[LibertarianInExile]

F that. We'd give them two Senators. I'd only be for that if we can realign EVERY state by population again, and got a bunch of extra Senators as a result.

I do think, however, that instead of apportioning the House at a maximum of 435 Reps, we should never have capped the membership. Having only 435 Reps means that the House is nowhere as responsive as the people's representative body that it was meant to be.

[anniegetyourgun]

What makes you think that more of them would result in greater responsiveness? I suspect it would only result in a bigger federal payroll.

[Fresh Wind]

Maybe we should donate the northeast corner of NJ to the new state, and maybe Camden, too. Then NJ would go red along with upstate New York. We would gain two senators that way.

[Founding Father]

I would never increase the number of reps--to justify their existence they would pass more laws. We need to reduce not expand their number.

[Military family member]

That's a very interest idea...If we were to return to the original proportions from 1785, what would the numbers be?

[newzjunkey]

The Founders wanted about 50,000 people per Representative to keep the House responsive and the members "known" to their communities. It's now around 667,000 citizens per Congressman.

[rwfromkansas]

Ah, but the senators for the non-NYC state of the state would probably be red.

We would gain them two new Dem senators to begin with, but only for a short while.