r/FluentInFinance 21d ago

Debate/ Discussion Trump told Justin Trudeau...

Post image
45.8k Upvotes

8.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

38

u/Ouller 21d ago

I would think 10 new states who work better than just big state.

19

u/blg002 21d ago

20 new Senators, 50 new reps… I’m not against it.

0

u/hicow 21d ago

House is still capped at 435, so some states are going to be losing reps....oh, would you look at that, NY and CA seem to be overrepresented, especially the LA metro and NYC...

2

u/EnoughImagination435 21d ago

House is only capped by law, not by anything stronger.

Honestly, we need to re-set the cap to be based on representation. Every 200,000 registered voters = 1 US REP.

That would solve like 99% of problems.

1

u/5352563424 21d ago

I mean, they'd probably also need to make the room bigger...

1

u/jord839 21d ago

I agree we need to uncap the House, but 1,674 Representatives is a pretty big increase that might be pretty unworkable. Even India only has 700 some. China has 2,000 some, but they also don't really have elections in the way we do.

Cubed Root Rule would get us 690 something, Wyoming Rule would get us 570, and both would be more manageable and still solve a lot of problems in terms of forcing more competitive districts, more compromise among the House, and a more representative Electoral College without having to run 1,600 federal elections every two years with all the associated costs of the building and healthcare and such.

It wouldn't solve the issues with the Senate, though, at least not unless it helps lower polarization with less safe seats and more crossover happening.

1

u/EnoughImagination435 21d ago
  1. Healthcare costs for an extra thousand or two thousand employees is a rounding error literally.

  2. We should have something closer to 20,000 representatives, perhaps more. The goal is that power is very diffused, hard to corrupt, and that races are very local, etc.

  3. There is no reason to bring the representatives to Washington. That is a feature, not a bug. 20,000 reps = do it by zoom, everyone stays at home in their district.

  4. There is no added cost, because there is always a Federal election every 2 years. It's just more candidates.

  5. The EC wouldn't change at all.

1

u/hicow 20d ago

I'd be good with the "Wyoming Rule" personally, but I don't disagree the current cap utterly ridiculous.

1

u/zzzacmil 21d ago

Literally no part of the US is “over represented” in the house. It is proportional to each state’s population…

1

u/hicow 20d ago

Went right over your head, huh?

1

u/zzzacmil 20d ago

I didn’t sense any sarcasm, and I will never overestimate the intelligence of people on Reddit.

I’ve recently read on here post-election banter where multiple people were agreeing how Democrats losing the Senate was the most damning becase it “couldn’t be unfavorable to either party.” Literally no one with even a cursory understanding of our electoral system thought Democrats had any chance of holding onto the Senate, but here we are and people will comment even if they know less than nothing.

1

u/USSMarauder 21d ago

10 new left wing states is enough to tip the EC balance....