A better approach that wouldn’t require a constitutional amendment is expanding the House to include more members. Ideally, there should be one Rep per 50k voters.
I understand this makes the House significantly larger. However, it dilutes the power of each and every one of those bastards. Moreover, it would be inline with the US Constitution.
If we’d do this, I believe you’d see the following things happen :
1. Smaller congressional districts. Far less gerrymandering.
2. Fewer career politicians ... The House would be a madhouse as the founders intended. You’d have to have convictions to spend 2 years there.
3. Less cash required to campaign since, again, districts would be smaller.
4. More accurate Representation. There would be more of a chance that a candidate that isn’t aligned with your beliefs wouldn’t be the polar opposite.
5. Less corruption. In theory, it’d be pretty damn hard to buy half the House if there were thousands of members vs. the size of a typical high school class.
I think House expansion is the way to go. It’d be a leap in getting the FedGov under control ... In my opinion anyway.
Regarding the size of the House of Representatives...
Does the house have too much power or too little power?
What is the proper balance?
Should the size of the house be fixed at xx times the number of the senate?
Originally, representatives were about 2 1/2 times in number as senators
(65 vs 26)...
...now, it is 4 1/2 times in number (435 vs 100).
...now, to keep the original 2 1/2 to 1 ratio, it would translate to 250 representatives.
Should the size of the house be fixed by population size
(example: 1 rep per xxx # of citizens)?
Originally, representatives were 1 per 30,000 in population
...now, that would translate to 10,000 members in the house of representatives.