4 ms·
Just remove the limit of 435, increase it to the point were 300,000 people or so per district. That is what was originally intended. If we end up with a 2000
by jmclnx 9y ago
Just remove the limit of 435, increase it to the point were 300,000 people or so per district. That is what was originally intended. If we end up with a 2000 member congress so be it. That would provide better representation and make it very difficult to gerrymander.
While I am on a roll, peg there total salary including gifts and benefits to the State average they are from. Salary to be paid by the state as opposed to the federal gov.
- dragonwriter 9y ago> If we end up with a 2000 member congress so be it. That would provide better representation and make it very difficult to gerrymander. It wouldn't make it any more difficult to gerrymander (more districts, except in the pathological edge case of 1 voter per district) makes it easier to gerrymander (and easier to do it with reasonably compact districts rather than oddly shaped monstrosities they draw attention.) You make it more difficult to gerrymander if you increase the number of seats per district, not if you increase the number of districts. It also (because of organizational dynamics that are not scale independent) would reduce equality of effective representation, because it would increase power inequality within the House.
- fred_is_fred 9y agoWhile it seems fun to cut Congressional salary doing so effectively only means that rich people (richer than they already are) can be in Congress.