Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
It gives much more representation to densely populated areas and less to areas with less population.
|
Actually, the current apportionment arrangment tends to give "more representation to densely populated areas and less to areas with less population". Understanding this point requires explaining the arcane area of
apportionment mathematics which, if I did, would kill this thread. Suffice it to say that as a resident of Dunwoody, Georgia, I appreciate your concern, but can assure you that all your fellow Americans would be properly represented were the House larger.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Also, I don't want to pay more for anything. I pay what I feel is enough, and frankly will fight tooth and nail for any increased spending and expenditures. More congress means more offices in Washington DC. Most congressional people have a pie d'tierre to stay when they are in town. Taxpayers foot some of that bill.
|
I argue that reducing the size of our congressional districts (and increasing the number of Representatives) would ultimately
reduce the net cost of the federal government; please read:
Q8:
Wouldn’t it be costly to add all these Representatives?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ASU2003
It sounds like a communist idea to me. :b
|
I'm hoping, for your sake, that your comment was intended to be humorous.
If not, then I should point out that China, Cuba and other totalitarian states suffer under
one-party rule. We're one step away from that with the current
two-party duopoly on political power.
I can elaborate on this point if necessary, but a substantial enlargement of the federal House would allow other political parties to flourish, and thereby end the two-party duopoly, which is why the two controlling parties, and their minons, will forever oppose enlarging the House.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
I would be happy to debate what is a reasonable number may be....My only point is that I dont believe the number set in 1790 is reasonable for 2008.
|
Just to be clear: no number was set in 1790. The Constitution only specifies that the districts may be
no smaller than 30,000 inhabitants. Hence, the present day problem.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
I would agree that at point in the foreseeable future, that number needs to be expanded...but never back to 1 Rep/30,000 pop.
|
Then we agree that it should be larger than 435. I believe most Americans will eventually arrive at the same conclusion, as they come to understand this matter.