- Joined
- Nov 6, 2009
- Messages
- 36,877
- Reaction score
- 22,202
- Location
- Didjabringabeeralong
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Communist
Should the House of Representatives be diluted?
Currently, voters are roughly divided up equally within a state. However, voters may not be represented equally from one state to another, given disparities in population. So, instead of having 435 Representatives as a hard number, divied up according to state population, we would have a hard maximum of constituents (population) for each Representative to represent. For example: each Representative represents 50,000 people. The number of Representatives would fluctuate, most likely continue to increase as population increses, but a citizen's representation would be roughly equal to all other citizen's representation.
Poll is simplified into yes/no/maybe options. Please elaborate on your choice.
I'm intrigued by the idea, and I would take it a step further. I would eliminate state boundary considerations entirely. The entire country would be divided up into rational 50,000 person blocks. Reason: The Senate represents the states, the House represents the people... ALL the people from the entire country, not the states.
By eliminating state boundaries you would (should) be able to bring together people across state lines who might have common concerns, plus you'd eliminate any potential inequality in district sizes if states have varying populations that cannot easily divided.
That would give 20 representatives from Manhattan, and only 10 from Wyoming. It would give New York City more representation than 38 states. It would basically ensure that rural and suburban interests could not be represented. Also, using 50,000 person blocks gives 6000+ representatives. It's too unwieldy.