2 ms·
The population of the UK is about 67 million. The House of Commons is the major legislative body and it is comprised of 650 members. That's roughly 1 member pe
by bena 4y ago
The population of the UK is about 67 million. The House of Commons is the major legislative body and it is comprised of 650 members.
That's roughly 1 member per 100,000 people. You know your member. Parliament is dissolved every 5 years. So elections are pretty regular, but not overwhelming.
There's a House of Lords, but they seem to have far less power. The work of Parliament gets done in the Commons.
The main legislative body of the US is Congress, comprising of the Senate and the House of Representatives. There are 100 Senators and 435 Representatives. The US has roughly 330 million people. So about 5 times the population being represented by more than 100 fewer people.
Senators are a little weird. They serve for 6 years but about a third of them are up for election every two years. And never two from the same state. So a Senator is either on Cycle 1, Cycle 2, or Cycle 3. So every 2 to 4 years, a state gets to choose one person to represent the entire state in one of the houses of Congress.
Then for Representatives, all of them are up for reelection every two years. As soon as they are sworn in, they're already thinking about reelection. And the number of representatives are set by the Census taken every 10 years. Right now, California has 53 representatives for 39 million people. About half the population of the UK, but being represented by under a tenth.
So in the US, politicians are more akin to personalities than actual people. We essentially elect brands, not people.
- lostlogin 4y ago> Senators are a little weird. The whole system is weird. Why is a vote in one state more powerful than a vote in another?
- bena 4y agoI personally have become a fan of the Wyoming Rule for the House. That seems fair without getting into crazy sizes. I mean, if the US had representation in the same proportion as the UK, they'd have roughly 3300 representatives. The town I grew up currently has a population of 1500. So I can see why we wouldn't do that.
- lostlogin 4y agoThat’s not the problem though. Having an elected member represent a larger number of people is fine. However having a rural candidate represent less voters than an urban candidate is terrible. Wherever you vote it should be worth the same. The system hasn’t kept pace with demographic changes. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/31/u-s-population-keeps-growing-but-house-of-representatives-is-same-size-as-in-taft-era/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/31/u-s-populat...