[jmaroneps37]

This is something else we can look at as we wade through the swamp in Washington.

[Paladin2]

We got plenty of congress critters. The best way to end gerrymandering is to head to one representative per state.

[theDentist]

Sounds like another attempt to increase Dem Congressmen, via gerrymandering.

[dirtboy]

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.

What kind of historical revisionism is that? The Founders had no problem with both large and small states having two senators.

[Huck]

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.

[Sudetenland]

I agree!!! I have long thought that we should double the size of the House. One of the problems with the House is that the members have become too isolated from their constituents.

There is a reason our Founding Fathers set the ration at 1/30,000. Representatives are supposed to be closer to the people they represent. They are supposed to be more reflective of popular sentiment. The House is the democratic side of the Legislative Branch of government and the Senate is the republic side . . . thus America is truly a "democratic-republic."

Representatives now have too much power and are too isolated from their communities. There is no way that a Representative can "press flesh" with everyone he represents. They have evolved into de facto senators.

Broaden the House, shrink the districts, and bring representation back closer to what our forefathers imagined. Repeal the 17th and return the Senate back to the ideal initially imagined by those who built this great nation.

This would lessen the power each of these people possess and make them more responsive to the needs and wishes of the people, as our Founding Fathers intended.

[mo]

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!!

[GeronL]

More perks and staff??

Can we cut the staff and funding for each office if we do this??

[jbp1]

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.

[DManA]

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.