• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Increase the Size of the House?

Should the Size of the House of Representatives be Increased?

  • Total voters
    16

Anagram

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
9,218
Reaction score
5,860
Location
St. Louis MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Larry J. Sabato's Crystal Ball » It

What do you think of the arguments in this article to increase the size of the House?

Basically it argues-

-It would reduce the huge number of constituents per member currently over 700,000, higher than any similar legislative body except India's.

-The growing number of single member states is contributing to malapportionment. Rhode Island and Montana after 2020 will each have a member representing over a million people each compared to over 700,000 for the average district and about 600,000 for Wyoming.

-It'll reduce the impact of gerrymandering.

-It'll increase the amount of rural representation. With the increasing district size it's becoming harder to draw any districts without major population centers.

It's unlikely of course that this will ever happen because the House would have to approve it. I doubt they'd approve something that would reduce the influence of each individual member.
 

I thought that the districts and number of reps per state were set by population, so how can districts be so disparate? I'm trying sincerely to see how those seats are doled out as it stands now, and I'm having a harder time than I thought. Lots discussing what you're talking about here, but to find just exactly why something that was I thought intended to reflect balanced population size isn't doing that,... well, I've not found that yet. Still looking for the right search terms.

OIC, it comes about due to the disparity among single representative states. Got it.

Yes, there needs to be a base reset every census that sets the population of the least populated state as equal to one representative, and then it should reset the number of reps based on that.
 
Last edited:
Here's some wiki on the efforts to date to expand the HoR.

United States congressional apportionment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I would support increasing the size by a fairly large amount. I would combine that with actual anti-gerrymandering laws as part of the overall reform.
 

There's a million people in Montana? With urban areas dominated by Dems it's a problem for the more conservative rural areas that are less populated because their interests are so far apart. It's definitely something to ponder.
 
There is a cap set by law, meaning we would have t pass a new law to raise the number. We all know how hard it is to even get Reps and Dems to talk to each other is. This seems a stretch.
 
Voted NO because we already have enough idiots in DC, no need for more.
 
Not until we clean up the government, all increasing the size of the House will do is allow even more crooks into power. We've got enough of those already, thank you.
 

Because states like Wyoming get at least one, the number the currently have, but the state has less than 600K in population. Other states get more for having a higher population.

Wy, Mt, ND, SD, Vt, De and Ak all have only one seat. The minimum number for a state. So the comparison is really off because it is not comparing the number in multi-district states vs single district states.

Why anyone would think a greater number would be better is beyond me. If you can't get 435 people to agree on something, how are you going to get an even greater number? Frankly, we should decrease the number and not allow more than one for any given metropolitan area.
 

I disagree. Firstly, you don't need all 435 of them to agree, you just need a majority. Secondly, part of the problem is that there are only representatives per major metro areas. There are enough rural people in America with their own needs to warrant some districts, but with the way it is now, there is no way to draw them without a major population center.
 
I have advocated going back to one representative for every 30,000 to 50,000 people. Make it harder for large pockets to buy enough favorable votes in congress. Also, to repeal the part of the 17th amendment that changed their appointment from the state government, to popular vote..
 
I say make it bigger.

I believe that's the Senate, not the House.
 

We could make franchise and other "rights" only apply to those who have earned through service. If someone is unwilling to put their ass on the line for it, they don't want it bad enough and don't deserve it.
 
House of Representatives shall be reduced at the expense of those idiots who supported Obamaker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…