General Discussion

Savannahmann

(3,891 posts)

40. First the Constitutional issue.

Sun Sep 29, 2013, 06:38 PM

Sep 2013

The House of Representatives fixed their number at 435 with a law in 1929, in accordance with the Constitution. Otherwise, we would have more than ten thousand representatives in the House. Here's the supreme court decision from 1932.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=287&invol=1

So the number is fixed by the law IAW the Constitution at 435. Now, each state apportions those representatives to manage an equal (as possible) number of people. But no state may have fewer than one, again IAW the Constitution.

If we went off of counties, deciding that each county has an equal vote, ignoring the population. Then we would have more than 3,000 representatives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_statistics_of_the_United_States

Both numbers seem a little unwieldy to me. The idea of having as more Representatives than most towns have populations is laughable. We would have to build a domed stadium to hold sessions of Congress. Or enjoy the sight of the politicians standing in the rain, or sitting in the snow/sleet while they debate our future.

We've got 435, and that number is manageable, if only just. So we have to come up with a way to take back the State Houses and be able to draw the maps in our favor.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

70 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Do we need a constitutional amendment to end gerrymandering? [View all] MoonRiver Sep 2013 OP

Yes we do shenmue Sep 2013 #1

Yeah, but good luck getting that to happen. Tidy Cat Sep 2013 #2

Right. Its inherently a state issue, elleng Sep 2013 #13

We need to end House districts. They aren't even in the Constitution. Recursion Sep 2013 #3

Well, how do we go about making that happen? MoonRiver Sep 2013 #5

And there's the problem. Districting is controlled entirely by state legislatures Recursion Sep 2013 #6

Ok, so that is what needs amending. MoonRiver Sep 2013 #12

As I said, good luck with that. Tidy Cat Sep 2013 #15

Then start a movement in each state treestar Sep 2013 #60

That is why I have been screaming for folks to get out and vote in state and local elections. kelliekat44 Sep 2013 #64

I'd be fine with just doing away with the House... Drunken Irishman Sep 2013 #36

Your understanding of our goverment is badly in error. GreenStormCloud Sep 2013 #43

There is an interesting underlying point there though mythology Sep 2013 #48

See my post # 51. N/T GreenStormCloud Sep 2013 #52

They won more seats. They didn't win more votes. Drunken Irishman Sep 2013 #50

We are not a parliamentary system. GreenStormCloud Sep 2013 #51

And? Drunken Irishman Sep 2013 #58

We have made amendment, never a rewrite. GreenStormCloud Sep 2013 #59

I never said it would happen. Doesn't mean it shouldn't, tho. Drunken Irishman Sep 2013 #70

The best solution would be proportionally appointed reps Blaukraut Sep 2013 #4

I like the "party slate" idea Recursion Sep 2013 #9

...but then people get upset about "the Party Bosses"... brooklynite Sep 2013 #17

And about 95% of the world's democracies seem fine with the idea (nt) Recursion Sep 2013 #49

Proportional is the way to go. NuclearDem Sep 2013 #26

100% needed but how? Freddie Sep 2013 #7

Districts are mentioned nowhere in the Constitution Recursion Sep 2013 #11

The apportionment of Representatives per State is, though. pinto Sep 2013 #30

OK, but how do we enforce it? Savannahmann Sep 2013 #8

There's a variety of ways jeff47 Sep 2013 #23

Representation by County PADemD Sep 2013 #37

First the Constitutional issue. Savannahmann Sep 2013 #40

Yes, yes yes. Cleita Sep 2013 #10

There already is one - it's called the 14th Amendment jberryhill Sep 2013 #14

Good idea. With computerization, gerrymandering effects are worse than ever. JEFF9K Sep 2013 #16

Somebody has to do something. MadrasT Sep 2013 #18

Lol... jberryhill Sep 2013 #28

Racking my brains to come up with something a constituent in Upper Darby MadrasT Sep 2013 #55

Yes, but you have no change of getting one. Donald Ian Rankin Sep 2013 #19

This would need to pass in the very state legislatures that ... surrealAmerican Sep 2013 #20

I don't believe it's necessary. Blanks Sep 2013 #21

"One man, one vote" was enforced by Supreme Court decision starroute Sep 2013 #22

gerrymandering is a problem but not the only one dsc Sep 2013 #24

No. We need to shoot every single Republicans who *THINKS* gerrymandering is a wonderful idea. Old Navy Sep 2013 #25

Isn't gerrymandering a positive for minority representation? dkf Sep 2013 #27

If you like being held hostage by the minority, which Cleita Sep 2013 #29

What does the CBC say? dkf Sep 2013 #31

This message was self-deleted by its author MoonRiver Sep 2013 #32

I don't know. I suspect they are fine with it. Cleita Sep 2013 #34

No, yet I feel we need an independent oversight group to handle apportionment of Representatives. pinto Sep 2013 #33

Politicians will never write a law Mr.Bill Sep 2013 #35

It wouldn't work. There is no clear cut line on what is and what isn't gerrymandering. JVS Sep 2013 #38

No. It's a political process and "gerrymandering" is very subjective RB TexLa Sep 2013 #39

opening a constitutional convention would be very dangerous. grasswire Sep 2013 #41

Maybe - but shouldn't we gerrymander it back first? Whiskeytide Sep 2013 #42

Just a reminder, Democrats have gerrymandered too. GreenStormCloud Sep 2013 #44

I don't think it is right for either party to do it. MoonRiver Sep 2013 #45

Agreed, but in your OP you blamed only the Republicans. N/T GreenStormCloud Sep 2013 #46

That's the big issue right now. MoonRiver Sep 2013 #47

K&R cprise Sep 2013 #53

I don't know davidpdx Sep 2013 #54

We'd need 50 state battles as well. n/t Egalitarian Thug Sep 2013 #56

You Beat Them At Their Own Game...On The State & Local Level... KharmaTrain Sep 2013 #57

k&r...it's a blatant manipulation of voters will. spanone Sep 2013 #61

If we could get such an amendment ratified we wouldn't need such an amendment onenote Sep 2013 #62

I would love if we could do it. gopiscrap Sep 2013 #63

How about a constitutional amendment to end Republicans? kentauros Sep 2013 #65

the entire thing desperately needs an overhaul ecstatic Sep 2013 #66

I can't imagine how such an amendment could be worded, without becoming meaningless pablum struggle4progress Sep 2013 #67

Let's have one. lonestarnot Sep 2013 #68

Set up federal control over election to federal offices. The States can kiranon Sep 2013 #69