NationStates

The year was 1912. It was the first time, (according to my brief search on Wiki, so it could be wrong, but I'm being lazy,) that 435 Congressmen from the 48 contiguous states were elected. At the time, the US had less than 100 million people; the 1910 census showed 92 million.

Today the 48 contiguous continue to elect 435 Congressmen, even though the population more than tripled. Should we increase, or even triple Congress? Ditto for Senate? It's all in the poll.

I think that we should, because it'll allow more representation, and we'll have more swing districts. What does NSG think?

No.

Onto more productive questions.

-Ra- wrote:No.

Onto more productive questions.

I like how you voted to defund the house, but keep the Senate at 100. Interesting mix.

Shofercia wrote:

-Ra- wrote:No.

Onto more productive questions.

I like how you voted to defund the house, but keep the Senate at 100. Interesting mix.

I actually didn't vote. Nor do I care, since I'm not American.

But okay.

Yes. The US has one of the smallest legislatures for its population of any country in the world. I suggested the idea of removing the cap on the House to my member of Congress once

Yes, having a set number of representatives regardless of population is silly. The sheer amount of constituency work should be reason enough.

For logistical reasons, it can't increase in size indefinitely. I'd recommend it being raised to 500 seats and it being kept at a nice even number like that.

Saiwania wrote:For logistical reasons, it can't increase in size indefinitely. I'd recommend it being raised to 500 seats and it being kept at a nice even number like that.

No one is calling for it to increase indefinitely

San Lumen wrote:

Saiwania wrote:For logistical reasons, it can't increase in size indefinitely. I'd recommend it being raised to 500 seats and it being kept at a nice even number like that.

No one is calling for it to increase indefinitely

Why not?

At what point would we stop, if current population growth continues? If it was raised to say 700 seats permanently, that would only kick the can down the road to future generation

No, I'd rather not have any more parasites on the payroll.

The Two Jerseys wrote:No, I'd rather not have any more parasites on the payroll.

What a generalization

San Lumen wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:No, I'd rather not have any more parasites on the payroll.

What a generalization

Oh right, I forgot, the ones with (D) next to their name are absolute saints...

The Two Jerseys wrote:

San Lumen wrote:What a generalization

Oh right, I forgot, the ones with (D) next to their name are absolute saints...

Never said that

While the House might do with being larger, it's already unwieldy as a legislative body. Individual Representatives have almost no power, and serve on only a few committees, because there simply aren't enough committee seats to go around.

I think the Senate should be expanded to three Senators per state (150 total) to smooth out the irregularities of each state getting two elections in six years. Better to have each state have a Senatorial election every two years, so the people of every state have a chance to express their opinion of the government on a regular basis.

We ought to redistrict after every census, and keep the representation at consistent levels. The concept being the House is for it to be the chamber for the common people to have their voice, so it would make a fair deal of sense for it to be equally distributed. While, yes, it would mean that California would have a great deal more Congressfolk than Wyoming, it's only fair because they a much greater population.

The state's are meant to be represented by the Senate, which is why it is set at equal representation.

Northwest Slobovia wrote:While the House might do with being larger, it's already unwieldy as a legislative body. Individual Representatives have almost no power, and serve on only a few committees, because there simply aren't enough committee seats to go around.

I think the Senate should be expanded to three Senators per state (150 total) to smooth out the irregularities of each state getting two elections in six years. Better to have each state have a Senatorial election every two years, so the people of every state have a chance to express their opinion of the government on a regular basis.

Every member of Congress sits on at least one committee. Once in Congress they can request certain committees but it’s not always granted

They have more power then you think, they introduce bills and can get certain appropriations for their districts.

San Lumen wrote:

Northwest Slobovia wrote:While the House might do with being larger, it's already unwieldy as a legislative body. Individual Representatives have almost no power, and serve on only a few committees, because there simply aren't enough committee seats to go around.

I think the Senate should be expanded to three Senators per state (150 total) to smooth out the irregularities of each state getting two elections in six years. Better to have each state have a Senatorial election every two years, so the people of every state have a chance to express their opinion of the government on a regular basis.

Every member of Congress sits on at least one committee. Once in Congress they can request certain committees but it’s not always granted

As I said...

San Lumen wrote:They have more power then you think, they introduce bills and can get certain appropriations for their districts.

AFAIK, earmarking is dead, and has been for some time.

Northwest Slobovia wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Every member of Congress sits on at least one committee. Once in Congress they can request certain committees but it’s not always granted

As I said...

San Lumen wrote:They have more power then you think, they introduce bills and can get certain appropriations for their districts.

AFAIK, earmarking is dead, and has been for some time.

Prove it

Jedi Council wrote:

San Lumen wrote:No one is calling for it to increase indefinitely

Why not?

At what point would we stop, if current population growth continues? If it was raised to say 700 seats permanently, that would only kick the can down the road to future generation

Lets set it at 328.2 million seats.

Neanderthaland wrote:

Jedi Council wrote:Why not?

At what point would we stop, if current population growth continues? If it was raised to say 700 seats permanently, that would only kick the can down the road to future generation

Lets set it at 328.2 million seats.

F in chat for the Architect of the Capitol.

The Two Jerseys wrote:

Neanderthaland wrote:Lets set it at 328.2 million seats.

F in chat for the Architect of the Capitol.

We can always just have one ginormous Skype chat so all 328.2 million legislators can be present without burdening the Capitol. People still use Skype, right?

Luziyca wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:F in chat for the Architect of the Capitol.

We can always just have one ginormous Skype chat so all 328.2 million legislators can be present without burdening the Capitol. People still use Skype, right?

Wasn't there just some big outrage over Microsoft making Skype launch automatically on all PCs upon startup?

...still very few users.

Luziyca wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:F in chat for the Architect of the Capitol.

We can always just have one ginormous Skype chat so all 328.2 million legislators can be present without burdening the Capitol. People still use Skype, right?

"The chair recognizes...whomever that pixel is."

Neanderthaland wrote:

Luziyca wrote:We can always just have one ginormous Skype chat so all 328.2 million legislators can be present without burdening the Capitol. People still use Skype, right?

Wasn't there just some big outrage over Microsoft making Skype launch automatically on all PCs upon startup?

...still very few users.

I think that was Microsoft Teams. Was really annoying that that thing launched automatically on startup, but I eventually found a way to deactivate that malarkey.

But I'm sure Skype is more secure than Zoom, which would make it optimal for the US government to use.

The Two Jerseys wrote:

Luziyca wrote:We can always just have one ginormous Skype chat so all 328.2 million legislators can be present without burdening the Capitol. People still use Skype, right?

"The chair recognizes...whomever that pixel is."

Absolutely. I'd prefer the use of the Cube Root Rule, where the total seats of the House and Senate is fixed to the cube root of the U.S. population. So after each census, the House would be increased to the cube root of the population, minus 100 for the Senate. For example, after the 2010 census the House would have 576 seats. I also support the adoption of STV for House elections, but that's another story.