General Discussion

treestar

(82,383 posts)

45. Clearly wrong, RI should have only one then

Sun Dec 2, 2018, 02:46 PM

Dec 2018

I'm from Delaware, which has only one - about 900K people. One for every million people seems reasonable. We don't want the House to be unmanageably huge. But OTOH, it is inexcusable for it not to be proportional, given the Senate and EC already are.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

73 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why is the number of Representatives arbitrarily capped at 435? [View all] guillaumeb Dec 2018 OP

Some states, while growing in population, are losing seats. Kaleva Dec 2018 #1

Exactly. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #2

Ohio will lose a seat after the 2020 census; will go from 15 to 14, I believe. No Vested Interest Dec 2018 #9

At some point a cap makes sense. Do we really want 10,000 representatives? unblock Dec 2018 #3

But this cap shifts power to the smaller states. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #4

Slice cities up into grids of 2x2? 3x3? Roland99 Dec 2018 #5

Drawing up Districts is left to each state. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #10

Computers exacerbated our current situation... Wounded Bear Dec 2018 #39

I think the British Parliament has something like 600+ MPs BumRushDaShow Dec 2018 #8

The cap is far too low, and with Gerrymandering, even the lower house is not very democratic... Humanist_Activist Dec 2018 #11

To make the math work, some Representatives would have to cover more than one state NotASurfer Dec 2018 #12

Amendment? Representatives covering multiple states? GulfCoast66 Dec 2018 #23

It worked for the Senate of the Galactic Republic Qutzupalotl Dec 2018 #26

I think that it is now one Rep per 600,000+. Blue_true Dec 2018 #29

cap it relative to the population of the least-populous state, then Spider Jerusalem Dec 2018 #66

There would still be major discrepancies. Garrett78 Dec 2018 #67

Thanks for posting. I've too, have wondered how they came up w/ this number. nt SWBTATTReg Dec 2018 #6

This is one of those things that I wish got more attention moose65 Dec 2018 #7

Well said. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #14

As southern cities grow, they are losing power. Blue_true Dec 2018 #30

Voter supression is also a tactic that they use. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #41

Add in DC and Puerto Rico as states Lithos Dec 2018 #28

DC does have a representative in the House. former9thward Dec 2018 #46

Yes, and because of that.... moose65 Dec 2018 #52

It is not a state. former9thward Dec 2018 #56

Montana has over a million people and only one representative... cynatnite Dec 2018 #13

And 2 Senators. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #15

It's crazy, ain't it? n/t cynatnite Dec 2018 #16

Crazy, or designed that way? guillaumeb Dec 2018 #17

Both, most definitely. n/t cynatnite Dec 2018 #18

Yes, the senate versus house *was* designed that way. Igel Dec 2018 #38

The senate is dictated by the constitution GulfCoast66 Dec 2018 #24

So why did Democrats go along with it? Polybius Dec 2018 #32

Go along with what? moose65 Dec 2018 #34

I meant go along with voting for The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 Polybius Dec 2018 #42

The Democrats were not in control in 1929 GulfCoast66 Dec 2018 #36

Maybe never win another House Majority? LakeSuperiorView Dec 2018 #35

Thank you. My bad. GulfCoast66 Dec 2018 #37

Chicago has 7 representatives. former9thward Dec 2018 #47

The suburbs have less population. eom guillaumeb Dec 2018 #50

No, they don't. former9thward Dec 2018 #55

Only if you make the metro area nearly everything north of I-80. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #58

I am not making anything. former9thward Dec 2018 #60

Bless your little heart for again pretending a sentiment no one has implied LanternWaste Dec 2018 #62

Yes moose65 Dec 2018 #19

I try to educate people on this all the time sarah FAILIN Dec 2018 #20

The problem with small states having oversized influence isn't because of the House, but the Senate SFnomad Dec 2018 #21

The House is a problem as well dflprincess Dec 2018 #27

Those numbers, while not balanced, are nowhere near the problem I described SFnomad Dec 2018 #31

Agree with the math for both. :) We actually shrank Hortensis Dec 2018 #33

At 1 Representative per 30,000 persons, we'll have 10,857 Representatives. And counting. Garrett78 Dec 2018 #22

I've always understood Freddie Dec 2018 #25

You answered your own question. MineralMan Dec 2018 #40

At the very least, the districts should have equal populations treestar Dec 2018 #43

They're supposed to be approximately the same already. Garrett78 Dec 2018 #44

Clearly wrong, RI should have only one then treestar Dec 2018 #45

Without having far fewer people per district, there's no escaping disproportionality. Garrett78 Dec 2018 #48

True a state with less than the minimum treestar Dec 2018 #54

No, it's not wrong. Jim Lane Dec 2018 #61

as long as Montana gets another seat after the next census treestar Dec 2018 #63

Whether that happens will depend on the mathematical formula. Jim Lane Dec 2018 #65

Drastically reducing the number of persons/Representative is the way... Garrett78 Dec 2018 #64

The law was finalized in 1941 not 1929. former9thward Dec 2018 #49

It should grow with the new Census. PatrickforO Dec 2018 #51

All that will grow is the average number of people per district. Garrett78 Dec 2018 #53

I suspect that it is an acknowledgment that if the number goes up, NCjack Dec 2018 #57

A very important consideration. eom guillaumeb Dec 2018 #59

The good news is it's an Act --not something in the Constitution. pnwmom Dec 2018 #68

But what should the cap be raised to? Or should there not be a cap? Garrett78 Dec 2018 #69

This is from the NY Times Editorial Board, whose expert suggests 593. pnwmom Dec 2018 #72

Better but insufficient. Garrett78 Dec 2018 #73

All that is lacking is the political will. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #71

Yes scarletlib Dec 2018 #70