Election Season is when Democrats act like Republicans . . .

[Cthulhu85]

I don't know how that relates to more members? The House was always the democratic part of government, elected by direct vote of the people.

In the 1st House, Maryland had 6 representatives. They have 8 today. Those 8 represent many many more people in a much more complex federal state. Just dealing as ombudsman with VA, IRS, SBA, etc, is no longer close to possible. These House members are far more insulated from the people than that founding era. The people's house ain't as the average congressman spends 6-8 hours per day fundraising.

The House was the People's House, the Senate was basically the House of Lords where the well-connected wealthy resided. We did change how they got elected, but who occupies it is still the more well-heeled.

And of course our House members have stopped going out and talking to their constituents.

I have no problem with adding house seats. We should probably have 1000.

The senate should be left as is. Actually should go back to states appointing senators and not direct election. The purpose of the senate was/is to represent states at the federal level.

It was a compromise to let less populous states have equal representation.

Democrats want more senators because they want one party rule.

 

[hoot1]

I don’t think competitive districts is the primary objective. Common interests among constituencies is more important in my view.

Common interests among constituentcies as to problems facing them is important.

What upsets me is when the pols would rather pontificate on the problems than find common ground with the other pols representing various constituencies and pass legislation to actually deal with the problem.

Case in point, long overdue immigration reform to deal with asylum seekers.

 

[larsIU]

I don’t think competitive districts is the primary objective. Common interests among constituencies is more important in my view.

Chicken/egg
Egg/chicken

760,000 is not manageable. And that number is only going to keep growing.

3 states have few than 760,000 people total. I think a good start would be saying that at the last census whatever the smallest state population is, is the max per rep constituency. In 2020 that was Wyoming with approx. 580,000.

Why do these three states get to be overrepresented in the House?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Chicken/egg
Egg/chicken


3 states have few than 760,000 people total. I think a good start would be saying that at the last census whatever the smallest state population is, is the max per rep constituency. In 2020 that was Wyoming with approx. 580,000.

Why do these three states get to be overrepresented in the House?

I would set the average district to the smallest state and figure how large the House should be from that.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I would set the average district to the smallest state and figure how large the House should be from that.

If you set it at Wyoming, with 576K or so, what do you do with an edge case like the Dakotas, which have nearly 800K and 900K residents?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Why do these three states get to be overrepresented in the House?

They aren’t over-represented. There are other reasons for assigning representation besides the population of the community one lives in. I think regionalism and spreading representation throughout the land is also worthwhile. There are democracies elsewhere that have inherent tension because they don’t consider regional interests.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

If you set it at Wyoming, with 576K or so, what do you do with an edge case like the Dakotas, which have nearly 800K and 900K residents?

No matter the number, there will be edge cases. Both probably would round to 2. But the smaller the number, the less variance from the average there should be. We could knock it down to 250,000, but the House would be what, 1300. That might be a little large. I wouldn't care, but selling it to people who believe the current number was handed down by God and can never be changed might be even more difficult.

Of course the number has changed several times in our history. The first House was roughly 60.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Case in point, long overdue immigration reform to deal with asylum seekers.

I think you have brought the Mayorkas argument. He and the Biden Administration totally FUBAR’ed the assylum process and refused to enforce it, while claiming it needs reform. No. The asylum laws are fine, they just don’t agree with the law so they ignore it. So much for democracy. The needed immigration reform has to do with work permits for temporary and seasonal workers.

 

[hoot1]

I think you have brought the Mayorkas argument. He and the Biden Administration totally FUBAR’ed the assylum process and refused to enforce it, while claiming it needs reform. No. The asylum laws are fine, they just don’t agree with the law so they ignore it. So much for democracy. The needed immigration reform has to do with work permits for temporary and seasonal workers.

CoH, guess I didn't make my point very clear.

My argument for the need of immigration asylum reform by Congress was to avoid the very type of executive branch decision making which you described as my buying into.