4 ms·

First, the number of House reps is no longer proportionate to the population. Yes they are. Each house district has about 750,000 people. You get a bit of devi

by harryh 7y ago

First, the number of House reps is no longer proportionate to the population. Yes they are. Each house district has about 750,000 people. You get a bit of deviation because states don't necessarily have a precise multiple of 750k people. Also we only redraw districts every 10 years, so things have drifted a bit since 2010. But it's pretty close.

coryrc 7y ago
I think they mean number of citizens per House rep, which is many times higher now.
- harryh 7y ago
  Ah, OK. Yes, that is definitely true. Wikipedia has a nice graph on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment#/media/File:US_population_per_representative.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_ap...
- rtkwe 7y ago
  It's also just that at the extremes we have house districts representing just over one million people and just over half a million people. 750k +/- 50% isn't great. https://247wallst.com/special-report/2018/10/26/americas-largest-and-smallest-voting-districts/ https://247wallst.com/special-report/2018/10/26/americas-lar...
dragonwriter 7y ago
> Each house district has about 750,000 people. It ranges quite a bit above and below that. (About half a million to a million is the range.)
- harryh 7y ago
  Indeed, according to: https://247wallst.com/special-report/2018/10/26/americas-largest-and-smallest-voting-districts/ https://247wallst.com/special-report/2018/10/26/americas-lar... the largest is Montana's at large district with 1,050,493 and the smallest is Rhode Island 2 with 520,389. I tried to find a full list but couldn't with a few minutes of Googling. I'm a little surprised that Wikipedia doesn't have a page on this. Perils of the fact that districts are confined to state borders so you've gotta round up or down for some states.
greggeter 7y ago
We should expand the number of reps to 1 per 100k. Would help much of the problems.
- big_chungus 7y ago
  You think adding more people to the room in an already-dissonant chamber will make thing more coherent? We moved to a modified republic precisely because a huge-scale town meeting isn't practical.
  - kbaker 7y ago
    There are a bunch of good arguments here: https://www.thirty-thousand.org/ https://www.thirty-thousand.org/
    - big_chungus 7y ago
      Hmm. I'd say the biggest argument I could see is that it would result in less stupid bills, e.g. fewer "bridges to nowhere". Maybe less federal bureaucracy. You probably shouldn't really be able to pass something if you can't convince at least 15,001 Americans. On the other hand, logistics would be an insane challenge, and you'd have a huge issue with the inability to have an actual in-person debate. Also, who wants to pay 30,000 people six figures a year? We'd have to stop paying them for it to be practical. For reference, the current wage is $174,000/yr (a stupidly-high amount). $174,000 * 30,000 = $5,220,000,000. I'm severely disinclined to pay over five billion dollars per year (plus additional logistics costs) for pencil-pushers to sit around deliberating what bureaucratic idiocy they will next hand down from on high.
      - rtkwe 7y ago
        As a counter argument I say the place to skimp out on payment isn't in the people making our democracy 30k is a bit OTT in my opinion but 5 billion isn't that much in the grand scheme of the US budget coming in at just .1% of our current spending.
  - 7y ago

by harryh 7y ago

coryrc 7y ago

I think they mean number of citizens per House rep, which is many times higher now.

harryh 7y ago
Ah, OK. Yes, that is definitely true. Wikipedia has a nice graph on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment#/media/File:US_population_per_representative.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_ap...
rtkwe 7y ago
It's also just that at the extremes we have house districts representing just over one million people and just over half a million people. 750k +/- 50% isn't great. https://247wallst.com/special-report/2018/10/26/americas-largest-and-smallest-voting-districts/ https://247wallst.com/special-report/2018/10/26/americas-lar...

dragonwriter 7y ago

> Each house district has about 750,000 people. It ranges quite a bit above and below that. (About half a million to a million is the range.)

harryh 7y ago
Indeed, according to: https://247wallst.com/special-report/2018/10/26/americas-largest-and-smallest-voting-districts/ https://247wallst.com/special-report/2018/10/26/americas-lar... the largest is Montana's at large district with 1,050,493 and the smallest is Rhode Island 2 with 520,389. I tried to find a full list but couldn't with a few minutes of Googling. I'm a little surprised that Wikipedia doesn't have a page on this. Perils of the fact that districts are confined to state borders so you've gotta round up or down for some states.

greggeter 7y ago

We should expand the number of reps to 1 per 100k. Would help much of the problems.

big_chungus 7y ago
You think adding more people to the room in an already-dissonant chamber will make thing more coherent? We moved to a modified republic precisely because a huge-scale town meeting isn't practical.
- kbaker 7y ago
  There are a bunch of good arguments here: https://www.thirty-thousand.org/ https://www.thirty-thousand.org/
  - big_chungus 7y ago
    Hmm. I'd say the biggest argument I could see is that it would result in less stupid bills, e.g. fewer "bridges to nowhere". Maybe less federal bureaucracy. You probably shouldn't really be able to pass something if you can't convince at least 15,001 Americans. On the other hand, logistics would be an insane challenge, and you'd have a huge issue with the inability to have an actual in-person debate. Also, who wants to pay 30,000 people six figures a year? We'd have to stop paying them for it to be practical. For reference, the current wage is $174,000/yr (a stupidly-high amount). $174,000 * 30,000 = $5,220,000,000. I'm severely disinclined to pay over five billion dollars per year (plus additional logistics costs) for pencil-pushers to sit around deliberating what bureaucratic idiocy they will next hand down from on high.
    - rtkwe 7y ago
      As a counter argument I say the place to skimp out on payment isn't in the people making our democracy 30k is a bit OTT in my opinion but 5 billion isn't that much in the grand scheme of the US budget coming in at just .1% of our current spending.
- 7y ago