Why 435? (HoR)

[Lightdemon]

Currently the number of seats in our House of Representatives is fixed at 435. A good reason for this is for practical means. Even now, 435 maybe too large a number for effective floor action in the HoR...And then there were political reasons why Congress passed the Reapportionment Act of 1929, such as removing the democrats from power, etc.

The problem though, is that the US has grown so much larger that each state (who is guaranteed at least 1 representative) may not always have 1/435th of the population. Which means that they have more representation than other states who may have more than 1/435th of the population per district.

So I was wondering what everybody else thought of this. If we choose practicality, then we lose the purpose of apportionment that is described in the Constitution. If we choose to increase the number of representatives, the HoR will take even longer amounts of time to get things done. Also, many of the representatives that we send to Congress doesn't even do much because they won't be heard of if their not senior members. So why send more right?

So what would you choose?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Currently the number of seats in our House of Representatives is fixed at 435. A good reason for this is for practical means. Even now, 435 maybe too large a number for effective floor action in the HoR...And then there were political reasons why Congress passed the Reapportionment Act of 1929, such as removing the democrats from power, etc.

The problem though, is that the US has grown so much larger that each state (who is guaranteed at least 1 representative) may not always have 1/435th of the population. Which means that they have more representation than other states who may have more than 1/435th of the population per district.

So I was wondering what everybody else thought of this. If we choose practicality, then we lose the purpose of apportionment that is described in the Constitution. If we choose to increase the number of representatives, the HoR will take even longer amounts of time to get things done. Also, many of the representatives that we send to Congress doesn't even do much because they won't be heard of if their not senior members. So why send more right?

So what would you choose?

I want the amount apportioned in The Constitution.

We are effectively turning the hor into another senate.
I want the senate to be elected by states like it is supposed to be.

The less that gets done in Washington the better.

 

[Lightdemon]

I want the amount apportioned in The Constitution.

We are effectively turning the hor into another senate.
I want the senate to be elected by states like it is supposed to be.

The less that gets done in Washington the better.

You're right, it sort of does mimic what the Senate is supposed to represent, which is the state. The whole point of having the HoR in the first place is to have a house in congress that can represent the people. Like how the terms are only 2 years before re-election. This supposedly keeps the power of the house closer to the people. And I suppose it does, if it is divided up by district correctly, and re-elections are not fixed.

It seems to me that the premise behind the HoR has been bypassed, by limiting the number of seats in the House, and gerrymandering.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

You're right, it sort of does mimic what the Senate is supposed to represent, which is the state. The whole point of having the HoR in the first place is to have a house in congress that can represent the people. Like how the terms are only 2 years before re-election. This supposedly keeps the power of the house closer to the people. And I suppose it does, if it is divided up by district correctly, and re-elections are not fixed.

It seems to me that the premise behind the HoR has been bypassed, by limiting the number of seats in the House, and gerrymandering.

The fix was in when they set the number to 435.

It should be sized to meet the level of people asked for in The Constitution.
I know it may seem unapproachable to have such a large body of people but we have the resources to build such a building to house them and we need to be represented closer to an individual basis.

We would have more political ideologies than we have now if it was sized to what its supposed to be.

 

[Kandahar]

The fix was in when they set the number to 435.

It should be sized to meet the level of people asked for in The Constitution.
I know it may seem unapproachable to have such a large body of people but we have the resources to build such a building to house them and we need to be represented closer to an individual basis.

We would have more political ideologies than we have now if it was sized to what its supposed to be.

I don't think it's so much an issue of finding a building big enough to house them...it's more an issue of how is anything going to get done if there are thousands of congressmen.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I don't think it's so much an issue of finding a building big enough to house them...it's more an issue of how is anything going to get done if there are thousands of congressmen.

As they do now I think.

Most of the detractors cite housing in my experience.

It would be much better to have bills moved more slowly than fast.

 

[Lightdemon]

As they do now I think.

Most of the detractors cite housing in my experience.

It would be much better to have bills moved more slowly than fast.

The problem is that because it moves so slowly, legislative action becomes useless.

For example, appropriating spending bills already take tremendous amounts of time to pass. Allowing the government to actively participate in the economy, via government purchases, taxes, transfer payments, etc. is a crucial tool that we use to regulate the economy. If this process is retarded even further than it is now, this tool becomes useless as appropriations will take forever to approve.

[Trying to play devil's advocate here, sorry ]

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

The problem is that because it moves so slowly, legislative action becomes useless.

For example, appropriating spending bills already take tremendous amounts of time to pass. Allowing the government to actively participate in the economy, via government purchases, taxes, transfer payments, etc. is a crucial tool that we use to regulate the economy. If this process is retarded even further than it is now, this tool becomes useless as appropriations will take forever to approve.

[Trying to play devil's advocate here, sorry ]

Sorry I took so long to respond.

I want that to happen.

 

[American]

Sorry I took so long to respond.

I want that to happen.

All except the military, I agree.

 

[Lightdemon]

All except the military, I agree.

So, decisions on domestic issues regarding health care, education, economy (federal budget), fiscal policy, should move very slowly?

When it comes to the military, decisions should be done in haste?

 

[American]

So, decisions on domestic issues regarding health care, education, economy (federal budget), fiscal policy, should move very slowly?

When it comes to the military, decisions should be done in haste?

Did I say in haste, or are you just trying for troll of the year?

 

[Lightdemon]

Did I say in haste, or are you just trying for troll of the year?

I'm only asking for clarification. Calm down a little.

 

[American]

Then why use an extreme term?

 

[Lightdemon]

Then why use an extreme term?

Haste is an extreme term? I was trying to find a comparable term for "very slow."

Seriously, you just need to calm down. I'm not trying to insult you, at least not right now.

I'm asking for clarification because, you know, you only gave 1 sentence as a response. I'm just trying to figure out what you're trying to say. That's all. So can you please stop being so defensive...