The New York Times print edition of January 24 has this op-ed by Sociology Professor Dalton Conley and Political Science Professor Jacqueline Stevens, urging Congress to increase the number of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Thanks to Thomas MacMillan for the link.
Saw a mini blurb saying there is room for 446 Reps on the current floor of the H.R. in the Capitol Bldg.
Perhaps have the H.R. move to a sports stadium (at least 100,000 seats) or to that Star Wars sphere — and have a zillion reps trying to talk at the same time ???
P.R. and App.V.
Hmmm. What happens to be THE smallest national legislative body — in a *democratic* regime ???
I support enlarging the House. At least double, if not quadruple it!!! This would give better representation as the founders wanted. The House could be quadrupled easily and we could build new Houses in different parts of the country so Representatives would be closer to their constituents and reduce the travel costs.
Also, their pay should be reduced to just over the median salary of the country. Basically we could reduce their salaries to about a third to a quarter of what it is now and get better representation to boot.
By a nation of 308 million, 1,500 representatives would mean a ratio of 1:205,333
Right now, it is 1:600,000.
1,500 representatives would be possible.
The Senate should also be reformed to 150: 5 Senators for the 5 largest states (25, 4 senators for the next 5 largest states (20), 3 senators for the 20 next largest states (60), 2 for the remaining 20 states (40) and 5 floating “national” senators, usually comprised of former Presidents and Vice Presidents. That would be much more representational. California has 71 times the population of Wyoming, but only 18.3 times the amount of complete congressional representation. This is wrong. The Senate,like the house, would be reapportioned after each 10-year census. A state to lose a senator would automatically lose the junior most member of the team.
That would make an electoral college of 2,000 electors: 1,001 and you win…
Abolish the EVIL minority rule Senate — with its many blowhard *provincial* thinking MORON Senators from the many below average small States — both Donkeys and Elephants.
P.R. and App.V.
Perhaps 101 U.S.A. Reps – to mainly deal with foreign stuff.
Who was the last judge to read the 1787-1788 Federalist ???
A 1960’s Federal District Court for DC ruled that yes Congress was in violation of the 1:30000 ratio but they would not inforce it as it was unreasonable. No House of Representative Const. Admendment quorum by late 1800’s and no quorum by late 1910s/early 1920s. Thus, we have currently an unconstitutional Senate, president and judicary.
I agree with Richard G. about having regional House buildings for his reasons. Additional, it would solve the continuity of government issues for the legislative branch.
The creation of each State after the 13 original and the 2 *foreign* States admitted into the Union — VT 1791 and TX 1845 — was a blatant party hack machination.
Before 1861 the EVIL free State / slave State stuff.
After 1861 the many LOW population States created by the Elephants in the gerrymander Congress to try to have Elephant control of the Senate forever
— scheme failed, of course, especially after the 17th Amdt — 1914-1916-1918 and later elections.
The U.S.A. regime is as *democratic* as a rock on Mars.
P.R. and App.V. — before it is too late.
Nearly a decade ago, Charlie Rangel was proposing a study to look at whether the size and composition of the House should be changed, and I urged my local Congressman to support this bill. Maurice Hinchey refused, and now it looks like this may be the last term for each of them.
The Constitution said “The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand” … doesn’t that mean that it is a -minimum- of 30,000 people per representative?
To me, it’d make sense to try to use technology to create a bigger “virtual” house of sorts. If each representative could actually live in their own state, and could use videoconferencing technology, they could stay more in touch with their constituents and not be bought as easily by DC lobbyists.
How about Direct Democracy — ALL voters enact the laws via computer voting — with at least 100 percent TOTAL security ???
Gee – are U.S.A. WAR orders at least 100 percent secure via all electronic systems ???
— i.e. CIC [aka the Prez] to Force A — attack the enemy B at H-Hour using War Plan C. [encrypted with a zillion bit code] Easy as A-B-C ???
See the WW II command codes and Prez/Pentagon orders from Pearl Harbor Day to Japan surrender day – 2 Sept 1945.
Remember the cost to have some notion of having a REAL Democracy.
As a populist, I support enlargement of the House of Representatives membership. Our Founding Fathers had no idea this nation would every have over 300 million citizens. There probably was not 300 million people in all of Europe in 1776.
Obviouly we cannot have a House of 5,000 members as some of the “silly” posters suggest, but for starters, begin with an even 1,000 members. That’s managable, and the House can be remodeled to accommodate that many members.
This wouldn’t be a “perfect” ratio, but it would be closer to what the Founding Fathers wanted – a House of Representatives – the people’s house – closer to the people.
This is absolutely needed. It is interesting to me how much press this issue has been getting lately.
The House needs up to 10,000 members and no one is saying this right now, but the Senate needs a lot more members also. Each State should have at least 3 so there will be one up for election each US House cycle. There should probably be more than that, perhaps 6 or more.
Each Canton in Switzerland has 10 Senators!
I have to respectively disagree with Michael Warnken when he says the Senate needs to be enlarged also. The Founding Fathers – in order to have balance between the largely populated states and the lesser populated states – was to have an Upper Chamber of equal membership, and a Lower Chamber based on state population.
While I would not have a problem if each state were give a 3rd Senator – with a staggard term – so that at each national election, each state would be electing at least one Senator. But this is the ONLY change I would support in the Senate membership.
But for the House, 1000 members is managable. If the population grows by another 100 million, then perhaps up it to 1500. But we definitely need to get our congressmen and congresswomen back closer to their constituents.
To the Gentleman from Alabama,
I do not mind you disagreeing with me. However, there not only needs to be many more reps in the Senate, but many of our States need to be divided (see Article IV Section 3 of the US Constitution). This would also have the effect of adding more Senators.
As far as limiting the US House to Just 1,000 members, I feel it is important to note that the Greek Ecclesia had 6,000 members at its largest point. We can have 10,000 members in the US House. The legislature has 2 duties in the end (no one seems to know this) and that is to take petitions for redress of grievances and to investigate and inform.
As of right now, our House reps have about 12,000 Assistants which seem to be creatively known as “Hill Rat’s” and in lieu of adding more ‘rats’ as the population grows, we will add more reps. That way we have access to our reps and not their ‘rats’!
In effect with all the Assistants, the House has already surpassed the 10,000 person level. The Assistants end up getting assigned to the wealthy contributors and not the common citizen!
I yield the balance of my time.
How about peacefully dividing the gerrymander Empire ???
N, S, E, W parts ???
See NATO for joint military stuff among the regimes.
300 million plus / 50 current States = 6 million plus AVERAGE.
What is the powermadness level in each U.S.A. gerrymander Senator’s party hack robot brain ???
— as if the 435 gerrymander Reps are not powermad enough.
Hmmm. 300,000,000 / 30,000 [Art. I, Sec. 2] = a mere 10,000 — perhaps have 2 large high schools for the party hacks to yell at each other ???
Why have a bicameral legislature anyway? If the Senate is popularly elected, just condense the two. (Of course, we should repeal the 17th…) Ppl talk about separation of powers and duties, but that’s not so material. Make one House, pay them jury duty wages, and bring the technology to keep them in their home districts – away from lobbyists. Maybe we’d even get lucky and there would be IT problems for more gridlock…
# 16 H.R. and Senate due to the EVIL conspiracy of the small States and the super-EVIL slave States in the top secret 1787 Federal Convention.
Senate derived from the EMERGENCY meeting of the Second Continental Congress in May 1775 about 3 weeks after the American Revolutionary WAR began on 19 April 1775 in Mass.
NO even remotely reliable census data in the colonies – soon to be States.
ANY recent election stats available — to give some *rough* idea of available military forces in the colonies ???
Each colony allowed ONE vote — as an EMERGENCY CRISIS temporary remedy — carried into the 1777 Articles of Confederation.
All sorts of EMERGENCY life or death horse riders going north and south for the next 6.5 years — reporting on Brit/Indian attacks and U.S.A. counter-attacks.
When did the last U.S.A. citizen get news of the joint U.S.A.-France Victory at Yorktown, VA on 19 Oct 1781 ???
Folks on this list only have to type stuff.
Again, with all due respect to Michael Warken, he needs to read his American History and the Constitution. The Senate was (and is) to represent the Legislature of the several states only – not the people. I still say 100 members of that body – 150 at most – is more than sufficient.
Even as a populist, I do not support the 17th amendment as currently written. While I have no problem with allowing the voters to elect the Senators – in keeping with the philosophy of what the original purpose of the Senate is, the Legislature of each state should still have the right to recall their Senator if he or she is not representing the Legislature as the members of the Legislature believe he or she should.
Why the 17th amendment was not worded this way initially, I’ve never understood.
# 18 The gerrymander Senate was TOTALLY corrupt after the Civil War and before the 17th Amdt — nonstop bribes to the party hacks in the State legislatures, etc. — unfilled Senator seats for months and months, etc. etc. Total EVIL rot.
Sorry – CA (most People State) AIN’T equal to WY (least People State) — except in delusional dreams of the WY party hacks.
Demo Rep you still don’t get it do you? The Founding Fathers did not want the Senate to represent the people – only the state legislatures. Whether those Legislatures were (or are) corrupt is not the issue.
# 21 Gee — even a 8 year old child can see only People and property — NOT some fiction called a State.
Any body see any State lines on pictures from above ???
Sorry – CA legislature AIN’T equal to WY legislature — except in the ANTI-Democracy minority rule gerrymander U.S.A. Senate.