3 ms·
More than half the states don't have 10 House members, so this is impossible without a massive Constitutional change.
by alistairSH 4y ago
More than half the states don't have 10 House members, so this is impossible without a massive Constitutional change.
- pavlov 4y agoWell, ten or the maximum available, in which case the whole state must be a single district. (States with 11-19 seats would also have to be a single district since they wouldn’t be allowed to create districts smaller than ten. The specific number 10 is of course arbitrary, I didn’t think about it at any length.)
- smegger001 4y agothat is entirely a self inflicted hurdle, the law used to be there was to be one representative for every 30,000 persons, but then in 1929 congress passed the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, fixing the number of representatives at 435. if we had stuck with the original we would have 11,080 representatives. technically speaking the only barrier to this is repealing that act, that and building a much larger capital building
- alistairSH 4y agoTrue enough, it's not strictly a Constitutional problem (we don't need an amendment). But going from 435 to >10,000 House members is a massive change. I've long though that pegging House districts at the population of the smallest state was a reasonable middle ground. That would put us at 571 members instead of 435.