I read this idea on a place on the web most folks don’t go and want to see what you all think about it.
It is called The Wyoming Rule:
Under this system the standard Representative-to-Population ratio would be set by the least populated state, in this case, Wyoming. The result would be districts containing on average of 568,300 people instead of the 710,767.
This would result in the House of Representatives being increased from our current 435 member to approximately 540, give or take a few.
It sounds much more (and I dislike to use this word) “fair”.
However, I cannot think of a time when more politicians was a good thing.
What say ye?
It would weight the representation more towards areas with heavier populations. Basically cities would gain more over rural area. In some ways this would be equivalent to making Senators an elected office.
Alternate suggestion, take the number of registered voters Nationwide (including the Territories, District of Columbia etc.) and devide that number by 435. Now make all the elections At-Large, if the Seirra Club representive can get the 700,000 or so votes necessary, then he/she has a seat in the House. That being said, I would fully expect to see Representatives from the VFW, the NRA, the Knights of Columbus. the UAW… This would eliminate the complaint that “My Representive doesn’t represent me”. Never happen though, it would destroy the party system.
Keith W
I’d prefer the current (or even reduced) number of representatives, but have them all cast weighted votes, say something like one vote for each 10k people in their district. That way, a 700k state with one rep gets 70 (weighted) votes, and each of the two reps from a 1m population state gets 50 votes. It gives you the finer resolution of representation without the additional expense of more bodies; it would also allow a fair reduction in the total number of representatives, but still account for the various state populations. That, combined with the possibility of having all representatives be “at large,” and having their congressional votes be weighted according to percentage of the state voters that voted for them, and we’d have better representation overall, I think.
More politicians means more political gridlock.
@AM:
“More politicians means more political gridlock.”
You say that like it’s a bad thing…
I was about to post AM’s point above, and say it’s not necessarily a bad thing. We have had adjustments to the number of representatives before, we didn’t start out with 435. There’s nothing special about that number.
But I’m getting more cynical about the whole thing being beyond fixing, all the time. I don’t see any reasonable and effective way to prevent gerrymandering. I don’t want the Republicans to cheat to win any more than I want the Democrats to do so. But hat’s tghe name of the game these days. It’s too big and too diffuse to get any loyalty or to have any kind of criticism to work personally.
Eriko +1. If people with politics running through their veins have suggested this, there is only one reason they did: to increase the political power of the ruling class over that of the supporting class (we peons).
Nix.
Back at them: Change it back to property owners having the only vote. This Nation’s decline began approximately when the property-less class was made equal to the property-owning class.
I am dubious, but I like the thinking out of the box.
The real issue is the judicial and executive branches have not reigned in Congress as designed. This doesn’t address that.
The overall number would increase, but the geographic distribution would remain about the same as Eriko noted.
The other problem is that the available boodle, bribes, graft, campaign contributions would have to be reduced by about 24% to go around. Can’t have that.
Rivr, you da man! I rent, but I would go all out to get a resolution requiring property ownership to vote. Watch the socialistic bastards get voted out!
The problem with having only landowners voting is the unions will sell one square foot plots to their members and take over.
Easy enough to require that the landowner show that his plot is large enough to support a structure or other infrastructure, even if said structure doesn’t yet exist.
1-square-foot plots, like the lunar surface sales scam, need not apply.
I feel our representatives would be much more “representative” of their constituents if there were one for every 25000 or so of us, as was originally the case. Even at the 1:50,000 ratio they’d pay attention to what their constituents really wanted.
Yes, that means a 6,000- or even 12,000-member House of Representatives. Not a problem. Secure electronic voting and teleconferencing takes care of any issues there, and promotes the idea that the Members can stay in their own districts, rather than spending all their time in D.C.
oh yeah, more leeches eating out of the public trough…