• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the House of Representatives be diluted?

Should the House of Representatives be diluted?


  • Total voters
    17
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.
 
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.
Not everyone from Manhattan has the same interests. I see that as a potential benefit as people could have a better chance at their needs not being ignored in such a large morass.

50,000 is just a randomly picked number for discussion purposes, to give an example. It could be 100,000 or 200,000. The concept is to make representation more local and more responsive.
 
so are you against eliminating gerrymandering?

I would be in favor of eliminating gerrymandering but we would have to deal with those who insist certain seats in the House of Representatives and in the Senate have to belong, permanently, to a minority.
 
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.

The constitution originally mandated one representative for every 30,000 people. Article I section 2, The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every 30,000, but each state will have at least one.

The Reapportionment Act of 1929 which capped the size of the House at 435 (the then current number). I always wondered about that as it seemed to me if the constitution states will not exceed one representative for every 30,000 people, shouldn't it have taken a constitutional amendment instead of congress passing a public law? In other words, is capping the House of representatives at 435 unconsitutional?

I realize with the population of the USA today we would have around 12,000 representatives if as stated in the constitution, not to exceed 30,000 was enforced. That's way too many. I don't have a problem with the 435 number. So expanding the number of Representatives I think is unneeded.
 
i'd prefer to eliminate gerrymandering by using a computer program to redraw all districts using only census data. that would do a lot to address the problems in congress.

I totally agree. I would add there ought to be a portion in the law or change that states as many counties must remain whole as possible.
 
The constitution originally mandated one representative for every 30,000 people. Article I section 2, The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every 30,000, but each state will have at least one.

The Reapportionment Act of 1929 which capped the size of the House at 435 (the then current number). I always wondered about that as it seemed to me if the constitution states will not exceed one representative for every 30,000 people, shouldn't it have taken a constitutional amendment instead of congress passing a public law? In other words, is capping the House of representatives at 435 unconsitutional?

I realize with the population of the USA today we would have around 12,000 representatives if as stated in the constitution, not to exceed 30,000 was enforced. That's way too many. I don't have a problem with the 435 number. So expanding the number of Representatives I think is unneeded.
That's very interesting. It would seem to be unconstitutional, indeed.

To me, I think 435 is too small, though I agree 5,000+ would be way too many and too unwieldy. Even doubling it would help, IMO.
 
No. The last thing this country needs is more congress critters.
 
Not everyone from Manhattan has the same interests. I see that as a potential benefit as people could have a better chance at their needs not being ignored in such a large morass.

Sure, but then a farmer from the middle of Wyoming would have to share representation with a bookshop owner in Laramie. A single city gains more representation than entire geographically diverse states. The top 10 most populated states would have over half of all representatives.


50,000 is just a randomly picked number for discussion purposes, to give an example. It could be 100,000 or 200,000. The concept is to make representation more local and more responsive.

The larger the number, the less representative it is. Any way you draw it, using population simply gives too much power to areas with a dense population, meaning large cities with shared interests would dominate, and less population dense areas would recieve no local representation because the area represented would be too large and geographically diverse for them to have shared interests.
 
The constitution originally mandated one representative for every 30,000 people. Article I section 2, The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every 30,000, but each state will have at least one.

The Reapportionment Act of 1929 which capped the size of the House at 435 (the then current number). I always wondered about that as it seemed to me if the constitution states will not exceed one representative for every 30,000 people, shouldn't it have taken a constitutional amendment instead of congress passing a public law? In other words, is capping the House of representatives at 435 unconsitutional?

I realize with the population of the USA today we would have around 12,000 representatives if as stated in the constitution, not to exceed 30,000 was enforced. That's way too many. I don't have a problem with the 435 number. So expanding the number of Representatives I think is unneeded.
As a side note: I've never liked that some states have only one. That strikes me as not enough representation. Shoot, those states carry more sway in the Senate and they get virtually nothing in the House.

I've never lived in one of those states, and it's not a point I'm making here or including in my idea. Just saying it's always seemed odd to me.
 
Sure, but then a farmer from the middle of Wyoming would have to share representation with a bookshop owner in Laramie. A single city gains more representation than entire geographically diverse states. The top 10 most populated states would have over half of all representatives.

The larger the number, the less representative it is. Any way you draw it, using population simply gives too much power to areas with a dense population, meaning large cities with shared interests would dominate, and less population dense areas would recieve no local representation because the area represented would be too large and geographically diverse for them to have shared interests.
There is no perfect method. An idea shouldn't be dismissed because it isn't perfect, in the literal sense of the word. The idea that smaller is more responsive, generally, than larger. The bookshop owner in Laramie would still be prone to have something in common with the rancher 200 miles away.

I used to live in the California Delta. I wasn't in farming, but it was a solid farming area. I was in a District in the Central Valley, and said District included a couple bigg-ish cities, but was pretty much farming oriented. In 2000 I was gerrymandered to be in the end of a long winding arm of the east side of San Francisco Bay. My new Representative (Ellen Tousher?) seemed like a nice and conscientious lady, but she didn't know a damn thing about farming. The people in my area were so far out geographically and the farmers were so small in numbers that we were essentially ignored and forgotten.

Better gerrymandering might have helped. Smaller Districts would have helped, too, as it would be impossible to have such far-reaching Districts even if they wanted to.
 
That's very interesting. It would seem to be unconstitutional, indeed.

To me, I think 435 is too small, though I agree 5,000+ would be way too many and too unwieldy. Even doubling it would help, IMO.

At least it seems so to me. But I am not a constitutional lawyer.
 
As a side note: I've never liked that some states have only one. That strikes me as not enough representation. Shoot, those states carry more sway in the Senate and they get virtually nothing in the House.

I've never lived in one of those states, and it's not a point I'm making here or including in my idea. Just saying it's always seemed odd to me.

The house is suppose to be the people's house and is based on population. The senate was designed or intended to represent the states. Prior to the 17th amendment with state legislatures appointing senators it basically did that. The states could dictate or at least give guidance on how a senator would vote. But after passage of the 17th the senate became a miniature House of Representatives. The power passed from the states or state legislature into the hands of whatever political party the senator was a member of. The states lost their representation.
 
I would be in favor of eliminating gerrymandering but we would have to deal with those who insist certain seats in the House of Representatives and in the Senate have to belong, permanently, to a minority.

i support drawing districts using only population density data from the census.
 
The house is suppose to be the people's house and is based on population. The senate was designed or intended to represent the states. Prior to the 17th amendment with state legislatures appointing senators it basically did that. The states could dictate or at least give guidance on how a senator would vote. But after passage of the 17th the senate became a miniature House of Representatives. The power passed from the states or state legislature into the hands of whatever political party the senator was a member of. The states lost their representation.
Right, and I strongly support the idea of repealing the 17th Amendment precisely to bring balance back to Congress by giving the states their power back. I refrained from bringing that up in this thread because I didn't want it to get too sidetracked, even though it is related, I think.
 
Right, and I strongly support the idea of repealing the 17th Amendment precisely to bring balance back to Congress by giving the states their power back. I refrained from bringing that up in this thread because I didn't want it to get too sidetracked, even though it is related, I think.

It is related, but not the subject per se. We're dealing with the House, not the senate. Although both chambers makes up congress which is supposed to serve as a check and balance to the other two branches of government. Personally, I think doing away with gerrymandering would do far more in helping to establish good government back. What happens is around 400 seats are created as safe seats which will be won by the extremist of both parties and allow them to remain. That leaves around 35 seats that are competitive, that can actually switch back and forth where a representative must listen to the people to get re-elected instead of the party bosses.

Without gerrymandering, the number of competitive or at risk seats should rise. You will always have safe districts regardless. But if the end of gerrymandering can get us up to 100 or so seats where the representatives actually have to take what their constituents wish, want or don't want into consideration, perhaps we'll end this straight party line votes all the time. Then again I may be dreaming.

This year according to Cook, Rothenberg, Sabato, EP and other political pundits there are 40 seats at risk of switching. The other 395 are considered safe. That is plain wrong.
 
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.

I agree with your premise, and I voted with you "Yes" in the poll.

I will have more to say later, but for now listen, clown- at 1 rep per 50k we would be stuck with 6175 Congressmen !!! (Do you even know how many we have now ???) Don't be ridiculous !!!
 
You had me until "...isn't broken". ;)

I have concerns that, the larger a Representative's constituency gets, the farther removed they become from said constituency. That, plus the inequalities from one District to another means disparate representation based on something as easily addressed as population distribution. A person in a 50,000 size District is more prone to get better results than a person in a 100,000 size District. The idea being that a more local District would be more in tune with the actual needs of the District, and thus more responsive.

There is no doubt that a representative of 50.000 will be closer to the pulse of her 25.001 voters than one that represents 50.001. The same is true of the representative that knows all 51 of his voters. The trade off is obvious. A large House of Representatives of say 10.000 will be less efficient than one of 500 or 50. So, where draw the line. You have a similar trade off in the districts question. A highly mixed constituency will by necessity have only very little in common with the other half that did not vote for him than in a homogeneous one, where everyone has the same interests. Another interesting thing would be that in a homogeneous constituency the political discourse would be a backslapping frenzy or friendly pissing contest and not a discussion of difficult political issues. Democracy thrives in confrontation and is irrelevant at a harmony fest.
 
I would eliminate state boundary considerations entirely. The entire country would be divided up into rational 50,000 person blocks.

And what should we then call our country? The United ______ of America

Seriously, though...300,000,000+ divided by 50,000 equals 6,000+. Do you REALLY want 6,000+ Representatives?
 
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.

This is the exact reasoning for the local people wanting to create the state of Jefferson encompassing lower Oregon and northern California.

The people in that region feel they are not represented properly in the other capitols.
 
I'd much rather see their terms get expanded (and LIMITED) than this. The big problem I have with the Congress is that they basically started their re-election campaign within 10 minutes of being sworn in. Two year terms IMO are not enough. I'd personally rather see them in a 4 or 6 year term, this way they actually spend time legislating instead of running for re-election. I also think they should have term limits of no more than 4 terms. Like the Senators should.
 
Back
Top Bottom