View Single Post
Old 01-23-2009, 12:41 PM   #10
JWBear
Worn Romantic
 
JWBear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Long Beach California
Posts: 8,435
JWBear is the epitome of coolJWBear is the epitome of coolJWBear is the epitome of coolJWBear is the epitome of coolJWBear is the epitome of coolJWBear is the epitome of coolJWBear is the epitome of coolJWBear is the epitome of coolJWBear is the epitome of coolJWBear is the epitome of coolJWBear is the epitome of cool
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex View Post
Enlarging the House of Representatives congress has long been one of the key components in my proposals for keeping the electoral college but getting it back to its original only mild geographic tilt.

My preferred method is to set statute so that after each census, the least populous state gets two votes seats in the House. That will set the baseline for how many people a single seat will represent. Take the mod of each other states populated divided by that number and that is how many they get.

This would, using current population result in Wyoming having 2 (compared to one now), each representing 266,334 people, and California having 138 as opposed to the current 54. And a total of 1,130 members of the the House of Representatives.

If that is too scary for most people, then it could be done by setting smallest to just one and then doing the same thing. This results in Wyoming having 1 (no change), each representing 532,668 people and California getting 69 (an increase of 17) for a total of 554 (just 119 more than now).

But really I think the biggest reason we've not increased the size of Congress is that the idea of having to build a new Capitol to house them and the supporting infrastructure is too scary. And that is, when you think about it, kind of lame.
Alex's plan is much more feasable.
__________________
Unrestrained frivolity will lead to the downfall of modern society.
JWBear is offline   Submit to Quotes Reply With Quote