Should the US House of Reps have more Representatives?

[regexcellent]

Diluting the power if individual members even more would just increase party-line voting.

[Captain ******* Kirk]

Diluting the power if individual members even more would just increase party-line voting.

Good.

[Felch]

The whole way you gerrymander is have the district lines bob and weave around all over the map so you only pick up the voters who vote the way you want them to vote. By making districts smaller there is less room for them to play with the lines.

They can just make them even skinnier and more twisted. Don't underestimate the evil of redistricting committees.

[Alfred Mondale]

Yes. Get rid of the Senate (or at least make it a powerless talking shop), make the President a ceremonial head of state, and greatly increase the number of representatives in the House.

Probably the best solution.

[Aeson]

Each citizen should have one share of the US government. (Created at the holder's birth, revoked at the holder's death*) They may transfer ownership of the share, by giving their citizenship to someone else. Anyone who transfers their citizenship will quickly be deported and won't be covered by any national programs of course.

That share entitles them to one vote in the House of Representatives. Since most people would not want to waste their time casing a vote that has 1/300millionth weight ... they can sell/give/barter their share to others who will amass the voting right of many shares under their control.

We will need an exchange for this where people can bid for other people's voting rights and/or citizenship. We will need a website for this. I think we can safely assume these things will be handled without issue by our government ...

*This will require 3 years of legal processing to avoid death-bed transfers. Altruistic elderly who pass their citizenship to others before their death can be trusted to be choosing the best possible immigrants for naturalization. After death (or if death occurs during processing) it cannot be transferred.

[Sava]

Our government should consist entirely of internet polls.

[Aeson]

Even better! thank you for this useful post (you are now have power of attorney to cast my vote in teh US houzz of repz!)

[Aeson]

We could take it even further. Like if I want to sell my vote on abortion issues only ... I can have planned parenthood and BK bidding for my vote so that I know how best to "vote my conscience" ...

[Aeson]

We'll need options of course ... like I could sell an option that will allow someone to buy my vote for an agreed sum if at the expiration there are certain conditions met. (Say, the current number of cast votes on issue X happens to be over/under a certain ratio.)

[PLATO]

People tend to forget that the U.S. is a union of States.

Originally, the President was set up to be selected by the States to be the chief executive of the government. The Senate was appointed by the States to maintain their voice. The House was to be the voice of the people. Actually a good system if you are a State's Rights proponent. When the Senate was changed to poplar election and the Presidential electors were changed to being selected by popular vote, then the concept of a Union of States became diluted and it became more of a Union of Population. While the States still have considerable power, it has been diluted from what the founding fathers intended. No problem since this is what the people wanted. The disproportionate representation based on the House limit of 435 members is very minimal and, if anything, restores some of the original balance the founding fathers intended. So...the Founding Father argument fails.

That being said, and even though I am a State's Rights proponent, I believe that it would reflect the will of the people to have more representatives and that it would, in fact, make the representatives more representative. So, I agree with Oerdin...but not based on a founding father argument.

[DinoDoc]

Can we repeal the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution?

[Dinner]

No.

[Imran Siddiqui]

People tend to forget that the U.S. is a union of States.

Originally, the President was set up to be selected by the States to be the chief executive of the government. The Senate was appointed by the States to maintain their voice. The House was to be the voice of the people. Actually a good system if you are a State's Rights proponent. When the Senate was changed to poplar election and the Presidential electors were changed to being selected by popular vote, then the concept of a Union of States became diluted and it became more of a Union of Population. While the States still have considerable power, it has been diluted from what the founding fathers intended. No problem since this is what the people wanted. The disproportionate representation based on the House limit of 435 members is very minimal and, if anything, restores some of the original balance the founding fathers intended. So...the Founding Father argument fails.

That being said, and even though I am a State's Rights proponent, I believe that it would reflect the will of the people to have more representatives and that it would, in fact, make the representatives more representative. So, I agree with Oerdin...but not based on a founding father argument.

I'd rather like to see the Senate and Presidency stay as it is, and make the House a Proportional Representation body consisting of over 500 members.

[PLATO]

Can we repeal the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution?

There seems to be some "modern" support for the amendment given that 3 states have ratified it in the last 11 years.

[Sava]

People tend to forget that the U.S. is a union of States.

Originally, the President was set up to be selected by the States to be the chief executive of the government. The Senate was appointed by the States to maintain their voice. The House was to be the voice of the people. Actually a good system if you are a State's Rights proponent. When the Senate was changed to poplar election and the Presidential electors were changed to being selected by popular vote, then the concept of a Union of States became diluted and it became more of a Union of Population. While the States still have considerable power, it has been diluted from what the founding fathers intended. No problem since this is what the people wanted. The disproportionate representation based on the House limit of 435 members is very minimal and, if anything, restores some of the original balance the founding fathers intended. So...the Founding Father argument fails.

That being said, and even though I am a State's Rights proponent, I believe that it would reflect the will of the people to have more representatives and that it would, in fact, make the representatives more representative. So, I agree with Oerdin...but not based on a founding father argument.

States should be abolished entirely.