Why are we still limiting the House to 435 members?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 07, 2024, 05:04:05 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Why are we still limiting the House to 435 members?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Why are we still limiting the House to 435 members?  (Read 2361 times)
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: January 04, 2016, 12:50:18 PM »

I lost the calculations I did a while back, but I believe if this methodology were used from the beginning of the Republic through to today, the House would have somewhere north of 3,000 seats. There are potential logistical problems with that, and not just resulting from the physical size of the chamber. But I suppose what gets me about the Wyoming Rule is that if the smallest entitled unit happens to grow faster than the rest of the population, a bunch of states could wind up losing seats in the next cycle simply because of the fact that a state with a small population doesn't have to swing very much in an absolute sense to produce fairly large changes in terms of percentages.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: January 04, 2016, 05:01:30 PM »

How many people can logistically fit in the house?

Anyway, the problem is that politicians aren't very popular and very few people want more comgresspeople (even if it would make democratic sense).

Tripling its size would cost tens of millions of dollars. On the other hand, I think we should have either 499/501 or 999/1001 Representatives. It needs to be an odd amount.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: January 04, 2016, 06:01:38 PM »
« Edited: January 04, 2016, 06:13:10 PM by Simfan34 »

Office space is less of a concern; they could rent a building if they really needed it. I think physical space is a reasonable concern. One solution would be to replace the seats with British-style benches, which was actually proposed in the 19th century. I'll see if I can find the picture of the plan.

e:I think this is it. It apparently would have seated 409 members. There were also plans to remove the lobby and make space for 550. Keeping the hemicycle layout (although the House of Commons layout would be fantastic) with benches could fit a lot more people.


Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,353
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: January 04, 2016, 06:28:39 PM »

I dunno, I like the idea of electing very small people to fit them in better. Or have them appear via hologram or something.
Logged
defe07
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 961


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: January 06, 2016, 11:38:02 PM »

I believe in expanding the House using the Wyoming Rule (could change it to the Small State Rule, since WY could stop being the smallest state but the idea does make sense!). And I'd love to see a proportional voting system in place (STV seems to be a good system or even a mixed system) Smiley
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.225 seconds with 12 queries.