3 ms·

I’ve wondered if there would be less polarization if the number of representatives were not fixed at 435 but instead still fixed at 1 representative per 30000 c

I’ve wondered if there would be less polarization if the number of representatives were not fixed at 435 but instead still fixed at 1 representative per 30000 constituents. It was less than 100 years ago that that change was made: https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The-Permanent-Apportionment-Act-of-1929/ https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/Th... There would likely be more parties than two at least.

burlesona 4y ago
330M / 30k = 11k representatives. I actually don’t mind that idea, but we’d have to totally reinvent the way the house works if it were to operate that way. As far as voting on ideas that is fine, but the whole committee structure and how legislation is drafted would seem totally unworkable. An in between proposal I’ve heard is to adopt the so-called Wyoming rule and keep a fixed representation of 1 rep per population of <least populated state>. IIRC that would increase the house to around 700 reps, which would change things, but not require total reinvention.
Symmetry 4y ago
Catherine the great tried creating a constituent body for Russia with 10,000 representatives. It didn't go well and soured her on the whole prospect of democracy. Keeping assemblies within at least shouting distance of Dunbar's number seems to make them work much better in practice.