Jump to content

Expand the House


Huckleberry

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Firemans4Horn said:

Isn’t gerrymandering the biggest current issue with how the house is currently elected?

How do we solve that problem when quadrupling the amount of reps?

Silly.

It will be super gerrymanded.  

Wisconsin (and other state's) GOP should be salivating at that prospect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do the same for the Senate. Other than #1 in the OP, the same reasoning applies. To come up with a population parallel, let's say 2 senators per state is good for every 50 million in total population. Each state should get 12 senators going forward. When we pass 350 mil. in a few years, every state gets 2 more.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Silly.

It will be super gerrymanded.  

Wisconsin (and other state's) GOP should be salivating at that prospect.

It will be harder to gerrymander with smaller districts. Gerrymandering requires giving away districts by packing them with your opponents. There will be more of those. But also, the margin needed to create a "safe" gerrymandered district for yourself is 10 to 15 points.  Right now, the disenfranchised team needs to swing 50 to 100k votes to flip it. That margin would be 5k with smaller districts. Something that can easily be flipped by a grassroots effort.  So if you wanted to make it safe, you'd have to pack more of your voters in, and in doing so, give even more Sheila Jackson Lee districts to your opponent.

Edited by FondrenRoad
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Huckleberry you seem to like crunching numbers. I just posed a question on another thread about how the EC would look if every state divvied theirs up by district, and if that would better match the popular vote. Is it rational to assume that more districts would more closely match EC with popular vote for president, in much the same way that calculus is first taught that more rectangles under the line means a more accurate area calculated, with the PV being the maximum number of rectangles?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

States should also have a minimum population to be states and have Senators. If they don't have it, they can merge with another state or revert to territory status. 

Seems to me that a bunch of people in populous states trying to take power away from the less populous states, as seen in this quote, is why the rules protecting the less populous states exist in the first place. 
i suspect your real issue is that most of them vote republican.  

Edited by Pato del Muerto
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Pato del Muerto said:

@Huckleberry you seem to like crunching numbers. I just posed a question on another thread about how the EC would look if every state divvied theirs up by district, and if that would better match the popular vote. Is it rational to assume that more districts would more closely match EC with popular vote for president, in much the same way that calculus is first taught that more rectangles under the line means a more accurate area calculated, with the PV being the maximum number of rectangles?

Was already planning to run that once district level results are available but that usually takes a while. I'll probably do it for 2016 here shortly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest negative I would see is that it would shift more power to the political parties.  Trying to get committee positions and bills prioritized is already a challenge.  If you triple the House, then access becomes more valuable, and the parties gain more strength.  But, they already have a ton of power, and while philosophically it would slant things their way, I don't believe it would make a practical difference.  And maybe that would be offset by reducing financial leverage the parties have. (Larger districts = more money required to campaign = more party (and lobbyist) power.) 

So, yeah, I favor it.  There are ways to get around the other issues. 

Unfortunately, I wonder how many Representatives would vote to reduce their power.  Tripling the size of the House means reducing the amount of influence any individual Rep has by a third. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Seems to me that a bunch of people in populous states trying to take power away from the less populous states, as seen in this quote, is why the rules protecting the less populous states exist in the first place. 
i suspect your real issue is that most of them vote republican.  

Not at all. They have disproportionate voting power. It is anti-democratic.  I dont care how they vote. The vote of every US citizen should be equal. 

The less populous states have the Senate to keep their voice heard. They should not have been given the reins to the 2 most powerful parts of our government. 1 is a check. 2 is tyranny.  This has allowed them to be tyrants from a minority position. This has also led to our current state of polarization, and why this nation will not survive without reform. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

Not at all. They have disproportionate voting power. It is anti-democratic.  I dont care how they vote. The vote of every US citizen should be equal. 

The less populous states have the Senate to keep their voice heard. They should not have been given the reins to the 2 most powerful parts of our government. 1 is a check. 2 is tyranny.  This has allowed them to be tyrants from a minority position. This has also led to our current state of polarization, and why this nation will not survive without reform. 

If you take away their statehood, you take away their senate seats as well as their electoral college votes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This might have been posted already or it might not even be a good idea but...

I don’t understand why we don’t have remote members of the house. Have a small collection of the leadership teams that stay mostly in Washington and everyone else Is remote and stays in their districts. Keeps them closer to their constituents than lobbyists and forces them to be available for their constituents. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This issue first came up on my radar a few years ago due to an Op-Ed in the NYTimes, I believe. Since then, I've been following the issue and am fully supportive of expansion. A little while ago, I came across this research article that discusses the optimum size for Congressional Districts and provides some comparisons. 

@Huckleberryand some of the other numbers guys, I'd like to hear your feedback on this:

http://statchatva.org/2017/11/15/u-s-house-districts-are-colossal-whats-the-right-size/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

If you take away their statehood, you take away their senate seats as well as their electoral college votes. 

DC has no senate seats or statehood but still gets 3 EC votes.

Edited by Js1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Pato del Muerto said:

If you take away their statehood, you take away their senate seats as well as their electoral college votes. 

I dont really want to take away their statehood. I simply think that playing by rules from the 1800s designed to gobble up land from coast to coast is a dumb way to govern in the 21st century. There is no more land left to gobble up. Time to start focusing on the people instead of the land. 

So I dont think that Wyoming with 600,000 pepple should have the power it has over California's 40 million people.  Let the 40 million people speak for themselves.  If the only option is to revoke statehood, then we do that.  But I'd prefer we just reform our fucked up system instead. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Not at all. They have disproportionate voting power. It is anti-democratic.  I dont care how they vote. The vote of every US citizen should be equal. 

The less populous states have the Senate to keep their voice heard. They should not have been given the reins to the 2 most powerful parts of our government. 1 is a check. 2 is tyranny.  This has allowed them to be tyrants from a minority position. This has also led to our current state of polarization, and why this nation will not survive without reform. 

The People don't elect the President, the States do. Saying every vote should be equal in that election is nonsensical. You want to completely change the nature of the election, which is fine, but be honest about it. 

Besides, this isn't the thread for that. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Huckleberry said:

The People don't elect the President, the States do. Saying every vote should be equal in that election is nonsensical. You want to completely change the nature of the election, which is fine, but be honest about it. 

Besides, this isn't the thread for that. 

I've never been dishonest about that. The people should pick the President. Period.

And sure this thread isn't about that. Its about reforming another part of government. One that also will never be reformed peacefully because we would need a tyrannical minority to stop wanting to be tyrants in order to do so. This was really always going to end one way.  Trump was incompetent, but the next tyrant probably won't be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, bolverk said:

This issue first came up on my radar a few years ago due to an Op-Ed in the NYTimes, I believe. Since then, I've been following the issue and am fully supportive of expansion. A little while ago, I came across this research article that discusses the optimum size for Congressional Districts and provides some comparisons. 

@Huckleberryand some of the other numbers guys, I'd like to hear your feedback on this:

http://statchatva.org/2017/11/15/u-s-house-districts-are-colossal-whats-the-right-size/

I'd take a 700 person House as an improvement but I don't see 1500 as too unwieldy. One Representative for every 200-250k people even seems like not enough when you think in those terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

I dont really want to take away their statehood. I simply think that playing by rules from the 1800s designed to gobble up land from coast to coast is a dumb way to govern in the 21st century. There is no more land left to gobble up. Time to start focusing on the people instead of the land. 

So I dont think that Wyoming with 600,000 pepple should have the power it has over California's 40 million people.  Let the 40 million people speak for themselves.  If the only option is to revoke statehood, then we do that.  But I'd prefer we just reform our fucked up system instead. 

Wyoming has 1 US house rep and 3 electoral college votes. What power does it have?

if huck gets his way, it will have a couple more house reps. 3 out of 1500. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pack the Lege!

would this increase be accompanied by rules of how districts can and cannot be drawn?  A basic grid system certainly doesn’t make the most sense, but there should be some new constraints introduced.  But I don’t know if the point of districts is to put similar voting people together to ensure representation in Congress, or to just have chunks of the population apportioned to their own vote rep by geography. 

Edited by Pato del Muerto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Seems to me that a bunch of people in populous states trying to take power away from the less populous states, as seen in this quote, is why the rules protecting the less populous states exist in the first place. 
i suspect your real issue is that most of them vote republican.  

Or that every citizen in those states has a significantly larger voice than I do in deciding who’s represented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Or that every citizen in those states has a significantly larger voice than I do in deciding who’s represented.

Move to one of those states then and you will magically have the same voice as they do. 
But the easiest thing is to either elect more reps to get more EC votes and dilute the 2 extra per state ECVs, or just change the EC to where it isn’t 1 for 1 with reps so that it effectively does the same thing without introducing more reps. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pato del Muerto said:

@Huckleberry you seem to like crunching numbers. I just posed a question on another thread about how the EC would look if every state divvied theirs up by district, and if that would better match the popular vote. Is it rational to assume that more districts would more closely match EC with popular vote for president, in much the same way that calculus is first taught that more rectangles under the line means a more accurate area calculated, with the PV being the maximum number of rectangles?

 

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

Was already planning to run that once district level results are available but that usually takes a while. I'll probably do it for 2016 here shortly. 

Work was already done:

https://www.270towin.com/alternative-electoral-college-allocation-methods/?year=2016

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

States should also have a minimum population to be states and have Senators. If they don't have it, they can merge with another state or revert to territory status. 

Conversely, should their be a maximum population allowed for a state?   If they go over, they have to divide in 2 or 3?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like this approach. I think the ideal size for a district would be that basically everyone is one degree of separation away from their house representative. I think that’s probably 100k or so. I assume that in my town of kingwood/ humble anyone in charge is probably a friend of a friend of mine. At that level you can “know” your rep and they damn sure ought to be responsive to anyone in the district. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Move to one of those states then and you will magically have the same voice as they do. 
But the easiest thing is to either elect more reps to get more EC votes and dilute the 2 extra per state ECVs, or just change the EC to where it isn’t 1 for 1 with reps so that it effectively does the same thing without introducing more reps. 

Why should I need to move to another state to have my vote matter? Not sure that’s how a democracy should work

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Funny how nobody brings up Vermont as the example when this small state discussion happens.

 Ok.  Vermont has a 1.4% black population.  Wyoming is 1.3% black.  Alaska is 3.7%.  North Dakota is 3.4%.  South Dakota is 2.3%.  Those are the five smallest states by population. 

#6 Delaware - 23.2% black (the lone outlier) 

#7 Rhode Island: 6.2% black

#8 Montana: 0.8% black

#9 Maine: 1.2% black

#10 New Hampshire: 1.8% black

The US as a whole is 13.4% black.

Obviously Donald Trump utilized white grievance as a campaign strategy.  Less obviously, the Republican Party has been doing so for years.  Do you think the small state advantage rewards that strategy, or hurts it?  

In our current system, the average white person has a greater political voice, because white people are more likely to live in the small states than black people. That was not the intent, but that is the reality.

The small state advantage is bad.  The idea that 800k people in Wyoming should have equal voice in the Senate as 39 million people in California is just fucking stupid.  The fact that this advantage flows along racial lines should absolutely be part of the discussion.  

So, we aren't going to rewrite the Constitution.  We know that.  But let's stop pretending that 230 years ago a bunch of slave owners were able to form a government structure that would adequately deal with these inequities.  They didn't.  I do not find any nobility in trying to preserve whatever flawed vision they might have had when confronted with the completely undemocratic, and racially unjust system that actually evolved.  

 

 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The people don’t have a voice in the senate, the states do. Wyoming has the same voice that California does. Purposefully.  Now, should that have changed when senators became directly elected instead of appointed by the state legislature (or governor, I don’t recall off hand)?  Probably, but that’s essentially the same argument as eliminating electoral college in favor of popular vote, but at a state level. 
or, should that change to directly elected senators never have taken place?  That’s relatively new to our country. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Tuco said:

The small state advantage is bad.  The idea that 800k people in Wyoming should have equal voice in the Senate as 39 million people in California is just fucking stupid. 

Disagree. There is a States' chamber and a People's chamber. And that's a good design based on how the country was and is designed. 

It's a foundational aspect of the nation and changing it would essentially be such a huge change that a complete dissolution and reorganization would be called for (and the expectation should be that many States would no longer want to be included).

p.s. This thread is about the People's chamber. 

Edited by Huckleberry
  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Tuco said:

The small state advantage is bad.  The idea that 800k people in Wyoming should have equal voice in the Senate as 39 million people in California is just fucking stupid. 

Has anyone in the history of the Untied States said to themselves: "Man, the ratio of people to senators is so much better in Wyoming compared to my state. I'm moving there!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, Pato del Muerto said:

The people don’t have a voice in the senate, the states do. Wyoming has the same voice that California does. Purposefully.  Now, should that have changed when senators became directly elected instead of appointed by the state legislature (or governor, I don’t recall off hand)?  Probably, but that’s essentially the same argument as eliminating electoral college in favor of popular vote, but at a state level. 
or, should that change to directly elected senators never have taken place?  That’s relatively new to our country. 

States, particularly Western states, are fairly arbitrary constructs of democracy.  To prioritize those constructs over democracy itself is fucking stupid.  California and Wyoming having the same power in the Senate is fucking stupid.  Tradition should not trump logic.  An appreciation of history does not excuse the acceptance of a bullshit situation.  If there is any historical characteristic that Americans should embrace it's that history does not dictate the future.  If it did, we'd still be English. 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Disagree. There is a States' chamber and a People's chamber. And that's a good design based on how the country was and is designed. 

It's a foundational aspect of the nation and changing it would essentially be such a huge change that a complete dissolution and reorganization would be called for (and the expectation should be that many States would no longer want to be included).

p.s. This thread is about the People's chamber. 

I concur that we aren't going to change the Senate, or the Electoral College for that matter.  But appreciating the practical obstacles to that change and agreeing that the current situation makes sense are two vastly different things.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

The people don’t have a voice in the senate, the states do. Wyoming has the same voice that California does. Purposefully.  Now, should that have changed when senators became directly elected instead of appointed by the state legislature (or governor, I don’t recall off hand)?  Probably, but that’s essentially the same argument as eliminating electoral college in favor of popular vote, but at a state level. 
or, should that change to directly elected senators never have taken place?  That’s relatively new to our country. 

Its unsustainable to have such a disparity in population and revenue generation, yet provide them the same exact power to govern. 

Wyoming should supply 1/50 of US tax revenue then. Instead, they send Californians to die overseas on California's dime. 

Pretty much every thing that conservatives complain about with the EU is barely present in the EU which actually considers population and economic output in governance.  Cyprus doesn't have the same power as Germany in the EU.  Nor should it. Likewise, Wyoming should not have the same power as California. 

Conservatives need to decide if they actually want the USA to be a nation or not.  What you seem to really want is a confederacy of otherwise independent states.  If thats the case then you are going to have to let blue states self govern and manage their own tax burdens, and pay up into the confederate system according to a schedule.  The top down system doesn't work.  There isn't another nation in the world that allows its poorest and least populated regions to rule with an iron fist. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with all your arguments, Huck.  It makes much more sense to do business using the technology available than trying to do it according to a model built during the horse and buggy days.  

Put the reps back in their districts.  Make them available to all their constituents.   Don't let them go hide in DC.  

I would gladly support the salary and staffing costs increase to the influence of my input on my representation. 

Also go to 4 year terms on representatives not 2.  But consider term limits, like maybe 16 years?  

 

2 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

I dont really want to take away their statehood. I simply think that playing by rules from the 1800s designed to gobble up land from coast to coast is a dumb way to govern in the 21st century. There is no more land left to gobble up. Time to start focusing on the people instead of the land. 

So I dont think that Wyoming with 600,000 pepple should have the power it has over California's 40 million people.  Let the 40 million people speak for themselves.  If the only option is to revoke statehood, then we do that.  But I'd prefer we just reform our fucked up system instead. 

Robert?  Robert Reich?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

States should also have a minimum population to be states and have Senators. If they don't have it, they can merge with another state or revert to territory status. 

State style relegation?

United States of the Premier League?

I like it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm cool with the expansion...but the total congressional payroll and benefits stay at what they are now, relative to GDP.

 

 

Who am i kidding?  They make their income off underhanded deals and racketeering.   Oh well... it sounded good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...