2 ms·
If they removed the 435-member limit on the House and instead had the originally-recommended proportion of voters to reps we'd end up with 5k reps or something
by triceratops 4y ago
If they removed the 435-member limit on the House and instead had the originally-recommended proportion of voters to reps we'd end up with 5k reps or something like that. A state's electoral college votes is the sum of its house representation + 2 (senators). So this would also make the electoral college somewhat more representative, as larger population states gain more EC votes.
- LordKeren 4y agoYes, this is the most fair solution if you’re looking to have a presidential election outcome more likely to represent how people actually voted. But 5000 is arbitrary— and the more you add, the closer the number is to how people actually voted So just set the number equal to the amount of votes cast by individual citizens then rebrand it to something like “the popular vote”
- triceratops 4y agoThat would require a constitutional amendment, which is basically impossible for this change (no small state would ever agree). Increasing the size of the House of Representatives would not.
- phpisthebest 4y agoThe best reform would be the Wyoming Rule, that says that the standard representative-to-population ratio would be that of the smallest state, under such a model the House would be 573 Members instead of 435