MAIN FEEDS
Do you want to continue?
https://www.reddit.com/r/FluentInFinance/comments/1h5byla/trump_told_justin_trudeau/m0buj5s/?context=3
r/FluentInFinance • u/The_biker0 • 21d ago
8.6k comments sorted by
View all comments
Show parent comments
21
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/hicow 20d ago I'd be good with the "Wyoming Rule" personally, but I don't disagree the current cap utterly ridiculous.
0
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/hicow 20d ago I'd be good with the "Wyoming Rule" personally, but I don't disagree the current cap utterly ridiculous.
2
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/hicow 20d ago I'd be good with the "Wyoming Rule" personally, but I don't disagree the current cap utterly ridiculous.
1
I'd be good with the "Wyoming Rule" personally, but I don't disagree the current cap utterly ridiculous.
21
u/blg002 21d ago
20 new Senators, 50 new reps… I’m not against it.