If the House of Representatives were uncapped from 435 members

[peregrinus]

To unlimited number of members with each district having no more than 250,000 people. You know, looking more like a representative democracy. Not done the math but I’d imagine Democrats would have a super majority in the House for eternity after that.

[dumbcat]

1. I'd like you to do the math

it would be much more satisfying than your imaginings.

It would be an interesting data point I don't believe I have seen before.

[dpibel]

28. I actually did this back in 2016

I didn't save my work.

I used Wyoming as the baseline.

I was pretty convinced that it would make a huge difference.

I was startled to find that, even with proper apportionment, the electoral vote would have still given us trump in 2016.

But it's possible that adding reps to populous red states might help purple them.

[Sneederbunk]

2. 1320 reps a little much.

[peregrinus]

3. 435 is an arbitrary number

Why is 435 doable but 1320 not doable?

[lastlib]

5. space in the Capitol, if nothing else... n/t

[peregrinus]

7. Many State legislators don't even meet in the their state capitol

The North Carolina Capitol building is largely symbolic and only holds a ceremonial office for the Governor.

[Polybius]

33. The Constitution mandates that US House and Senate members vote in person at the Capitol

Gonna have to build a castle.

[moose65]

16. Not really

How often do they all have to be in the chamber?
Most of the time they stay in their offices and watch CSPAN.

Surely, in 2024, we could figure out a way to handle it.

[lastlib]

18. I'm sure they'll have to be there for The Felon's next impeachment.....

(a guy can dream, can't he?)

[Marthe48]

17. I think I heard it was because of space

With the technilogical marvels at hand, it'd be nice to see the cap lifted, and do video meetings for votes, and rotate the people attending in person. Or remodel the seating so everyone fit.

[SocialDemocrat61]

19. That's why god created contractors

who can do renovations.

[Bettie]

30. We have technologies to allow reps to meet from

other places.

Use DC for the east coast, build a center in the Midwest somewhere and then one farther West. There are many methods that can be used for virtual meetings.

Our representation shouldn't be based on how big the building is.

[Polybius]

34. Gonna have to change the Constitution for that

Even during Covid, they could not get around voting in person only at the Capitol.

[ColinC]

31. Pretty sure we can afford to build a bigger capitol

Just saying

[Retrograde]

32. They can make space if they want

Convert the House gym and cafeteria into offices, double up representatives, use space in other government buildings in DC - where there's a will there's a way.

ETA: we're a quarter of the way through the 21st century - we have ZOOM and other technologies that can be used for routine meetings, etc.

[Polybius]

35. Can't vote via Zoom

[Retrograde]

36. They made the rules, they can change them

[Polybius]

37. Hard to change the Constitution

2/3rds vote in the House and Senate, and 3/4ths of the states.

[lastlib]

4. If Dems got a majority like that in the House.....

the Electoral College would be ours for a century. Which is why it'd never happen.

[tritsofme]

6. Democrats were hugely successful in neutralizing the GOP's gerrymandering advantage after the 2020 census

As of now Republicans have won 50.72% of the House national popular vote and are on track to win 220 or 50.57% of seats.

Where Democrats now have 47.70% of the vote, and will control 49.42% of seats.

An expansion would make the House more representative, but it wouldn’t necessarily assist Democrats electorally.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

8. Would all depend on how they're drawn

Not to mention that 1,320 House members would completely unmanageable.

[peregrinus]

9. Again why is 435 manageable

But 1320 isnt

[SickOfTheOnePct]

11. If you can't see the chaos

that would ensue from tripling the size of the House of Representatives, not much I can do for you.

[dpibel]

29. Votes would take longer?

What? What is this chaos?

I guess you can't do anything for me, either.

Because I don't at all see why the number has much to do with the chaos at all.

The dipshit faction would be larger, but so would the intelligent faction.

[asm128]

22. Germany has over 700 members in their parliment

1300 isn't too many for a country of 300 million. Just because you cannot wrap your brain around it, doesn't mean it can't be done

[SickOfTheOnePct]

23. You have your opinion

And I have mine.

And I have no interest in a 1,320 member House.

[Meowmee]

10. Nothing like that is going to happen now for sure

[CincyDem]

12. I think, check my math please, we could achieve the same goals with 584 representatives.

If we use the principle that the smallest population state (currently WY) establishes the base population of a district…we would have 576,000…that would translate to 584 representatives in Congress (335 million divided by 576,000).

Not at all an unmanageable number. I’m not sure, however, that it would create a long lasting democratic super majority but it certainly would create a more representative House of Representatives.

[moose65]

14. Needs to be an odd number

That way, one party will have a majority 😀

[jimfields33]

13. I like the thought. But looking at the house map

It’s like a red map with various blue spots.

[TheKentuckian]

15. It makes a hell of a lot more sense to have a lot more reps than

Having so few for so many people.

It isn't arduous at all, you just rotate a 1/3 of them being on site and the rest are remote and in their districts having closer contact with the people who elected them instead of being in DC all the time.

The Constitution says no more than one rep per 30,000 people, we don't have to be that low but I think much of the point of the House is lost when the average district now is larger population wise than many states altogether at ratification.

The House is now too damn distant from the people.

[SocialDemocrat61]

20. Some have proposed the Wyoming Rule to address

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule

[Zeitghost]

21. I'm not sure how that math adds up

We would still have the same number of voters and in the 2024 House elections, Republicans outvoted Democrats 50%-47%. How would that equate to a massive Democrat majority just by making more, but smaller districts?

[TheKentuckian]

24. The point is to increase actual representation w8th a side of

maybe evening out the electoral college a little more and reducing the ability to gerrymander some too.

[Zeitghost]

26. I'm not against the idea

I'm a big supporter. I think it will make the Representatives closer to their constituients and allow for a broader range of views in the People's House.

I just don't see how it leads to more Democratic Seats. We've lost the last two House elections by 3% and that is reflected by a slim Republican majority each time. If we were to double or triple the amount of Districts, it won't change that 50%-47% edge they have in voting and the House will likely continue changing hands every few years with slim majorities for each major party.

If anything, I think it might hurt us a bit. If we were to expand the House enough I can see a situation where in small very progressive districts the Green party or local party might be able to swipe a few seats from the left side.

[Takket]

25. don't think we need 1300 but i want a "Wyoming Rule"

whatever the population of Wyoming is (or whatever the smallest state is) should be the baseline for how many constituents a Rep has.

someone mentions this above.......

[The Revolution]

27. We should absolutely uncap the House

This Time article from a few years ago suggests the sweet spot would be about 930 representatives (~330K per rep)

https://time.com/5423623/house-representatives-number-seats/