Re-apportioning the House & electoral college

[rlvaughn]

Probably every time there is a presidential election in the US, there are folks who complain about the electoral college, and suggest eliminating it and electing presidents by popular vote. This article (linked below) suggests a different approach, eliminating the cap of the size of the House of Representatives and increasing its representation, thereby also increasing the representation of the electoral college.

Eliminating the cap on the size of the House—fixed at 435 since 1929—and allowing it to rise with the population would achieve true proportionate representation in the House, and give every citizen’s vote equal weight in the outcome of presidential elections.

In the electoral college, every state gets a number of electoral college votes equal to the number of elected officials it sends to the House and Senate. Each state has two senators plus at least one House representative, for a minimum of three votes in the electoral college.

What would happen to the electoral college if Congressional districts were apportioned evenly?

Thoughts?

 

[Jerome]

James Madison, Federalist Paper 55:

"Sixty or seventy men may be more properly trusted with a given degree of power than six or seven. But it does not follow that six or seven hundred would be proportionably a better depositary. And if we carry on the supposition to six or seven thousand, the whole reasoning ought to be reversed. The truth is, that in all cases a certain number at least seems to be necessary to secure the benefits of free consultation and discussion, and to guard against too easy a combination for improper purposes; as, on the other hand, the number ought at most to be kept within a certain limit, in order to avoid the confusion and intemperance of a multitude."

"At the expiration of twenty-five years, according to the computed rate of increase, the number of representatives will amount to two hundred, and of fifty years, to four hundred. This is a number which, I presume, will put an end to all fears arising from the smallness of the body."

 

[carpro]

The house is a large as it needs to be. Almost ineffective now.

Imagine 1000 of those idiots trying to get anything done.

 

[InTheLight]

Bigger government?

That's a big NO.

 

[carpro]

Have a citizenship question on the census would be far more useful and fair to the citizens of this country.

A true re-apportionment of representatives that more accurately reflects the population could then take place.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Probably every time there is a presidential election in the US, there are folks who complain about the electoral college, and suggest eliminating it and electing presidents by popular vote. This article (linked below) suggests a different approach, eliminating the cap of the size of the House of Representatives and increasing its representation, thereby also increasing the representation of the electoral college. What would happen to the electoral college if Congressional districts were apportioned evenly? Thoughts?

Maintaining the current number of electors by population means the ones per senator remain a strong balance for small states. A continual increase based on population could eventually nullify the balance effect of those per senator. And besides, congress is unwieldy already.

There is no good reason to change the 1910 overall representative limit, which was more securely fixed in 1945. Population shifts potentially change the distribution after every census, and that serves well enough.

What we really need are term limits everywhere and a way to get rid of corruption, including deep state and big government. It would also be nice to prohibit socialism once and for all, and prosecute traitors (and other enemies) aiding and abetting illegal aliens. Yep, Trump was right. Americans are dreamers too!

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Have a citizenship question on the census would be far more useful and fair to the citizens of this country.

A true re-apportionment of representatives that more accurately reflects the population could then take place.

How true. How about increasing ICE manpower and have them help conduct the census!

 

[Salty]

Actually, I would like to see the House increase to 500 members
Currently each member represents over 700,000 Americians

With 500 reps that would decrease to 650,000.

BUT - Who should be counted to determine how many Congressmen represent a State/Commonwealth ?

Illegal residents?

Legal residents

American Citizens only

Only those 18 and over?

Registered voters only?

 

[FollowTheWay]

I agree with Madison who helped design the original Electoral College system.

It would, however, revive a sound idea from James Madison, who helped design the original system. He had proposed a constitutional amendment that would have guaranteed an increase in the size of the House to keep up with population growth. It wasn’t adopted.

The current system disproportionately gives power to small states that are not growing.

 

[InTheLight]

The current system disproportionately gives power to small states that are not growing.

That's funny. One US House Representative per small state is disproportionately giving them power.

 

[church mouse guy]

The House had 435 desks and so the number was stopped there. I think that Rayburn said that that was enough. The Dems don't want small states to have two Senators so they want to do away with the idea of a constitutional republic and go to technical democracy, which the Founders considered mob rule.

 

[Salty]

I agree with Madison who helped design the original Electoral College system.

It would, however, revive a sound idea from James Madison, who helped design the original system. He had proposed a constitutional amendment that would have guaranteed an increase in the size of the House to keep up with population growth. It wasn’t adopted.

The current system disproportionately gives power to small states that are not growing.

Actually, the COTUS in Article 1, section 2 States that there shall be 1 representative for every 30,000 citizens.
If that was still valid, the House would have about 10,000 (yes 10 thousand) members.
This link will show how the House grew over the years. (Scroll down about half way)

 

[kyredneck]

The current system disproportionately gives power to small states that are not growing.

I think you're confusing the House with the Senate.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I agree with Madison who helped design the original Electoral College system.

So do I.

It would, however, revive a sound idea from James Madison, who helped design the original system. He had proposed a constitutional amendment that would have guaranteed an increase in the size of the House to keep up with population growth. It wasn’t adopted.

Not pertinent. Already done long ago. And this lacks the needed ceiling.

The current system disproportionately gives power to small states that are not growing.

No, not "gives." It just doesn't unduly strip them of it. In the wake of illegal aliens, amnesty, chain migration, and anchor babies, the 435 limit is more important than ever.

 

[carpro]

I think you're confusing the House with the Senate.

I would think that was true of anyone else, but...

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

It would, however, revive a sound idea from James Madison, who helped design the original system. He had proposed a constitutional amendment that would have guaranteed an increase in the size of the House to keep up with population growth. It wasn’t adopted.

Actually, the way you state this makes no sense. The amendment was to adjust its growth rate not increase its size, which was already built in. So instead of the 10,000 members Salty mentioned, we would only have 6,000.

Again, the cap was needed, and added. Any need for that amendment passed long ago. The 435 cap works. We don’t need even more of those career politicians wasting time, spending money, taxing us to death.

 

[Ziggy]

If the House cap were reduced to only 350, think of the millions of taxpayer $$$ that would be saved, and still allow for the same do-nothing Congress that we are all used to.

 

[Salty]

I think you're confusing the House with the Senate.

Not really - if all districts were equal - than a congressman would represent some 750,000 citizens.

But Wyoming only has a population of 585,000 well below the average.

 

[Salty]

If the House cap were reduced to only 350, think of the millions of taxpayer $$$ that would be saved, and still allow for the same do-nothing Congress that we are all used to.

If we decreased the size of of congress to 350 - we would save about 2 billion dollars a year
with a budge of over 4 trillion a years - 2 billion is chick feed.

In addition - the current 435 congressman represents some 750.000 Americans.
by dropping that to 350, those congressman would represent 1 million citizens.

in that case the bigger States/commonwealth would loose out as at least 5 States/commonwealths have less than 1 million.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Not really - if all districts were equal - than a congressman would represent some 750,000 citizens.

But Wyoming only has a population of 585,000 well below the average.

That's why the right thing to do is to make every district the size of the smallest one. That increases the size of the house but it's more representative.