Replies

Much of the purpose of this forum is to resist and turn back government over-reaching.

Using legal means from what I observe.

You skipped my "one representative" argument:

"For many years the House increased its size as the nation’s population grew, but in 1911 the number of representatives was fixed at 435 (together with non-voting delegates representing several territories and the District of Columbia)"

Evolution of the size of the House (from Riddick)

Year Ratio of Representatives No.

1789 one for each 30,000 65

1790 33,000 105

1800 33,000 141

1810 35,000 181

1820 40,000 212

1830 47,700 240

1840 70,680 223

1850 93,423 234

1860 127,381 241

1870 131,425 293

1880 151,911 325

1890 173,901 357

1900 194,182 391

1910 211,877 435

1920 no reapportionment 435

1930 279,712 435

The number has been fixed at 435 since 1911. The current ratio is roughly 1 to 650,000 after the 2000 census.

=================

So, my question to you is: Why not have a ratio of 1 to 295,514,948?

We'll still all be represented, and you'll still be able to petition our common Representative for a redress of situations like this... ;-)

Much of the purpose of this forum is to resist and turn back government over-reaching.

Using legal means from what I observe.

Or civil disobedience. That is also an option.