Should the Congressional Apportionment Act have been ratified?

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Amendment

[Storr]

Yes. 750,000+ people per Representative is ridiculous.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I actually thought this was in the Constitution for a long time. It seems like the sort of thing that should be addressed by it.  If the formula ever needs to be change, then another amendment can be made.

[brucejoel99]

Yes. 750,000+ people per Representative is ridiculous.

And an unwieldy body of 6,563 Representatives wouldn't be?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes. 750,000+ people per Representative is ridiculous.

And an unwieldy body of 6,563 Representatives wouldn't be?

There's a middle ground. 1000-1500 members should work fine, given a strong hierarchical leadership and committee system (which the US Congress already has).

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Yes. 750,000+ people per Representative is ridiculous.

And an unwieldy body of 6,563 Representatives wouldn't be?

There's a middle ground. 1000-1500 members should work fine, given a strong hierarchical leadership and committee system (which the US Congress already has).

What's the point though? I get the argument for the Wyoming Rule to minimize population variance between districts, but after that, it seems like you're just adding representatives for the sake of it. I don't think there's anything more democratic or effective about having a rep for every 300,000 instead of every 600,000 people.

[lfromnj]

Yes. 750,000+ people per Representative is ridiculous.

And an unwieldy body of 6,563 Representatives wouldn't be?

There's a middle ground. 1000-1500 members should work fine, given a strong hierarchical leadership and committee system (which the US Congress already has).

What's the point though? I get the argument for the Wyoming Rule to minimize population variance between districts, but after that, it seems like you're just adding representatives for the sake of it. I don't think there's anything more democratic or effective about having a rep for every 300,000 instead of every 600,000 people.

Thats why you use the cube root rule.
That keeps the representative size increasing as our population increases but at a reasonable rate.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes. 750,000+ people per Representative is ridiculous.

And an unwieldy body of 6,563 Representatives wouldn't be?

There's a middle ground. 1000-1500 members should work fine, given a strong hierarchical leadership and committee system (which the US Congress already has).

What's the point though? I get the argument for the Wyoming Rule to minimize population variance between districts, but after that, it seems like you're just adding representatives for the sake of it. I don't think there's anything more democratic or effective about having a rep for every 300,000 instead of every 600,000 people.

Large districts lower the quality of democracy. Representatives can't possibly represent meaningful communities, and constituents can't hope to have meaningful interactions with representatives. The nature of campaigns change as well, as larger districts means that campaigns are more reliant on ads (and therefore on big money) than on grassroots presence and word-of-mouth. All around, a lot of the pathologies of modern US politics are, if not a product of, at least made considerably worse by large districts.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Yes. 750,000+ people per Representative is ridiculous.

And an unwieldy body of 6,563 Representatives wouldn't be?

There's a middle ground. 1000-1500 members should work fine, given a strong hierarchical leadership and committee system (which the US Congress already has).

What's the point though? I get the argument for the Wyoming Rule to minimize population variance between districts, but after that, it seems like you're just adding representatives for the sake of it. I don't think there's anything more democratic or effective about having a rep for every 300,000 instead of every 600,000 people.

Large districts lower the quality of democracy. Representatives can't possibly represent meaningful communities, and constituents can't hope to have meaningful interactions with representatives. The nature of campaigns change as well, as larger districts means that campaigns are more reliant on ads (and therefore on big money) than on grassroots presence and word-of-mouth. All around, a lot of the pathologies of modern US politics are, if not a product of, at least made considerably worse by large districts.

That may be, but these issues would still apply to any constituency of over 100k people. 250k-300k person districts, like you propose, would still be too big for meaningful constituent interactions and relevant community representation. However, constituencies of just 100k in the United States would produce an unacceptably large congress, leading me to think a sub-1,000 member congress is the way to go.

[SevenEleven]

Yes. 750,000+ people per Representative is ridiculous.

And an unwieldy body of 6,563 Representatives wouldn't be?

There's a middle ground. 1000-1500 members should work fine, given a strong hierarchical leadership and committee system (which the US Congress already has).

What's the point though? I get the argument for the Wyoming Rule to minimize population variance between districts, but after that, it seems like you're just adding representatives for the sake of it. I don't think there's anything more democratic or effective about having a rep for every 300,000 instead of every 600,000 people.

Large districts lower the quality of democracy. Representatives can't possibly represent meaningful communities, and constituents can't hope to have meaningful interactions with representatives. The nature of campaigns change as well, as larger districts means that campaigns are more reliant on ads (and therefore on big money) than on grassroots presence and word-of-mouth. All around, a lot of the pathologies of modern US politics are, if not a product of, at least made considerably worse by large districts.

On the other hand, Representatives lose power as their numbers grow. A representative dedicated solely to a small, niche community might be less effective for that community than someone who represents half a million people and they happen to be a significant part of it. I think somewhere near 1000 Reps would be sufficient for the US House as currently structured.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ideally, yes, I agree that we would need districts much smaller than 300k to achieve meaningful representation. It's a real shame that that's not practicable in a country as large as the US. Still, I do believe that every effort to minimize district size helps, even if just marginally.

As for diluting the power of individual representatives, I view that as a feature rather than a bug. It would make politics more authentically pluralistic, as personal friendships and quirks of specific lawmakers would matter less (as well as reducing the potential for corruption, since it's harder to bribe more people) and genuine policy stances would matter more.

Ideally, and especially when we get to the point of having a world government, I'm thinking the best blueprint to maintain meaningful representation could actually be something like the caucus system, where you have all voters gather at the local level to elect their representatives, who then go up to a higher tier assembly and elect their own representatives, and so forth. Of course, that would require making it possible for everyone to attend without incurring the enormous material and opportunity costs they incur today.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

yes, though I think having each district be ~100k is fine. However, our current districts are just too big to really be considered "local".

[Damocles]

Or, here’s a thought: maybe use the Cube Root Rule at the state level and stop relying so much on Washington DC for everything? District sizes of ~30k are readily achievable at the state level.