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

Comment viewing options

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

No need to pay them that much

pay them the median salary in their district. Or the median for the nation. Either way, the incentive is to encourage prosperity. Tie their pay to results.

We already have 50 state capitals. They can meet there. And go to DC once or twice a year as needed per the Constitution.

Something I wrote on my

Something I wrote on my site.


The best form of respresentation that we have in the US Government is the House of Representatives. It has been occupied by 435 members for the last 100 years. At the time, our population was less than 100 million people. The number of house members grew before 1912 based on population growth.

The Representatives have more power when the population grows without an increase of Congress members. If we had 1000 Reps, our voice would be louder. They would feel the pressure of us voting them out of office and listen to what we want.

I believe the ideal government is best displayed at http://www.directrep.org Dave Robinson, the creator of that site, thinks that there should be hundreds of Representatives for you to vote in to position. Each Rep would have a voting power based on how many supporters they get to vote. It would not be representation based on location. It would instead support what your beliefs are. This is how we could rid the House of corrupt politicians.

For the time being, we need more Representatives. Please find and contact your Congress Representative and Senator and let them know that we need more Congress members (http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt).

The last Article of the Constitution that has not been ratified reads:

After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

At this same rate, we would have about 1600 Representatives serving about 190,000 people per district. That is more realistic. Our founders, despite living in a very different time than present, knew what they were doing. It's time we listened and implemented the ideas that are still around today.

The new is the Daily Paul.

I don't know how you

I don't know how you interpret that that article hasn't been ratified, but it has been and always has been. Article I, Section 2-The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative(http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documenti...). There is no leeway here, they just chose to ignore this and in doing so violated their Oath. Some argue that more would not be better, but much worse. It would be far better by keeping Reps accountable to a small number of people, and by having such a large number, it would be next to impossible to pass major social items such as universal health care or cap-and-trade. They knew this at the time the 'rule' was devised and is why it's perpetuated. As of right now we should have 10,233 Reps(plus a few once the final count comes out.)

190k is still to big

and treating it like an algorithm will end up eventually where we are now.

Not good. that's just putting our problems on the backs of our grandkids and likely not solving the ones we already face.

The original amendment was flawed.

We need to pass a new one limited to 50k (or 30k) as a hard and fast UPPER Limit on the size of districts.

where would they sit?

where would they sit?

Are you serious?

They'd build a larger chamber goofball.

Besides, if we limit to 30k or 50k districts that's 6k-10k representatives. (small basketball arenas hold that much, very doable)

We already have 50 state capitals, they can meet there.

They should stay in their districts, going to the state house only if needed, and then to DC only once or twice per year as per the Constitution.

Most would sit

Most would sit on the toilets..where we can flush them away......what a nice thought

Freedom is another way to God...A corrupt government is a straight way to hell.

I believe in Hope & Change..I Hope the government will Change
Spindale-Rutherford County-North Carolina

just more gov jobs

And they'll still suck.

Not if we make the districts 30-50k tops

then you have real responsive government.

They would be under intense pressure to reduce government. You'd end up with less bureaucracy.


Why would having more of them be better?

We should just get rid of congress all together.

The issue isn't how many congressman we have its

the size of the districts. We should have districts no larger than 50,000 people. The founders intended it that way. (they would have preferred 30,000 as the limit, 50k was a compromise)

Smaller districts will keep them closer to their constituents, less likely to grow government, more likely to shrink it, less likely to take perks, more likely to be voted out if they don't perform right (less voters needed to defeat them).

Smaller districts mean it is cheaper to run for office, so more average citizens can run giving us a better selection of candidates.

More reps (far in excess of 1761) would make it prohibitively expensive for lobbyists to buy congressional votes. (50k per district puts us slightly over 6000 representatives)

50k is the optimal solution, as it sets a permanent hard and fast limit. (if we do it by Constitutional Amendment) But I'll take a quick jump to 1761 in the meantime for sure.

Don't forget...

...to deal with the PAY & benefits issue...these seats are an individual member of a community's compulsion to public service, an public expression of GRATITUDE, born of a thankfulness for opportunities granted BECAUSE their individual Divine rights to life, liberty, and property were PROTECTED - and they "fight" to keep it that way.

The pay would be minimal, perhaps even based on a "mean wage", and NEVER an issue or a motivation for the individual candidate!

If it is too much, they can kindly turn around and give what they deem as an excess back to their community!

Yes, yes

see my reply above on median based pay.

The Case for Bigger Government

The Lew Rockwell Show - 69. The Case for Bigger Government http://bit.ly/Goi04

and here's mises institutes Dr. Mark Thornton on the issue...


Where's the Mises link



my bad. what i meant to say is this:

and here's mises institutes Dr. Mark Thornton on the issue:
The Lew Rockwell Show - 69. The Case for Bigger Government http://bit.ly/Goi04