Democrat wants to expand House of Representatives by 150 seats to create smaller voting districts

There are one hundred and thirty times more people than when this country was founded. We need 435 times 130... someone get a calculator, representatives. Put some trailors up outside the Capital. This will make both sides happy. Dems will get more reps, even though it won't change their proportion of power it will take them time to catch up, and the magaterds that stormed the castle will feel at home in the new trailor park.
 
I don't know...is 800,000 too many to represent? How about 4 million? Does it matter? Your comments suggest it doesn't matter. How about 200,000 (the approximate number when 435 seats were established in 1915ish)? The challenges of representative government are obvious. It's not as simple as "it doesn't matter"...is it? And I understand that change can be costly...

How about a unicameral Congress?

For a time and a place that we are living in, what's a good number if you could start from scratch?
Why not just be honest about the real motives for wanting the change?
 
There are one hundred and thirty times more people than when this country was founded. We need 435 times 130... someone get a calculator, representatives. Put some trailors up outside the Capital. This will make both sides happy. Dems will get more reps, even though it won't change their proportion of power it will take them time to catch up, and the magaterds that stormed the castle will feel at home in the new trailor park.
Or don't change what has worked for generations.
 
he had a few town halls after that vote, they were put on his web page a few hours before they started and it was by invite only after that.... he is a JOKE!!!
He should’ve been a steady stable grown-up. I’m so f—king disappointed in Sherrod Brown. He’s either a true piece of trash progressive social democrat , or more likely, a weak bitch just working his committees and voting like a rubber stamp with the party, even if he talks privately that it’s too far left. He’s pathetic.
 
He should’ve been a steady stable grown-up. I’m so f—king disappointed in Sherrod Brown. He’s either a true piece of trash progressive social democrat , or more likely, a weak bitch just working his committees and voting like a rubber stamp with the party, even if he talks privately that it’s too far left. He’s pathetic.
Pathetic and a wife beater
 
Well, then, you're pretty damn stupid. Congressmen have offices (usually several); they have staff. They serve their constituents IF their constituents ask them for help involving federal matters. We asked for help. He helped. We were grateful. The wife always voted for Dennis even though, frequently, his politics and ours, didn't always "comport".
So you voted against your own interest because one time he found your kids homework?
 
Worth a conversation...won't happen here, I realize.

The "pulse of the people" branch of government is supposed to be the House of Representatives. It's a conversation worth having...at the time of our founding, each house member served the needs of about 30,000 people. Today, it's more than 800,000.

Maybe a larger body, that represents fewer people, causes the reliance on big money to diminish...just a thought. I know, I know...all bad...proposed by a D...would expand the number of people serving in the central government...all bad...and, most importantly, we wet our pants when change is discussed.
More people in a position to be corrupted equals less corruption? I don't think that's how it works
 
There are one hundred and thirty times more people than when this country was founded. We need 435 times 130... someone get a calculator, representatives.

You think there were 435 members of congress when the country was founded?

There were like 60, dude.

lmao
 
  • Like
Reactions: y2h
I would love to see Rand Paul as Senate majority leader.

Jim Jordan the speaker of the house

and President Ron DeSantis.

That would be the shortest male triumvirate of US governmental power since there was a Madison or an Adams bobbing around
Turtle boy and all those rino's that stand behind him, when he does his little mumbling act is getting old... that SOB and those 18 POS senators that signed off on that 1.7 TRILLON PORK BILL should be made to stand in front of America and explain WTF they did... including that milk toast Rob Portman!!!
 
An endorsement of dictatorship…get me a strongman…lot of that wafting around MAGA…
Did I suggest the elimination of Congress? Or did I refute your suggestion that more people with political power would lead to less corruption?
 
Turtle boy and all those rino's that stand behind him, when he does his little mumbling act is getting old... that SOB and those 18 POS senators that signed off on that 1.7 TRILLON PORK BILL should be made to stand in front of America and explain WTF they did... including that milk toast Rob Portman!!!
Portman wanted a new bridge.
 
A hundred years ago those 30,000 has a much more difficult time expressing their views and feelings to their representatives than 800,000 do today.

Bingo.

Thinking this thing through, when considering how EASY it is now for congressmen to stay in touch with ALL of their constituents, we should probably be talking about reducing the size of the House!
 
Is that 6'4 with or without the hat...
Without.

Lincoln owned several hats, each 7-8 inches tall. So even if the hat sat down 2-3 inches on his head he would have been 6' 9"+ with the hat.

In 1860 the average american male was 5' 7". Today it's 5' 9".
 
I'm willing to double the numbers for both the House and the Senate with one caveat.

No member of the House or the Senate can be a congressperson or Senator when the number is increased. This can be accomplished in one of two ways:

1. Increase the number in a specific future year (say 20 years) with all current politicians unable to serve in either chamber from that point further.

2. Wait until all current politicians are voted out or retire. If AOC serves until she is 80, then the increase won't happen for 47 years.

This would prevent one party from implementing a rule that would favor them and give both parties (and any future parties) an opportunity to game plan for the future.
Isn’t this an argument against all legislation taking effect during the service time of a rep?
 
Did I suggest the elimination of Congress? Or did I refute your suggestion that more people with political power would lead to less corruption?
Your statement, taken to its logical conclusion, argues for the lowest number…1.
 
Turtle boy and all those rino's that stand behind him, when he does his little mumbling act is getting old... that SOB and those 18 POS senators that signed off on that 1.7 TRILLON PORK BILL should be made to stand in front of America and explain WTF they did... including that milk toast Rob Portman!!!
I am perfectly fine with Mitch as senate minority leader. He’s a lame grifter and a weak toad but he’s very good procedurally.

We can’t waste any time with him if we have the presidency again. I would not be surprised at all if it turned out later that he was an anchor with everything but judicial appointments
 
Why not just be honest about the real motives for wanting the change?
The real motives are obvious, though I’m not sure the proponent is correct about how it would turn out. Regardless of his motive, there is nothing sacrosanct about 435.

From wiki…

“By the 2000s, the U.S. population had more than tripled since the 1911 expansion of the House to its current 435 seats; accordingly, proposals began to be made by commentators such as George F. Will, Robert Novak, and Paul Jacob to further increase the size of the House. One such proposal, the Wyoming Rule, calls for adding enough members to Congress to reduce the population of the average Congressional district to the population of the least populous state's smallest district; in 1990, this would have resulted in a total House size of 547.”

Following “the Wyoming Rule”, there would be a district for every 578,000 people (Wyoming’s population)…about 576 seats in the House of Representatives currently.

 
Last edited:
The real motives are obvious, though I’m not sure the proponent is correct about how it would turn out. Regardless of his motive, there is nothing sacrosanct about 435.

From wiki…

“By the 2000s, the U.S. population had more than tripled since the 1911 expansion of the House to its current 435 seats; accordingly, proposals began to be made by commentators such as George F. Will, Robert Novak, and Paul Jacob to further increase the size of the House. One such proposal, the Wyoming Rule, calls for adding enough members to Congress to reduce the population of the average Congressional district to the population of the least populous state's smallest district; in 1990, this would have resulted in a total House size of 547.”

Following “the Wyoming Rule”, there would be a district for every 578,000 people (Wyoming’s population)…about 576 seats in the House of RepresentatIves currently.

Still not sure how having more Representatives is somehow better for the people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: y2h
I am perfectly fine with Mitch as senate minority leader. He’s a lame grifter and a weak toad but he’s very good procedurally.

We can’t waste any time with him if we have the presidency again. I would not be surprised at all if it turned out later that he was an anchor with everything but judicial appointments
I took FFA i'm good with procedurally too.... doesn't make that SOB a good leader of the Republicans!!!
 
Top