Should the US House of Reps have more Representatives?

[Dinner]

I was recently thinking about a thread from a while back where we were discussing how the value of each person's vote varies greatly depending upon which state they live in. Rural states get vastly over represented while urban states get vastly under represented. For example Wyoming gets 1 rep for its 576,000 people while California gets 53 reps for its some where north of 38 million people. Thus the value of a vote in California matters a lot less than the value of a vote in Wyoming.

So I did some more research and I found out about that the number of Representatives was frozen at 435 by the Reapportionment Act of 1929. Here's some info about the Reapportionment Act:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929

We already have two Senators per state precisely to help the low population states receive more representation (or at least more equal representation) so why are we compounding this problem by allowing the House to do effectively the same thing? Lifting the cap of 435 and going back to the old system would mean states like California would have more like 76 reps instead of 53 and this would make it so the value of a vote was more equal no matter where in the country you lived. This seems more fair and closer to what the founders intended while the act of 1929 basically robbed the urban states of equal representation.

What do you folks think? Should the Reapportionment Act of 1929 be repealed?

[Dinner]

Also as each congressional district gets smaller it becomes a hell of a lot harder to gerrymander them meaning we'd be solving two problems with one act. That sounds win-win to me. Also this would have the effect of making the House more representative of the will of the people which is, supposedly, what the House is supposed to do.

[The Mad Monk]

I would have no problem with increasing the number of Reps.

We can stick the spares in the peanut gallery.

[giblets]

Double the size of the House and cut their salaries in half.

[SlowwHand]

No.

[Dinner]

I would have no problem with increasing the number of Reps.

We can stick the spares in the peanut gallery.

That's all they're good for anyway.

[Alfred Mondale]

I would prefer 435 fewer representatives.

[Dinner]

The House of Commons manages with over 600 members in a country of only 63 million so I see no reason why a country with over 310 million people couldn't manage with say 600 Reps or even 800 reps.

[Dinner]

I would prefer 435 fewer representatives.

Not big on the whole democracy thing, eh?

[DaShi]

I can't wait until Muslim districts gain more influence.

[Felch]

Also as each congressional district gets smaller it becomes a hell of a lot harder to gerrymander them meaning we'd be solving two problems with one act.

How is this true?

[Dinner]

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.

[Patroklos]

No, that is not necessarily the case. You could divide a city North and South vice East and West to capture homogeneous populations with the same area and basic shape for a district. The odd shaped ones pop out because they are easy to visually identify.

Also with fewer reps you are possible covering singular counties/cities/neighborhoods which probably will be far more homogeneous than larger districts.

[Captain ******* Kirk]

Should the US House of Reps have more Representatives?

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.

[giblets]

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.

Don't be ridiculous.