Posted on 12/03/2010 6:21:03 AM PST by jmaroneps37
Expanding the House is an idea whose time has come. Using a slightly different formula for apportioning Congressional seats would give us a House that is much more in line with American values.
So much of what the federal government does is based on merely what the federal government wants to do rather than what the Founding Fathers designed. This makes it hard to separate original intent from political whim.
For instance, we take for granted that United States Senators must be elected. Yet before the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913 states were free to elect or select their Senators.
We also believe the rule requiring only 435 members in the House of Representatives is inviolable. Nevertheless, this cap is in place only because the Congress passed The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. The Founding Fathers had no such vision; in fact the very purpose of the Census was as a way to periodically reapportion and expand the House to reflect changes in population.
Montanans’ votes worth less
The Founding Fathers would never approve of Montana having one Representative serving 958,000 people and Rhode Island with only 100,000 more residents having two Representatives each serving only 530,000 people.
Besides making Montanans’ votes count for less, this provides a built-in advantage for Rhode Island and other out of step liberal places like New York City. Mega districts like Montana has virtually insure substandard service from their lone Representative.
While still much too high, setting the Congressional district population limit at roughly 700,000 should work better and provide us with a Congress more reflective of the will of the people. Certainly the very Blue Rhode Island doesn’t come near reflecting the….
More..
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
We got plenty of congress critters. The best way to end gerrymandering is to head to one representative per state.
Sounds like another attempt to increase Dem Congressmen, via gerrymandering.
What kind of historical revisionism is that? The Founders had no problem with both large and small states having two senators.
Why do we HAVE to bow to the 435 seat rule because Congress set it that way. Why be afraid of the will of the people. As it is those of us on the Right would greatly benefit from this move if made right now, but it would also keep Washington “honest” in terms of being responsive to the will of the people that elected them. Look at the red/Blue map. Where do you see the Democrats picking up seats? The automatic Black seats would have to go under this plan.
And NO I don't think the Founding Fathers wanted seats with 530k people to count for more than a 958k population seat.
You missed the point - the Founders had no problem with disparaties in proportion of representation - the Senate was specifically designed to create just that.
We have enough Congresscritters, we don't need more.
That's because the House and the Senate have different duties.
The House was to be answerable to the people, and the Senate to the states — that is, the state governments.
And as long as government fulfills its limited purpose, rather than trying to control everything, such an arrangement works fine.
IIRC, the framers themselves thought the sweet spot for representation was in the 10,000-30,000 per individual range. They would view the current ratios as utterly un-republican. What it means is that either we have over 1000 representatives in the house, or we admit that our country is far too large to be a real republic of any true nature.
Slightly expand?!!
Restore original Constitutional apportionment..1:30000 would give us 10,000 congresscritters. They can stay in their districts..and meet electronically, while their constituents can be present in a local auditorium. Easy to keep tabs on who’s duckin’ in and out of the door. Any expenses associated with their office are kept locally in the community.
Consensus, on all but the most important of national issues will be difficult to achieve...meaning they will leave us the %^ll alone!!
More perks and staff??
Can we cut the staff and funding for each office if we do this??
It would be significantly better to repeal that Amendment (16 or 17) that required popular election of senators!
In fact, repeal both of them (the other was the Income Tax)!
I would like to see the Senate composed of the Governor and Lt. Governor of each state, but that’s just my 2 cents. It would go a long way to dispensing with the American House of Lords as well as being self-term limiting.
The Senate is not the House.
The purpose of the House was to provide representation for the people.
The number of Reps was to adjust based on population. For size reasons, this was capped at 435.
The purpose of the Senate is to provide for representation of the States.
The number of Senators was 2 apiece, giving each State an equal voice.
I was simply pointing out that the Founders did not have a fundamental problem with disproportionate representation.
I can’t imagine that the founding fathers imagined:
300+ million people
50 total states
Lady Gaga, Obama, etc
It isn’t a failure on their part to accomodate these changes, it was, and is those that follow. If the intent of any change would be to get our representatives more in touch with the hoi poi, it would take an incredible increase in the # of representatives.
What if the # of senators was doubled? On one hand the thought probably makes most, if not all of us gag, but might it have the effect of, of, .....nope, bad idea.
Okay, we double the number of reps. That, I’d think, might improve the chances of getting more ‘heartland’ and ‘hometown USA’ type reps vice the liberal, suburban yuppie reps we are seemingly dominated by. But gerrymandering would still be a problem.
I’d still rather have term limits tried first.
plus, I’d like to see congress moved out to a 5 square mile area in the boonies of Nebraska, South Dakota or some such location. Put up a 20 ft wall, and do not allow lobbyists or special interests inside. Cameras everywhere, no reporters.
I’ve always wondered how the size of congress was set. It’s not in the Constitution. 1929 huh?
I am not necessarily opposed to increasing the size. How many times more people are there to represent now than in `1929.
The founders of big states ABSOLUTELY had a problem with two Senators from each state. The Constitution almost wasn’t born because of it.
However, a majority had to approve.
Yes they did, hence the Bi-cameral house.
The senate renders each stae with an equal voice, the House renders each person with an ‘equal’ voice. That makes everything very proportionate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.