4 ms·

I've always felt that a simpler solution would be to just increase the number of representatives. In 1912 (the last time we added more), the US population was

I've always felt that a simpler solution would be to just increase the number of representatives. In 1912 (the last time we added more), the US population was ~90 million, and it's currently at around ~340 mil and we still have only 435 representatives. 1912: 1 rep per 20,000 people 2024: 1 rep per 780,000 people This doesn't "solve" gerrymandering but it does blunt the effectiveness of it (among hopefully some other positive effects.)

ajross 3y ago
You can gerrymander a tiny district just as easily as you can a giant one. Fundamentally it's just a software problem and modern computers are really fast.
jeffdn 3y ago
In 1912, that's 1 representative per 207,000 people.
- michaelbuckbee 3y ago
  Doh
Alpha3031 3y ago
You missed a zero with the 1921 figure, but it is an interesting question to consider: what exactly is the optimal size of a national assembly? Does it scale best to the square root or cube root of population? Or some other exponent? What are the constant factors? Do larger multi-regional blocs like the US and EU require different styles of representation, and if so does that change the scaling factors? The US could probably do with at least 600 though, minimum.
- jcranmer 3y ago
  > what exactly is the optimal size of a national assembly? This is indeed an interesting question, and I submit that the US is in an awkward state where the national assembly is simultaneously too large and too small. I've seen some statistics that suggest that assemblies tend to start degrading in quality when you get past 300 or so: you end up in a situation where too many members just have nothing to do. At the same time, it's almost certainly the case that the US House has too few members for them to be sufficiently responsive to their constituents.
whoopdedo 3y ago
I support increasing the legislature because it changes the economics of lobbying. Right now you can wine-and-dine half dozen representatives and lock in a vote. In a larger House the lobbyists would have to spend that much more to "buy" the same representation. The flaw is it doesn't mean anything so long as there's a 2-party system. Congress is stuck on part-line voting. Lobbyists only have to gain the favor of party leaders and the rest will follow. But one of the barriers to getting 3rd and 4th party candidates elected is there are too few seats that they can compete for. Both solutions need to be implemented together. An expanded Congress is only useful with a plurality of ideologies. Getting alternative parties into office requires more competitive districts. Doing only one of those wouldn't be enough to significantly change the makeup of Congress.

ajross 3y ago

You can gerrymander a tiny district just as easily as you can a giant one. Fundamentally it's just a software problem and modern computers are really fast.

jeffdn 3y ago

In 1912, that's 1 representative per 207,000 people.

michaelbuckbee 3y ago
Doh

Alpha3031 3y ago

You missed a zero with the 1921 figure, but it is an interesting question to consider: what exactly is the optimal size of a national assembly? Does it scale best to the square root or cube root of population? Or some other exponent? What are the constant factors? Do larger multi-regional blocs like the US and EU require different styles of representation, and if so does that change the scaling factors? The US could probably do with at least 600 though, minimum.

jcranmer 3y ago
> what exactly is the optimal size of a national assembly? This is indeed an interesting question, and I submit that the US is in an awkward state where the national assembly is simultaneously too large and too small. I've seen some statistics that suggest that assemblies tend to start degrading in quality when you get past 300 or so: you end up in a situation where too many members just have nothing to do. At the same time, it's almost certainly the case that the US House has too few members for them to be sufficiently responsive to their constituents.

whoopdedo 3y ago

I support increasing the legislature because it changes the economics of lobbying. Right now you can wine-and-dine half dozen representatives and lock in a vote. In a larger House the lobbyists would have to spend that much more to "buy" the same representation. The flaw is it doesn't mean anything so long as there's a 2-party system. Congress is stuck on part-line voting. Lobbyists only have to gain the favor of party leaders and the rest will follow. But one of the barriers to getting 3rd and 4th party candidates elected is there are too few seats that they can compete for. Both solutions need to be implemented together. An expanded Congress is only useful with a plurality of ideologies. Getting alternative parties into office requires more competitive districts. Doing only one of those wouldn't be enough to significantly change the makeup of Congress.