1 vote

Expand the House of Reps to at least 932, or perhaps as many as 1,761

On Politics - Expand the House? - NYTimes.com

"The lawsuit asks the courts to order the House to fix the problem by increasing its size from 435 seats to at least 932, or perhaps as many as 1,761. That way, the plaintiffs argue, every state can have districts that are close to parity."


Sounds good to me.

435 Representatives Can NOT Faithfully Represent 300 Million Americans! http://thirty-thousand.org/

Here's Senior Fellow of the Mises Institute, Dr. Mark Thorton on the Lew Rockwell Show: The Case for 'Bigger' Government

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


Public Servants should get paid. TX tried to avoid corruption by making the pay insanely low and that's only led to more corruption.

Corruption in Texas?

Under Perfect Hair Forever Perry?
Say it isn't so!


"the only thing that keeps the banking system from failing is general ignorance about how the banking system works."

They will...

...once we END THE FED!!!

I wouldnt stop there..

I would ask that their pay be cut by half too.

Average Americans do not make $175K a year and neither should their representatives.


'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul

congressmen make 175k a

congressmen make 175k a year??

I thought senators only made like 125.. does congress also get their paycheck "for life" like members of the senate (I don't know this to be true, have not researched it)

“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.” Plato

“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.” Plato

meekandmild's picture

They have to stay in their home districts

and votes are carried out twice a month on selected days. with an exception for emergency.

And all declared emergencies must have a sunset date

Sunset no longer than 30 days. Emergencies should only pass with a 2/3 majority and they should be able to be repealed at any time by a simple majority. You've got to spell it all out since these folks have been known to take a certain amount of license with the written word.

While you're at it...

Get rid of the Senate entirely.

Then all Bills must be unanimously sanctioned by the Supreme Court as constitutional before being signed by the president.

But the Supreme Court must also be elected to 6 year terms.

Your out of your mind!!!

The senate needs to go back toward being appointed by state governors and not elected by the people. The people are already represented by the Congress.

I reserve the right to govern myself.

I reserve the right to govern myself.

Then the globalists would have to buy off 150 people instead of

just 100. How long for a con-con to convene when governors get control of appointing senators? I'm just playing devil's advocate.

I have a better idea

I used to say reduce the House's salaries to compensate. But when I read Mesogen's proposal, I have a better idea. Let's eliminate Congress altogether! I know that will take a constitutional amendment, but add to that amedment that a crime is only an act where rights are infringed by a victim. And every victimless crime should be null and void. It's a positive start, and which Rep. Ron Paul will approve!


the change ur "suggesting" (i assume it's sarcasm) would require an amendment to the const. whereas the change discussed is just a change in the law.

before we get rid of the senate i say we repeal the 17th amendment first and see how/if our situation improves.


ditto - repeal the 17th

we need the Senate as a check on the House anyway.

It should revert to be a guardian of the States not popularly elected. The 17th was a HUGE unbalancing of power in the wrong direction.

We'd also have to re-write too many provisions dealing with their power assigned to them anyway.

and the 16th, and the

and the 16th, and the 14th... all three are horrible amendments that are used for opression and fraud, nothing good comes of them.

“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.” Plato

“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.” Plato

Yeah! Make it bigger! Bigger is ALWAYS better!

I may not know the truth, but I know when I'm being lied to...

I may not know the truth, but I know when I'm being lied to...

Don't be sarcastic...

If Americans are going to take their nation back - they shouldn't be PAID untold millions of dollars to do it - it is their CIVIC DUTY...to protect LIBERTY for the next generation...by not entertaining this idea you only perpetuate the aristocracy and oligarchy that already exists.

This is one of the main

This is one of the main problems with our system today. The people have almost no influence at the national level because of how insulated our few congressmen are.

Ventura 2012


The PRINCIPLE is...the more they DILUTE the voice of the people through representatives of LARGE populations...the more likely Ron Paul's principles through his supporters will NEVER make it into Washington D.C.

An increase in population has resulted in the dilution of the principle of Liberty homegrown Americans have personally subscribed to - that is not sinister, that is just statistical.

It is only sinister NOT to give adequate representation!

How about this?

If your Congressman doesn't vote for a law or tax, then it doesn't apply in your district.
It only applies to the districts who's Congressmen vote for it, and all the money needed to fund it also comes from their districts only, and the laws and restrictions apply to their districts only.
That way, the socialists can have their restrictions in their areas, and pay for them themselves. Not out of our pockets, and we don't have to observe their crap in our areas.

Also, limit campaign contributions to come from ONLY people who live inside the district full-time. NO outside contributors or corporate donations from outside the district.

interesting idea

interesting idea

Ventura 2012

I like your thinking

But if the U.S. Constitution was truly followed, the states already have this sort of sovereignty similar to what you suggest for the districts.

Regarding increasing the size of government as the thread title suggests, I'm against it unless they massively scaled back their lavish benefits and pay to accomodate more congressmen.

A move to pair this with limiting their pay to index it to the

median income of their district would do the trick. I've already run the numbers.

Limiting districts to 50,000 would get you about 6000 representatives. No need for staffers anymore since the districts are manageable. (the size of the districts is why they ever started having staffers in the first place)

Median national income is about 42k Congressman currently make 175k or more.

They also have large staffs that make anywhere from the mid 20k range up to 70k.

Basically, you can limit the size of districts to 50,000 each, creating about 6000 districts, pay them 42k a year, eliminate staffers, and you haven't spent a penny extra.

Of course, there will need to be logistical accommodations for the larger House, but that can be done intelligently just one time with expansions every 10 years if need be.

The smaller constituencies will reduce government drastically. it is infinitely easier to vote someone out of office with that small a district, thus the pressure will be on to not only abandon their perks, but to cut government as well. (not to mention not grow it any further)

Since it will be easier to get elected due to the lower cost of campaigning in a small district with fewer voters, our pool of candidates will increase. Career politicians will become the exception rather than the rule. And most likely they will be more like Dr. Paul than Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi would likely still keep her seat, but the rest of her current district would have more responsive representation.

Dear citizens

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine

The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!

We are not going to have congressional elections this year for incumbents because we have to add to the number of people in the house. That is what I get out of this.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine

The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!

uh, no

the whole house will be up for election at the same time. The districts are just smaller and different. The same thing happens every ten years. Are you claiming we skip elections every ten years because of redistricting?


that's quite a logical leap don't u think?

incumbents would still have to run for office.


Point Taken...

NEWS REPORT: "There are not enough poll workers to expand the size of government to this degree" etc. etc. etc.

If "We The People" want it, "We The People" will make it happen!

That is what we are doing now!

Action and fatigue will be REQUIRED(of those who want their Liberty back) - that sentiment is already understood by our big government oppressors; they wouldn't have achieved this tyranny had they not understood it.

The fight is on! We're gonna have another Tea Party in Monroe, MI tomorrow at noon...we have to keep the fire lit in every community in the land for the next 13-1/2 months Patriots!


Same number of poll workers needed.

If you cut the pizza into four pieces or a hundred, the pizza is the same size.

With our technology

All senators and representatives stay in their state amd meet by video from satellite. Two or three times a year meet together as a group. Maybe the staff of each would not be the ones that actually write up the laws. IMO


Keep Em Home

30k per district for 300 million citizens = 10k representatives paid $100000 per representative= 1 billion dollars.
Each representative serving on one committee. Meetings held by electronic communication or on occasion in selected cities across America.

JohnB: Your math is off

It's 1,350,000,000 (per year in salary)


It's 1,000,000 (1M) per year budget
----or $10,000,000,000

A total of 11,350,000,000 (that's billion) -- every year!!

Welcome to Rothbardian Lunacy