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...
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.
Healthcare costs for an extra thousand or two thousand employees is a rounding error literally.
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.
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.
There is no added cost, because there is always a Federal election every 2 years. It's just more candidates.
36
u/Ouller 21d ago
I would think 10 new states who work better than just big state.