The First Hundred Days of the Obama Administration

[JWBear]

You guys are too fast for me!

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

If I recall my history, prior to 1929 the number of congressional disctricts increased after every census. In 1929, the number of districts was fixed by law at 435.

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]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

To stop lobbying we could:

1) Actually follow...
2) Actually follow...

Neither one of those things would get rid of lobbyists as evidenced by the fact that when both of those things were true (very limited government spending and small class size) lobbying still existed.

So, if that is what you think Madison meant by "safe and competent guardian of the interests" then Madison was wrong from the beginning. Instead I think he just meant it would help keep the lobbying interests local.

But of course, we do all tend to approve of lobbying supporting things we agree with ("you go Audobon Society and get us a new national park!") while deploring lobbying in favor of things we disagree with ("you rotten coal mining companies!").

Though I think an argument can be made that federal lobbying has definitely been rendered more important as federalism has died a slow death over the last century. But most people on this message board support that death.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

To stop lobbying we could:

1) Actually follow the founders intention and only spend money on things that document says we should.

or, even better

2) Actually follow the founders intention and have one representative for every 30,000 citizens.....with something like 10,000 congresspersons voting on spending bills no lobbyist could possibly influence enough to really sway a vote.

Once we decided to view the Constitution as something "quaint" we opened the door for lobbyist and closed it for liberty

Edit to add: Great minds think alike; Scaegles, you beat me to it.

1) The Founding Fathers were not able to anticipate our modern society, and it's needs. The Constitution is a framework - not a holy document. If we, as a country, have decided that there are things the federal government should do in order to maintain the common good, then we, as a people, have every right to demand the government do them. I think you would find that eliminating all government programs, and just paying for the military would have horrendous results for this country. Any politician that would seriously attempt such a thing would very quickly be out of a job.

The only people that I see who regard the Constitution as "quaint" are the Republicans who seek to strip us of our rights.

2) 10,000 (about 11,666 actually) representatives would be a disaster! You think Congress is inefficient now? The country would grind to a halt! And where would they meet? How would you provide the needed office space? The logistics alone are staggering. It could never happen.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Alex

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.

Great idea...you've got my support.

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.

Very lame indeed. To think liberty and freedom are being stifled by architecture....there are sports stadiums that seat close to(and even over) 100 times the required number.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Alex

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.

[Alex]

It does, however, rely on never ever allowing Guam to transition from territory to state. (Just noticed I was sloppy in my quick spreadsheet and my numbers above include Puerto Rico.)

Using the 2 for the smallest method, with Guam in the picture that bumps things up to 3,518 members of the House. Even Wyoming would have six.

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by JWBear

And where would they meet? How would you provide the needed office space? The logistics alone are staggering. It could never happen.

Skype?

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Alex

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.

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

Very lame indeed. To think liberty and freedom are being stifled by architecture....there are sports stadiums that seat close to(and even over) 100 times the required number.

It's not just the architecture, it's also the logistics of having that many in Congress. That's the deal breaker. And don't forget that all of those 11,000 people (and their staffs) would be paid!

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by JWBear

1) The Founding Fathers were not able to anticipate our modern society, and it's needs.

This is why there is an amendment process. To allow changes if the requirements for changing it are met (in terms of votes and passage).