views because he repented, asked his lord for forgiveness then promptly rarely ever attended church again.

 

[bystander]

Have you ever seen a non-religious person suddenly become religious without ever attending church before or after their "conversion"? You can't seriously believe that suddenly Trump espouses the Evangelical views because he repented, asked his lord for forgiveness then promptly rarely ever attended church again.

I don't believe he did either. But you can't dodge the about face the "dignified" Democrats made.

What I really can't believe is how you buy their act. They are the biggest phonies around and you are eating the candy.

 

[Horns11]

Oh Lord have Mercy. Between wanting the Supreme Court expanded, another 2 or 4 or 14 states added to the Union, now the leftists want about 800 new Representatives added.

Stop trying to game the system for your own political advantage.

Please. It would definitely "game the system" for Republican-led states more than Democrat-led ones as of the 2020 census. Just think what Lt. Dan's friends could do with a handful more "packed" districts like #33 and #35.

 

[Duck Dodgers]

Thankfully, it won't happen, stupid idea to begin with. Next!

 

[Horns11]

Thankfully, it won't happen, stupid idea to begin with. Next!

Can I ask why you think the cap from ~100 years ago is appropriate for the number of people per representative? Why do you think it should stay as is?

 

[Duck Dodgers]

Why isn't it appropriate? What's the advantage of having a Representative serving a smaller, and hence more uniform and less diverse population?

Burden is on the proponents to show why such a radical change is beneficial, not just "it's old, get rid of it", at the time the left wants to add DC and PR as states, plus add somewhere between 4 and 17 new seats to the Supreme Court, if only they could. Sounds fishy to me, and most likely, an attempt to expand the House to their benefit.

I would assume also it's very difficult for the leaders of the House to work with all their members as is - you'd have 190-230 members on your side you'd have to try to remember the names of, where they're from, what they care about. Then you increase it by hundreds more? Sounds foolish, and more gamesmanship.

We have significant problems in this country - can't pay our bills except by borrowing more money, can't control out borders, can't win a war in the last 75 years. None of those are solved by having a House of R's with 1843 members.

 

[bystander]

Basically, it's a state's right issue. Period. The end. The electoral college ensures every state has representation on some level. All this talk about packing the court or changing the make-up of the House is a pure power grab by a pack of liars.

That's my 100% opinion.

We are not a true Democracy THANK GOD. We have checks and balances all over the place. The jig is up. The Left is full of totalitarian socialists who cancel people for the most minor of FREE SPEECH. Democracy exists at local levels and at the state level. But at the federal level where FULL POWER WOULD GUARANTEE ABSOLUTE OPPRESSION, IT MUST BE DESIGNED FOR CHECKS AND BALANCES.

And that was all caps so you don't have to put your glasses on just like John Hancock said about King George.

 

[Duck Dodgers]

Yeah, expanding the House is major tinkering of the Legislative Branch. The devil would be in the details as to which party it benefited, you know it would benefit one or the other. Too much of a risk to an already problem filled country and government. Plenty of other, more important issues than this trivial one.

 

[bystander]

Yeah, expanding the House is major tinkering of the Legislative Branch. The devil would be in the details as to which party it benefited, you know it would benefit one or the other. Too much of a risk to an already problem filled country and government. Plenty of other, more important issues than this trivial one.

There's no need to change it. The results prove we have the right system. Biden is President. He can assert what is Constitutionally in his power. Executive Orders are to be administrative PERIOD.

They lost seats in the House but still have the power to abuse as evidenced by the impeachment. Hopefully the Senate will remain Republican.

The results stunned the Democrats. That is why they are now attacking the Constitution. NEVER BELIEVE A WORD FROM THESE LIARS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION. They hate it because it is doing precisely what it was intended to do:

CONSTRICT FEDERAL AND PARTY POWER.

 

[Horns11]

There's no need to change it. The results prove we have the right system. Biden is President. He can assert what is Constitutionally in his power. Executive Orders are to be administrative PERIOD.

They lost seats in the House but still have the power to abuse as evidenced by the impeachment. Hopefully the Senate will remain Republican.

The results stunned the Democrats. That is why they are now attacking the Constitution. NEVER BELIEVE A WORD FROM THESE LIARS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION. They hate it because it is doing precisely what it was intended to do:

CONSTRICT FEDERAL AND PARTY POWER.

The total number of members in the HoR is not a Constitutional issue. It has always been the purview of Congress, and they capped it well before we were all born because it benefited them politically at the time. And like I said in the OP, my primary concern is not the Electoral College. I did the math, and the percent of EVs that went to either candidate would be within 1 percent of what it ended up at with 538 instead of 765 (1 rep per 500K ppl).

But keep telling me what's in the Constitution.

 

[bystander]

The total number of members in the HoR is not a Constitutional issue. It has always been the purview of Congress, and they capped it well before we were all born because it benefited them politically at the time. And like I said in the OP, my primary concern is not the Electoral College. I did the math, and the percent of EVs that went to either candidate would be within 1 percent of what it ended up at with 538 instead of 765 (1 rep per 500K ppl).

But keep telling me what's in the Constitution.

You're right, I was sloppy on this one.

 

[Monahorns]

What's the advantage of having a Representative serving a smaller, and hence more uniform and less diverse population?

That is the whole point Duck. You want reps to better represent their constituents. That is virtually impossible when the constiuents all have different view points. Of course everyone does when you get to large numbers of people.

So the idea is that to truly represent a group that group HAS to be sufficiently small and similar for it to work. What we have today doesn't work.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I also think having the House more decentralized will lessen the stranglehold of the 2 parties on our elections. Having all the politicians spending more of their time in D.C. allows the parties (R&D) to maintain the control.

 

[Horns11]

I also think having the House more decentralized will lessen the stranglehold of the 2 parties on our elections. Having all the politicians spending more of their time in D.C. allows the parties (R&D) to maintain the control.

Yeah, I could see it become more like a "New England" style where a bunch of Independents run as foils to "the man," whether liberal or conservative, in many new and smaller districts. It's a lot easier to get the word out when you're focusing on a smaller geographic and/or demographic area. Money would seem to be less of an issue for campaigning if you actually knew your constituents instead of campaigning against the other guy by calling him the devil.

The longer we sit on the 435 cap, the more likely it is to have to elect some kind of rich demagogue who represents the lobbyists from the largest city/metro in the district. Montana is already at 1 per 1MM (at least until redistricting). I think the founders would have balked at the idea of 80x the population of 1790 but only 7x the representatives as 1790. I think there's a happy medium.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Yeah, I could see it become more like a "New England" style where a bunch of Independents run as foils to "the man," whether liberal or conservative, in many new and smaller districts. It's a lot easier to get the word out when you're focusing on a smaller geographic and/or demographic area. Money would seem to be less of an issue for campaigning if you actually knew your constituents instead of campaigning against the other guy by calling him the devil.

The longer we sit on the 435 cap, the more likely it is to have to elect some kind of rich demagogue who represents the lobbyists from the largest city/metro in the district. Montana is already at 1 per 1MM (at least until redistricting). I think the founders would have balked at the idea of 80x the population of 1790 but only 7x the representatives as 1790. I think there's a happy medium.

Honestly, the large representation also allows money to decide these elections. It take a healthy amount of money to win over a constituency of 750k. 100k or even 50k is much more achievable for a non-monied candidate.