4 ms·

A couple interesting references in this article- - The constitutional debate with Elbridge Gerry (MA), the name behind Gerrymandering - The proposal to increa

A couple interesting references in this article- - The constitutional debate with Elbridge Gerry (MA), the name behind Gerrymandering - The proposal to increase the size of the House of Representatives from one representative for every 40,000 people to one for every 30,000, which if continued today would make it much harder to gerrymander, among other things.

bobthepanda 2y ago
Right now it’s not even one for every 40,000. The size of the house is capped at 435 by an act of Congress. One for every 40,000 might be overkill given that would result in 8,500 reps in the House.
- kiba 2y ago
  I am not sure if that's overkill. It might be a logistical issue with the current building though. 1 per 40,0000 is like the mayor of a town.
  - saulpw 2y ago
    What if it were a two-tiered system, in which 8500 local representatives elected their set of ~435 national representatives?
    - kiba 2y ago
      I am not sure why you think thousand of representatives are inherently difficult to manage.
      - BuyMyBitcoins 2y ago
        Consider that for each representative you add, each individual representative becomes less influential and has fewer opportunities to affect change. While I do believe the house should be larger, perhaps 600 representatives, once the house gets too large you simply won’t be able to allocate speaking time on the floor in a reasonable way. The house would organize itself around voting blocs and certain representatives would naturally end up exercising an undue amount of sway because they control those blocs. With each individual representative having much less influence, they’d have no choice but to gang together to try and achieve something.
        relaxing 2y ago
        Floor time isn’t all that important. The important work is done in committee anyway (or in back rooms with lobbyists, but with 10x the representatives to lobby the value proposition there shifts a bit.)
        School-Cotton 2y ago
        This is how every functioning democracy already works. The blocs are called political parties. Almost everyone chooses who to vote for based on which party best matches their ideology, not based on the individual candidate who happens to be endorsed by the party in their congressional district. So it’s not obvious why it’d be bad to decrease the influence of these individuals and increase the influence of parties.
        unethical_ban 2y ago
        Agreed. Political parties are natural; what is not natural is our voting system that limits is to two realistic options.
        School-Cotton 2y ago
        Definitely. In functioning systems, parties splitting and merging is very common, and there are many different parties represented in parliament.
        EasyMark 2y ago
        they aren't supposed to be influential, they are supposed to vote on laws.
    - unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
      You're almost describing the Senate as originally configured.[1] [1] https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/electing-appointing-senators.htm https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/electing-ap...
    - slt2021 2y ago
      you are describing China's political system
- readthenotes1 2y ago
  A friend of mine suggested that one for every 40,000 would be exactly the right amount of representation. Not only would there be much more accurate representation, and much more accountable representation, it would also be much more difficult to bribe enough
  - vkou 2y ago
    The reps actively seek bribes, because they need campaign warchests. Whether there are 8,000 of them, or 400, that dynamic isn't going to change. Also, at the moment the problem isn't bribes, the problem is that the tail is wagging the dog, and the Party will destroy anyone in it who dares to push back on the glorious leader.
    - unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
      I would put it like this-- politics is a business. Being good at that business sometimes is simply about vilifying your opponents or taking stubborn uncompromising positions on issues that cry out for cross-aisle collaboration. When you brag about it in podcasts and mailers, people send you money, and that is good business, regardless of public policy.
      - vkou 2y ago
        None of that matters when the king wants your head for crossing him. When given the choice between opposing Trump and making bad choices in governance, the people who did the former all lost their jobs, while the people who did the latter were all rewarded. And that's how you get the current congressional crop.
    - bobthepanda 2y ago
      I actually think the advantage is that it is significantly more realistic to fund a campaign for a 40,000 size seat than a couple hundred thousand, so it’s easier to have upstart campaigns from third parties.
      - 2y ago
- linguae 2y ago
  This is very interesting to think about, though. What if there were many more representatives? It doesn't have to be one for every 40,000, but suppose there were 2,000 representatives. Of course there are logistical challenges to increasing the number of representatives, such as needing an increased budget for legislators' salaries, as well as having sufficient space for all of the legislators to meet. I do see potential benefits to having more representatives, though I'm not a political scientist and these may just be educated guesses and aspirational hopes: 1. Since each representative's constituency would be smaller, we may see a greater mix of political reviews reflected in the House of Representatives, since larger constituencies may have an "averaging" effect. 2. It may be harder for special interests to exert their influence on 2,000 representatives compared to 435. Simultaneously, it may be easier for everyday people to influence their representatives since each district is smaller in population. Consider the impact somebody living in a small town has on government there, compared to someone living in a large city. 3. Related to #2, it may be harder for political parties to impose their will on representatives since they have a lot more people they have to influence. 4. If there were more opportunities for everyday people to serve as elected officials, then perhaps people may feel more invested in their government rather than seeing government as a distant entity that runs counter to the well-being of society. This could serve as an effective counter to the disaffectedness we see in modern American society. Once again, though, these are just educated guesses.
- ianburrell 2y ago
  There has been observation of the number of representatives in many legislatures follow cube root of population. For US population, the ideal number would be 693 representatives. That would be close to 500,000 people per district.
  - EasyMark 2y ago
    ~1000 would seem like a logical next step, would take out some of the money too.
IncreasePosts 2y ago
We have legislated racial gerrymandering which that would do nothing to combat. The simple fix against gerrymandering is to get rid of the concept of districts and just let people vote on house members at the state level, and have enough representatives that one populous locale couldn't dominate the reps
- klipt 2y ago
  Proportional representation as used by many parliamentary democracies solves gerrymandering.
  - EasyMark 2y ago
    It doesn't solve it, but it does make it much more difficult and should allow a 3rd party to get some power and possibly even a 4th one. I can see the republicans easily have a split of MAGA off as its own thing as more republicans grow disillusioned with the current chaos and thuggery.
- dogsgobork 2y ago
  I would think that majority-minority districts would arise more naturally with smaller districts. Currently the average district covers over three quarters of a million people, more than the population of Seattle. Something like fifty thousand people per district would give the neighborhood of Harlem in NYC four representatives.

bobthepanda 2y ago

Right now it’s not even one for every 40,000. The size of the house is capped at 435 by an act of Congress. One for every 40,000 might be overkill given that would result in 8,500 reps in the House.

kiba 2y ago
I am not sure if that's overkill. It might be a logistical issue with the current building though. 1 per 40,0000 is like the mayor of a town.
- saulpw 2y ago
  What if it were a two-tiered system, in which 8500 local representatives elected their set of ~435 national representatives?
  - kiba 2y ago
    I am not sure why you think thousand of representatives are inherently difficult to manage.
    - BuyMyBitcoins 2y ago
      Consider that for each representative you add, each individual representative becomes less influential and has fewer opportunities to affect change. While I do believe the house should be larger, perhaps 600 representatives, once the house gets too large you simply won’t be able to allocate speaking time on the floor in a reasonable way. The house would organize itself around voting blocs and certain representatives would naturally end up exercising an undue amount of sway because they control those blocs. With each individual representative having much less influence, they’d have no choice but to gang together to try and achieve something.
      - relaxing 2y ago
        Floor time isn’t all that important. The important work is done in committee anyway (or in back rooms with lobbyists, but with 10x the representatives to lobby the value proposition there shifts a bit.)
      - School-Cotton 2y ago
        This is how every functioning democracy already works. The blocs are called political parties. Almost everyone chooses who to vote for based on which party best matches their ideology, not based on the individual candidate who happens to be endorsed by the party in their congressional district. So it’s not obvious why it’d be bad to decrease the influence of these individuals and increase the influence of parties.
        unethical_ban 2y ago
        Agreed. Political parties are natural; what is not natural is our voting system that limits is to two realistic options.
        School-Cotton 2y ago
        Definitely. In functioning systems, parties splitting and merging is very common, and there are many different parties represented in parliament.
      - EasyMark 2y ago
        they aren't supposed to be influential, they are supposed to vote on laws.
  - unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
    You're almost describing the Senate as originally configured.[1] [1] https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/electing-appointing-senators.htm https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/electing-ap...
  - slt2021 2y ago
    you are describing China's political system
readthenotes1 2y ago
A friend of mine suggested that one for every 40,000 would be exactly the right amount of representation. Not only would there be much more accurate representation, and much more accountable representation, it would also be much more difficult to bribe enough
- vkou 2y ago
  The reps actively seek bribes, because they need campaign warchests. Whether there are 8,000 of them, or 400, that dynamic isn't going to change. Also, at the moment the problem isn't bribes, the problem is that the tail is wagging the dog, and the Party will destroy anyone in it who dares to push back on the glorious leader.
  - unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
    I would put it like this-- politics is a business. Being good at that business sometimes is simply about vilifying your opponents or taking stubborn uncompromising positions on issues that cry out for cross-aisle collaboration. When you brag about it in podcasts and mailers, people send you money, and that is good business, regardless of public policy.
    - vkou 2y ago
      None of that matters when the king wants your head for crossing him. When given the choice between opposing Trump and making bad choices in governance, the people who did the former all lost their jobs, while the people who did the latter were all rewarded. And that's how you get the current congressional crop.
  - bobthepanda 2y ago
    I actually think the advantage is that it is significantly more realistic to fund a campaign for a 40,000 size seat than a couple hundred thousand, so it’s easier to have upstart campaigns from third parties.
    - 2y ago
linguae 2y ago
This is very interesting to think about, though. What if there were many more representatives? It doesn't have to be one for every 40,000, but suppose there were 2,000 representatives. Of course there are logistical challenges to increasing the number of representatives, such as needing an increased budget for legislators' salaries, as well as having sufficient space for all of the legislators to meet. I do see potential benefits to having more representatives, though I'm not a political scientist and these may just be educated guesses and aspirational hopes: 1. Since each representative's constituency would be smaller, we may see a greater mix of political reviews reflected in the House of Representatives, since larger constituencies may have an "averaging" effect. 2. It may be harder for special interests to exert their influence on 2,000 representatives compared to 435. Simultaneously, it may be easier for everyday people to influence their representatives since each district is smaller in population. Consider the impact somebody living in a small town has on government there, compared to someone living in a large city. 3. Related to #2, it may be harder for political parties to impose their will on representatives since they have a lot more people they have to influence. 4. If there were more opportunities for everyday people to serve as elected officials, then perhaps people may feel more invested in their government rather than seeing government as a distant entity that runs counter to the well-being of society. This could serve as an effective counter to the disaffectedness we see in modern American society. Once again, though, these are just educated guesses.
ianburrell 2y ago
There has been observation of the number of representatives in many legislatures follow cube root of population. For US population, the ideal number would be 693 representatives. That would be close to 500,000 people per district.
- EasyMark 2y ago
  ~1000 would seem like a logical next step, would take out some of the money too.

IncreasePosts 2y ago

We have legislated racial gerrymandering which that would do nothing to combat. The simple fix against gerrymandering is to get rid of the concept of districts and just let people vote on house members at the state level, and have enough representatives that one populous locale couldn't dominate the reps

klipt 2y ago
Proportional representation as used by many parliamentary democracies solves gerrymandering.
- EasyMark 2y ago
  It doesn't solve it, but it does make it much more difficult and should allow a 3rd party to get some power and possibly even a 4th one. I can see the republicans easily have a split of MAGA off as its own thing as more republicans grow disillusioned with the current chaos and thuggery.
dogsgobork 2y ago
I would think that majority-minority districts would arise more naturally with smaller districts. Currently the average district covers over three quarters of a million people, more than the population of Seattle. Something like fifty thousand people per district would give the neighborhood of Harlem in NYC four representatives.