Now Democrats Want To 'Expand The House Of Representatives'

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
What it does do, however, is help the Democrats remain in control of one house of Congress at all times by giving larger cities and their immediate metropolitan areas (where there are bigger populations in smaller areas) more seats. Unless large cities with high populations switch to the GOP in the near future, Democrats would hold the clear majority in the House ad infinitum.

So really, the House would become "more reflective" of ... Democratic strongholds.

Tricky, tricky.

Unfortunately for Democrats, none of these proposals — expanding the Senate, packing the Supreme Court, or doubling the size of the House — are likely headed for approval.


https://www.dailywire.com/news/37217/now-democrats-want-expand-house-representatives-emily-zanotti
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
What it does do, however, is help the Democrats remain in control of one house of Congress at all times by giving larger cities and their immediate metropolitan areas (where there are bigger populations in smaller areas) more seats. Unless large cities with high populations switch to the GOP in the near future, Democrats would hold the clear majority in the House ad infinitum.

So really, the House would become "more reflective" of ... Democratic strongholds.

Tricky, tricky.

Unfortunately for Democrats, none of these proposals — expanding the Senate, packing the Supreme Court, or doubling the size of the House — are likely headed for approval.


https://www.dailywire.com/news/37217/now-democrats-want-expand-house-representatives-emily-zanotti

Repeal the 17th amendment and this is actually reasonable. 30,000 is a pretty small minimum in the 21st century.

If the 17th amendment remains in effect, this is a horrible idea.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Repeal the 17th amendment and this is actually reasonable. 30,000 is a pretty small minimum in the 21st century.



Larry and I discussed this a few yrs back .... if properly implemented we would end up with a Congress of 10,000 or more Representatives
 

glhs837

Power with Control
Yep, if you cant win by the rules, change the rules.... haven't they learned by now that they should be careful doing that?
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Yep, if you cant win by the rules, change the rules.... haven't they learned by now that they should be careful doing that?

Too many Government tit sucking sonsofbitches in Washington now./
The hell with this idea.
 

Rommey

Well-Known Member
I'm not advocating to increase the size of Congress, but the average size of a Congressional district is 710K which is three times the size it was in 1910. At what point do we say the population of a Congressional district is too much?

Wikipedia said:
One such proposal, the Wyoming Rule, calls for adding enough members to Congress to reduce the population of the average Congressional district to the population of the least populous state's smallest district; in 1990, this would have resulted in a total House size of 547. Link
 
Last edited:

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
I'm not advocating to increase the size of Congress, but the average size of a Congressional district is 710K which is three times the size it was in 1910. At what point do we say the population of a Congressional district is too much?

I keep going back to this but - and I think I can find it - in one of the Federalist papers, it is suggested that at a certain point,
the number of Representatives should STOP increasing, because adding more members has a tendency to DECREASE representation.
The premise being that as numbers grow, you tend to get opinion leaders that others get behind, so you don't get more representation, but less.
I'm guessing they took a page from Roman history where this sort of thing happened, and turned a Republic into an Empire.

As it happens, our "freeze" of 435 members happened largely because of contestation of a census, and it just stopped after that.

I'll go find the quote if I can - I always thought it amazing that our Founding Fathers could see that far.

Edit:

Here is some of the argument, from Federalist 55:

The truth is that in all cases a certain number at least seems tobe necessary to secure the benefits of free consultation and discussion, and toguard against too easy a combination for improper purposes; as, on the otherhand, the number ought at most to be kept within a certain limit, in order toavoid the confusion and intemperance of a multitude. In all very numerousassemblies, of whatever characters composed, passion never fails to wrest thescepter from reason. Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenianassembly would still have been a mob.
 
Last edited:

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
I keep going back to this but - and I think I can find it - in one of the Federalist papers, it is suggested that at a certain point,
the number of Representatives should STOP increasing, because adding more members has a tendency to DECREASE representation.
The premise being that as numbers grow, you tend to get opinion leaders that others get behind, so you don't get more representation, but less.
I'm guessing they took a page from Roman history where this sort of thing happened, and turned a Republic into an Empire.

As it happens, our "freeze" of 435 members happened largely because of contestation of a census, and it just stopped after that.

I'll go find the quote if I can - I always thought it amazing that our Founding Fathers could see that far.

Edit:

Here is some of the argument, from Federalist 55:

The truth is that in all cases a certain number at least seems tobe necessary to secure the benefits of free consultation and discussion, and toguard against too easy a combination for improper purposes; as, on the otherhand, the number ought at most to be kept within a certain limit, in order toavoid the confusion and intemperance of a multitude. In all very numerousassemblies, of whatever characters composed, passion never fails to wrest thescepter from reason. Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenianassembly would still have been a mob.

I certainly do not feel that I get represented in Maryland. If we added ten more Steny Hoyers I would still not be represented.
I repeat. "Too many Government tit sucking sonsofbitches in Washington now "
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Larry and I discussed this a few yrs back .... if properly implemented we would end up with a Congress of 10,000 or more Representatives

If we left it at 30,000, that's right. No reasonable person would think that.

But, NY should probably have a lot more representatives than ND - more than they do now.

Wyoming has around 500,000 citizens. They need a representative. California has 12% of the population at around 40 million people, and around 12% of the Representatives, but Wyoming has .17% of the population and .23% of the representatives in the House.

If we upped the number of representatives to, say, 588, we could make it a lot more even based on populations. To forestall the same problem in 10 years, we could up it to 599 (so it's an odd number) and split the representatives up even more equally.

Using the process, we wouldn't reach 10,000 representatives for a long, long time.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
If we left it at 30,000, that's right. No reasonable person would think that.

But, NY should probably have a lot more representatives than ND - more than they do now.

Wyoming has around 500,000 citizens. They need a representative. California has 12% of the population at around 40 million people, and around 12% of the Representatives, but Wyoming has .17% of the population and .23% of the representatives in the House.

If we upped the number of representatives to, say, 588, we could make it a lot more even based on populations. To forestall the same problem in 10 years, we could up it to 599 (so it's an odd number) and split the representatives up even more equally.

Using the process, we wouldn't reach 10,000 representatives for a long, long time.

So we raise it to 599. Then we have to expand the building that houses these elite rich Americans, and we have to hire staff for them, and pay their salaries and for their perks.
We have to make room for their seats in the Capitol,buy more desks, more interns.
And for what?
So the Democrats can vote en masse against the Republicans and the Republicans can do the same, just like they do now.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
I keep going back to this but - and I think I can find it - in one of the Federalist papers, it is suggested that at a certain point,
the number of Representatives should STOP increasing, because adding more members has a tendency to DECREASE representation.
The premise being that as numbers grow, you tend to get opinion leaders that others get behind, so you don't get more representation, but less.
I'm guessing they took a page from Roman history where this sort of thing happened, and turned a Republic into an Empire.

As it happens, our "freeze" of 435 members happened largely because of contestation of a census, and it just stopped after that.

I'll go find the quote if I can - I always thought it amazing that our Founding Fathers could see that far.

Edit:

Here is some of the argument, from Federalist 55:

The truth is that in all cases a certain number at least seems tobe necessary to secure the benefits of free consultation and discussion, and toguard against too easy a combination for improper purposes; as, on the otherhand, the number ought at most to be kept within a certain limit, in order toavoid the confusion and intemperance of a multitude. In all very numerousassemblies, of whatever characters composed, passion never fails to wrest thescepter from reason. Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenianassembly would still have been a mob.

This is new information for me. I did not ever read this before.

That said, it implies that a single representative can represent 100,000, 0r 1,00,000, or 10,000,000 all equally. I do not believe that.

I don't know where it ends. I do think that the 17th needs repealed to give the states a say in the federal government, and I think the gerrymandering needs to stop. Perhaps we could say, since the position is that a single representative represents 10,000 through 10,000,000 equally, that major cities need LESS representation, since there's hive-think there anyway. As in, Chicago gets one rep, and surrounding counties get one rep, and the countryside gets a rep, and down-state gets a rep, etc. Not dividing up by number of citizens, but rather by citizen's positions.

But, that's not really a republic, is it?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
So we raise it to 599. Then we have to expand the building that houses these elite rich Americans, and we have to hire staff for them, and pay their salaries and for their perks.
We have to make room for their seats in the Capitol,buy more desks, more interns.
And for what?
So the Democrats can vote en masse against the Republicans and the Republicans can do the same, just like they do now.

If we gave each of those representative $1,000,000/year, and gave them $9,000,000/year in perks, we'd be at $6B. That's $20/year per citizen, or a pittance. They actually get something closer to 15% of that. 15% of a pittance is a negligible pittance.

It's not about their salaries or perqs. It's about their voting record on bills, and the bills they submit. Don't let jealousy for a good paycheck distort your views.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Using the process, we wouldn't reach 10,000 representatives for a long, long time.


if you roll back from the 704k per Rep in Cali to 10 k or less
Seriously how can one person represent 704,000 people ....

Texas has 36 for a ratio of 701k per Rep
NY has 27 for a Ratio of 719k per Rep
FL has 27 for a Ratio of 700,029 Per Rep


Montana has a single Rep for the entire state of 994k


so you can see the ratios vary wildly ...

https://www.thegreenpapers.com/Census10/FedRep.phtml?sort=HSeats#table


the up side is these enclaves of people NOT in the majority would get better representation in Congress ...

we all know how well Steny Represents the Conservatives in So. MD
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
This is new information for me. I did not ever read this before.

That said, it implies that a single representative can represent 100,000, 0r 1,00,000, or 10,000,000 all equally. I do not believe that.

That's actually NOT what you can conclude - the primary purpose of the Census is reapportionment of representatives.
Every ten years - after a Census - they're reapportioned according to population, and in general, most members represent
the same number of constituents. Exceptions are, of course, for states where the total population is LESS than that number -
like Wyoming. Most are fairly close. We DO NOT have a case of representatives covering millions for cities, and thousands
for rural areas. There is adequate representation.

This is also part of the complexity of drawing new districts, in addition to other factors state legislatures want to achieve -
such as balance - or imbalance - in the demographics, and that is, they must have similar populations.

Adding MORE representatives would LOWER the threshold population, and a result would be more districts around urban
centers - at least - as LONG as urban centers are where the population growth is. This approach could TOTALLY bite the Dems
in the ass should urban centers start to fade as population centers SHRINK, as people spread out and don't need the proximity of
cities to get what they want.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
if you roll back from the 704k per Rep in Cali to 10 k or less
Seriously how can one person represent 704,000 people ....

You're right, of course. But according to the Federalist Papers, neither can 2 or 3 THOUSAND represent a *nation*.
Eventually, you have LESS representation, because a single person has too little power.w

At some point, states will need to re-assert their power to meet people's needs.
We can't have Washington do everything for us. Conceptually, it's ridiculous for a state to send millions to DC
so they can make decisions on how it's to be sent right back again.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
If we gave each of those representative $1,000,000/year, and gave them $9,000,000/year in perks, we'd be at $6B. That's $20/year per citizen, or a pittance. They actually get something closer to 15% of that. 15% of a pittance is a negligible pittance.

It's not about their salaries or perqs. It's about their voting record on bills, and the bills they submit. Don't let jealousy for a good paycheck distort your views.

Jealousy has nothing to do with it. I have seen the voting history.
It is partisan---partisan. So instead of the number of Democrats we have now we add more and they vote partisan.
What is the point. They are all going to vote the way the party tells them to, just like they do now.
IMO they ought to cut the number. They just need one person to cast the party vote.

If we adjust the House for the population, why don't we adjust the Senate also. Same reasoning applies.
If we are looking for representation make each state have equal members of the house from each party.
Say 5 Republicans and 5 democrats.
That appears to be the only way States can give representation to places like Maryland, California and New York, where Democrats rule the State.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
You're right, of course. But according to the Federalist Papers, neither can 2 or 3 THOUSAND represent a *nation*.
Eventually, you have LESS representation, because a single person has too little power.

yeah still Steny does not represent Calvert and St. Mary's

At some point, states will need to re-assert their power to meet people's needs.
We can't have Washington do everything for us. Conceptually, it's ridiculous for a state to send millions to DC
so they can make decisions on how it's to be sent right back again.

return Senator Selection to the States
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
That's actually NOT what you can conclude - the primary purpose of the Census is reapportionment of representatives.
Every ten years - after a Census - they're reapportioned according to population, and in general, most members represent
the same number of constituents. Exceptions are, of course, for states where the total population is LESS than that number -
like Wyoming. Most are fairly close. We DO NOT have a case of representatives covering millions for cities, and thousands
for rural areas. There is adequate representation.

This is also part of the complexity of drawing new districts, in addition to other factors state legislatures want to achieve -
such as balance - or imbalance - in the demographics, and that is, they must have similar populations.

Adding MORE representatives would LOWER the threshold population, and a result would be more districts around urban
centers - at least - as LONG as urban centers are where the population growth is. This approach could TOTALLY bite the Dems
in the ass should urban centers start to fade as population centers SHRINK, as people spread out and don't need the proximity of
cities to get what they want.

There's a lot there. :lol:

Currently, we do have one person representing an average of several hundred thousand. Should the population continue to grow but the number of representatives not grow, that one representative will represent more and more. Originally, one representative was to represent 30,000. We're now at over 20 times that. So, not growing the number of representatives implies that one person can do 20 times more, right?

I agree every new representative dilutes every other representative's voice. That is kind of the point.
 
Top