6 ms·

The issue is not with the Electoral College, but with the artificial limit on the House of Representatives. The limit of 435 Reps skews the numbers. House of R

by jmclnx 4y ago

The issue is not with the Electoral College, but with the artificial limit on the House of Representatives. The limit of 435 Reps skews the numbers. House of Representatives is suppose to be 1 Rep per a fixed number of people. But Congress put a hard limit of 435, that means Small States have more people per Rep than Large States. For example, Wyoming has 1 Rep for 480900 people. California has 1 rep per 736000 people. To be fair and agree with the original intent of the US Constitution, California should have about 82 Reps instead of 53. Texas for that matter should really have 52 Reps instead of 36 has it as now. The way it is now it has one rep per 700279 people. Fixing that limit should solve a lot of problems

google234123 4y ago
Is this really a big deal? There are just a few states with a few reps that have a slightly lower ratio than average. Seems like a nothing burger to me. Fixing this would solve 0 problems anyway from what I see. Please name a single issue that would be solved if there were, idk, 470 reps instead of 435?
- taylodl 4y ago
  Yes. It really is a big deal. Each representative now represents differing amounts of people. If you're a resident of California or Texas your amount of representation is diminished. Conservatives love to point out that America isn't a democracy but is a Representative Republic - but even that is skewed because not everybody has equal amounts of representation. Your demand for a single issue that would be resolved if everybody had equal representation is simply a red herring.
  - google234123 4y ago
    I don't worry about wether my representative has +/- 3% representation compared to some other random state. Again, there are just a few small states with small population that have increased representation. Overall, I bet adding more people to the house would actually make the political process much worse. If you actually cared about this, getting a better census estimate would be the first step since that's currently helping democrats quite a bit.
- ryathal 4y ago
  Yes it really is a big deal, and it would require a pretty significant increase in the size of the House of Representatives. The increase would need to be in the range of 690-900 to really see any effect tough. What this does is reduce the power of lobbying as each rep is now roughly half as valuable, but a lobbyist can't really see and work with twice as many reps. More reps also further reduces the chance that electoral college and popular vote ever differ. The power of money in elections would also be reduced simply due to the massive increase in people seeking funds compared to the amount of money available to raise for elections.
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    > but a lobbyist can't really see and work with twice as many reps Wait, what? Is there a constitutional cap on the total number of lobbyists that I wasn't aware of?
frankbreetz 4y ago
Why not just take it a step further and get rid of the Senate? The Senate is a far worse democratic representation.
- taylodl 4y ago
  The Senate represents the state, the House of Representatives represent the people. Each state had an equal voice - 2 senators, just like the people were to have an equal voice (same number of people per representative). The people no longer have equal representation. That's a problem.
  - frankbreetz 4y ago
    Doesn't the existence of the Senate make people having equal representation a near impossibility?
    - jrs235 4y ago
      The Senate was equal representation for each State (Government). The House was representation for the People.
      - jrs235 4y ago
        Replying to my own comment... the Senate represents the States who are the parties bound by the laws of the U.S. Government. The House represents the People who would ultimately have to pay (taxes) to fund the U.S. Government. Other than direct crimes against the U.S. Government (think treason) U.S. laws were not meant to apply directly to people, just states. The 14th Amendment created the U.S. Citizen (as opposed to citizens of a state) which was/is a subject of the U.S. Government and is why/how the U.S. Government laws now get applied directly to people.
- koheripbal 4y ago
  Because then small states would have little reason to remain in the union. Maine, Alaska, Hawaii... what's the point of being a far-off-forgotten small population state to a superpower if the other neighboring nation is offering better protection of my interests? The Senate was designed to ensure that even small states had their interests represented and not drowned out in the tyranny of the majority. The Senate was specifically designed to prevent the challenges faced by the late Roman empire which was constantly putting down far-off remote provincial rebellions. They had to constantly move whole armies from one side of the empire to another putting down one rebellion after another - often supported by the neighboring unfriendly nation. Without the Senate, Russia would have had a much easier time starting "independence" movements in Alaska during the Cold War.
ProjectArcturis 4y ago
Originally the Constitution specified one Rep per 30,000 people. I wonder what government would be like if we had 10,000 representatives?
- koheripbal 4y ago
  There has to be a maximum to the number of people that you can collect into one chamber and conduct a fruitful debate/meeting. I wonder if 435 is already too high. Putting aside the other issues with the US Senate - they do seem to have more effective discourse in the chamber and on the sub-committees.
  - ProjectArcturis 4y ago
    Why do they have to fit into one chamber? And, IMO, fruitful debate has not been a feature of Congress during my lifetime. Logistically, each party would choose its leadership, and the House as a whole would choose a Speaker. They would handle the nuts and bolts of when and what legislation would come up for a vote. It would be interesting to have a lot more granularity in representation -- you'd certainly have reps from the Greens and the Libertarians, along with any number of other parties that were suddenly viable.
  - NoblePublius 4y ago
    I guess you’ve never been to a super bowl.
    - tablespoon 4y ago
      >> There has to be a maximum to the number of people that you can collect into one chamber and conduct a fruitful debate/meeting. > I guess you’ve never been to a super bowl. Superbowl attendees are spectators, not participants. The issue isn't collecting together a large number of people in one area, but having all those people participate in a meeting together.
      - NoblePublius 4y ago

by jmclnx 4y ago

google234123 4y ago

Is this really a big deal? There are just a few states with a few reps that have a slightly lower ratio than average. Seems like a nothing burger to me. Fixing this would solve 0 problems anyway from what I see. Please name a single issue that would be solved if there were, idk, 470 reps instead of 435?

taylodl 4y ago
Yes. It really is a big deal. Each representative now represents differing amounts of people. If you're a resident of California or Texas your amount of representation is diminished. Conservatives love to point out that America isn't a democracy but is a Representative Republic - but even that is skewed because not everybody has equal amounts of representation. Your demand for a single issue that would be resolved if everybody had equal representation is simply a red herring.
- google234123 4y ago
  I don't worry about wether my representative has +/- 3% representation compared to some other random state. Again, there are just a few small states with small population that have increased representation. Overall, I bet adding more people to the house would actually make the political process much worse. If you actually cared about this, getting a better census estimate would be the first step since that's currently helping democrats quite a bit.
ryathal 4y ago
Yes it really is a big deal, and it would require a pretty significant increase in the size of the House of Representatives. The increase would need to be in the range of 690-900 to really see any effect tough. What this does is reduce the power of lobbying as each rep is now roughly half as valuable, but a lobbyist can't really see and work with twice as many reps. More reps also further reduces the chance that electoral college and popular vote ever differ. The power of money in elections would also be reduced simply due to the massive increase in people seeking funds compared to the amount of money available to raise for elections.
- ethbr0 4y ago
  > but a lobbyist can't really see and work with twice as many reps Wait, what? Is there a constitutional cap on the total number of lobbyists that I wasn't aware of?

frankbreetz 4y ago

Why not just take it a step further and get rid of the Senate? The Senate is a far worse democratic representation.

taylodl 4y ago
The Senate represents the state, the House of Representatives represent the people. Each state had an equal voice - 2 senators, just like the people were to have an equal voice (same number of people per representative). The people no longer have equal representation. That's a problem.
- frankbreetz 4y ago
  Doesn't the existence of the Senate make people having equal representation a near impossibility?
  - jrs235 4y ago
    The Senate was equal representation for each State (Government). The House was representation for the People.
    - jrs235 4y ago
      Replying to my own comment... the Senate represents the States who are the parties bound by the laws of the U.S. Government. The House represents the People who would ultimately have to pay (taxes) to fund the U.S. Government. Other than direct crimes against the U.S. Government (think treason) U.S. laws were not meant to apply directly to people, just states. The 14th Amendment created the U.S. Citizen (as opposed to citizens of a state) which was/is a subject of the U.S. Government and is why/how the U.S. Government laws now get applied directly to people.
koheripbal 4y ago
Because then small states would have little reason to remain in the union. Maine, Alaska, Hawaii... what's the point of being a far-off-forgotten small population state to a superpower if the other neighboring nation is offering better protection of my interests? The Senate was designed to ensure that even small states had their interests represented and not drowned out in the tyranny of the majority. The Senate was specifically designed to prevent the challenges faced by the late Roman empire which was constantly putting down far-off remote provincial rebellions. They had to constantly move whole armies from one side of the empire to another putting down one rebellion after another - often supported by the neighboring unfriendly nation. Without the Senate, Russia would have had a much easier time starting "independence" movements in Alaska during the Cold War.

ProjectArcturis 4y ago

Originally the Constitution specified one Rep per 30,000 people. I wonder what government would be like if we had 10,000 representatives?

koheripbal 4y ago
There has to be a maximum to the number of people that you can collect into one chamber and conduct a fruitful debate/meeting. I wonder if 435 is already too high. Putting aside the other issues with the US Senate - they do seem to have more effective discourse in the chamber and on the sub-committees.
- ProjectArcturis 4y ago
  Why do they have to fit into one chamber? And, IMO, fruitful debate has not been a feature of Congress during my lifetime. Logistically, each party would choose its leadership, and the House as a whole would choose a Speaker. They would handle the nuts and bolts of when and what legislation would come up for a vote. It would be interesting to have a lot more granularity in representation -- you'd certainly have reps from the Greens and the Libertarians, along with any number of other parties that were suddenly viable.
- NoblePublius 4y ago
  I guess you’ve never been to a super bowl.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    >> There has to be a maximum to the number of people that you can collect into one chamber and conduct a fruitful debate/meeting. > I guess you’ve never been to a super bowl. Superbowl attendees are spectators, not participants. The issue isn't collecting together a large number of people in one area, but having all those people participate in a meeting together.
    - NoblePublius 4y ago