Home

Comment: It can't be much bigger. That's the problem.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: great point (see in situ)

It can't be much bigger. That's the problem.

Submitted by samadamscw on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 01:07.

We'll have to maybe introduce some different ways of doing business in the halls of D.C, but we can't have large districts.

The biggest problems pre-civil war, which in fact led to war, began after the average district got larger than 50,000.

Also, I don't think we're at 350million yet. I think we're closer to just over 300m. That puts us around 6,000 representatives. Still large, but not as bad.

**using 2010 census estimates from 2008 when I did the math last, I found if we had adopted this for 2010, we'd have 6,190 members of the House right now with districts capped at 50k.