4 ms·

I agree that there has to be some ceiling. We don't need that many politicians on the payroll. It looks like the current method of apportionment is as fair as y

I agree that there has to be some ceiling. We don't need that many politicians on the payroll. It looks like the current method of apportionment is as fair as you can reasonably expect (Huntington–Hill). The problem is that each state needs at least one representative, so it's impossible to give California the same representatives per-population as Delaware unless you you give Delaware a fraction of 1 or increase the total representatives. I wonder if having 2 per state like the Senate would work, but then you could weigh each of those votes in proportion to the representative's state population.

divided 4y ago
This is an interesting concept. Put the vote multiplier on the backside instead of the front. The Wyoming rep gets 1 vote, but the California rep gets 1.8, etc. This would allow for smaller bodies for more effective debate and you’d give smaller population territories over-representative expression in those debates, but you’d tie the outcomes to be proportional to the populations each representative represents. I think this is a clever way to keep a cap on a parliamentary body’s size while allowing for more egalitarian representation. Wouldn’t help combat the other problems of a capped body size (worsening gerrymandering, for example), but it’d be a step in the right direction.