• 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!

Congress Blocks Trump Tax Release

ludin said:
There are only 435 seats to assign.
Each state gets one.

The other seats are assigned based on priority of population size.
Don't like the formula petition congress to change it.

Montana gets 1 seat because they do not have enough of a population to get 2.
Pretty simply.

Thanks for showing that ca gets 53 x the reps that way does. You proved my point.
Oh gets 16x the reps that way does.

https://www.census.gov/population/apportionment/about/computing.html

Above is the formula used to seat reps.

You don't think it is fair because you don't understand how it works.
Click to expand...

I understand perfectly how it works. It's not fair or representative. You ignored my question.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
I understand perfectly how it works. It's not fair or representative. You ignored my question.
Click to expand...

actually it is. as it is based on population size. if you have enough population to get 2 seats then you get 2 seats. if not then you get 1 seat.
the formula is pretty fair in distribution of seats.

don't like it petition congress. as a citizen you have that right.

even if you broke them out into 20 different states that wouldn't change that there are 435 and that they would be handed out based on population size.

you would have to increase the size of the senate though.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
Calif. population: 38.8 million
House seats: 53 (1 per 732,000 residents)
Senate seats: 2
Total delegation: 55 (1 per 691,000)

Wyo. population: 584,000
House seats: 1
Senate seats: 2
Total delegation: 3 (1 per 195,000)

Montana has twice the population of Wyoming but the same representation.
Ohio has 11.6 million people and 1/644,000 representation.

Fair? Obviously not.

How about we break up California into 10 states and New York into 5 states? Each state gets 2 senators for a total of 30 from those two populations. Would that be more or less fair?
Click to expand...
How about we go back to having one representative for every 40,000 (+/- 10,000) people. At 40,000, California would have 970 +2 vs. Wyoming's 15+2. Then the comparison would be 1 per 39,918 for California and 1 for every 34,356 in Wyoming.

Is that more balanced for you?

Why I like about such a concept, is we would have thousands of congress members, and it would be so hard for special interests to buy that many votes.
 
ludin said:
There are only 435 seats to assign.
Each state gets one.

The other seats are assigned based on priority of population size.
Don't like the formula petition congress to change it.

Montana gets 1 seat because they do not have enough of a population to get 2.
Pretty simply.

Thanks for showing that ca gets 53 x the reps that way does. You proved my point.
Oh gets 16x the reps that way does.

https://www.census.gov/population/apportionment/about/computing.html

Above is the formula used to seat reps.

You don't think it is fair because you don't understand how it works.
Click to expand...

At one representative for every 40,000 population, there would be 7,500 representatives when the population was 300,000,000. This is no problem with modern communications.
 
Lord of Planar said:
How about we go back to having one representative for every 40,000 (+/- 10,000) people. At 40,000, California would have 970 +2 vs. Wyoming's 15+2. Then the comparison would be 1 per 39,918 for California and 1 for every 34,356 in Wyoming.

Is that more balanced for you?

Why I like about such a concept, is we would have thousands of congress members, and it would be so hard for special interests to buy that many votes.
Click to expand...

I actually think that would be better. lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom