Should We Change the Size of Congress? [Article I Initiative] 

Clearly, the house of representatives is too small. One person cannot represent the diversity of 700,000 people. The partisan response is actually a true concern. However, we can fix that issue by adopting single transferrable voting which would break up the duopoly and represent people more fairly. The other argument is that it will cost too much, and another one that was not mentioned is that the house would become dysfunctional due to the sheer number of members. To both, I might say that Montesquieu and the "Antifederalists" probably had it right. Republics need to be small.

I did the math to figure out the electoral college distribution across the country and got a total of 676 electoral college votes based on the Wyoming rule (net change: +138 EVs).

I'm surprised that this video didn't mention just enacting Article 1. Only 27 more states would need to ratify the amendment for it to be part of the constitution. Just follow the same path that was cleared for the 27th amendment and you solve this problem forever.

Shocking that the republican congressman is concerned.

The Senate is the compromise for small states, this notion of it being a bad thing that doing this grants greater numbers to the larger states is ludicrous. That's how the republic should work, the people select representatives to send to the federal government. If Texas has multiple times the population of Vermont then that should be reflected, particularly in the House of all places which literally exists for this purpose. The smaller states like Wyoming and Vermont get their voices heard in the Senate, this is basic constitutional stuff.

7:20 this nigga really just said "the office space" would be expensive if we change the average people per representative from 700K+ to closer to 500K.

Of course the Federalist Society is going to argue against fixing a broken system that becoming increasingly tilted in favor of small conservative states. If this is allowed to continue we will have an increasingly smaller minority rule over the rest of us on the federal level. Because the current system works in their favor the national republican party has no incentive to keep up with the wants and needs of the majority of Americans actually desire.

The Wyoming Rule is brilliant.

The house districts also shouldn't be confined by state boundaries, tbh But gerrymandering will be an incentive and a distortion as long as we don't have a party list proportional representation guarantee in the House for any party with over 5 -10% of the popular vote.

The concerns over big states having more sway in the house is absurd, because that's the literal point of the house of reps. The small states get more sway in the senate, the house of the people is for the people, all of them, regardless of where they live. Of course the house should be bigger, but it should be adjusted so we have a people to rep ratio that was similar to when it was last updated, meaning it would be about 200,000 people to 1 rep. It would be so much better in terms of addressing concerns, and being able to run on local rather than national issues.

I do think the house is too small. To have the same number of reps for over 100 years is quite ignorant of the changing US population. I like the Wyoming rule and think it should be tried out. Senators do represent millions of people in some cases like Feinstein in CA and Cruz in TX. But the Senate was designed to represent the states not the people. The House was intended to be the voice of the popular will, the people's house. Madison wanted to have 1 for every 30,000 for the specific purpose of representing the people and ensuring their troubles are heard and given the same attention rather than buried under the voices of potentially 900,000. Being having many people being represented by 1 makes it easier for those special interests and more affluent and well connected individuals access to the reps. They are less accountable. Maybe as a compromise the 17th Amendment could be repealed and we return to state legislatures picking senators so that they return to their intended position of representing state governments and the house can truly fulfill its intention of representing the people.

Is the cube root rule worth anything? This gives a 692 seat house based on the current population.

I'm from one of those states that would be "weakened", but jeez come on! Why in the world wouldn't we want our representatives and our electors to be representative??

0:41 - I guess this map is supposed to be just for illustrative purposes. The numbers are completely off.

The House does need expansion if the Constitution's original intention is to hold true. When Montana can have nearly double the population of Wyoming and has the exact amount of representation, the process needs to be taken up by Congress. The job of a Representative should not be as 1/3 of a Senator for the very short time they have to conduct business before campaign season resumes. Roughly 8 months is not enough to appeal to 1.1 million residents while also trying to enact legislation.

entry of Monday, 6th November 2023 The Cube Rule is suitable for (nearly) every council! 9 members ~ 729 inhabitants ... 693 members ~ 332 812 557 inhabitants ...

You all seem to fundamentally misunderstand the point of the house of representatives, the point of the house of representatives in Congress is to represent the interests of the 330,000,000 individual American people, not the central banking religion, in order for an American to petition their representative in government for redress of grievances they must necessarily be able to meet with their representative in Congress, which simply is not possible in a 2000 hour work year with over 700,000 Americans per representative. In the 1790's there were about 10,000 voters per Congressmen this empowered every America to be able to meet with their representative whether or not they voted for them or were the majority in their district the point is every American was empowered to make their case before their representative based upon their passion and the merits of their issues, the representative could then proceed or discard the persons interests in whole or in part, but this system leveraged the intellectual capacity of the whole nation empowering everyone in the society. At over 700,000 Americans per Congressmen that simply is not possible instead of meeting with the representative to congress at best people can expect to meet with the representatives staff which is not a representative government, now if a person makes a significant campaign donation then the Congressmen will likely make time to meet directly with the person to hear the merits of their arguments regarding the issues that the campaign donor is interested in. When you conflate states rights with the representation ratio issue you do a great disservice to the founding fathers, the states rights issues were intended to be resolved by the state appointed senators who were appointed to represent the states interests on all issues, thus the amendment to the constitution which made senators directly elected undermined entirely states rights while they simultaneously around the same time undermined the representation ratio of the American people by fixing the number of representative to the house of representatives to 435 while continuing to encourage immigration. In the 1790's there were about 10k voters per Congressmen, 30k free persons listed in the constitution including non voting females and children, and 50k slaves per Congressmen listed in the constitution as 3/5ths of a free person 30,000/(3/5ths)=50,000 slaves per Congressmen. In 2021 there are about 550k voters per Congressmen, this means effectively American voters have 11 times less representation of their interests at the federal level as slaves enjoyed 230 years ago, it also means American voters in 2021 had less than 55 times less representation of their individual interests than american voters had 230 years ago. Basically America has gone from a legal system 230 years ago where a defendant in a civil/criminal court could have multiple lawyers to represent the interests in the civil/criminal court to a legal system where the defendant is combined into a pool of 550,000 defendants with only one lawyer to represent their interests, how much justice will that defendant receive from such a legal system, about 11 times less than a slave would receive justice 230 years ago. The same year that the constitution came into effect in 1789 the first congress passed a suit of 12 amendments commonly referred to as the bill of rights, the very first issue the first congress passed an amendment upon and sent to the states for ratification was the 1789 Congressional Apportionment Amendment which was intended to ensure no free American ever had less representation than a slave had 230 years ago, it set the representation ratio to worst case 50,000 americans per Congressmen, meaning by the standards of the time there would be worst case about 17,000 voting males per congressmen, 17,000 non voting females and 16,000 non voting children per Congressmen, however, now that adult women can vote once ratified by 75% of the state assembles will mean that the representation ratio is about 35,000 voters per Congressmen. The fact that your video makes no mention of the 1789 Congressional Apportionment Amendment and conflates the grassroots representation ratio issue with states rights indicates you are disingenuous to me, favoring immoral unjust, unpatriot tyrannical subslave representation ratios rather than patriotic grassroots representation ratios. There will be over 6,000 congressmen in the house of representatives once the 1789 Congressional Apportionment Amendment is ratified, providing oversight, having expertise and interest in every aspect of society to craft meritorious policies, while being loyal to the communities they represent rather than campaign donors or political parties, for instead of million dollar campaign costs per year to reach 720,000 Americans per district it will be much less expensive and much more practical for normal average americans to run for Congress if they only needed to reach out to 50,000 Americans, 35,000 voters per district, it is conceivable that even at 35,000 voters per Congressmen assuming most are couples that candidates could meet with 17,500 households while campaigning and speak with them each personally and find out from the individuals what interests they would like to see represented at the federal level. The ratification of the 1789 Congressional Apportionment Amendment will restore grassroots government representation of by and for the american peoples interests the fact that you did not mention it is shameful, it indicates how very immoral your organization most likely is. There is nothing more immoral than making 330,000,000 Americans have 11 times less representation than slaves had 230 years ago, and that is what you seem to be doing with this video. Since 9/11/2001 over 200 million people have died of starvation throughout the earth and they could have all been fed their lives saved and dramatically improved and world hunger ended for a fraction of the cost of the undeclared by congress wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, thus when you make videos supporting subslave tyrannical levels of representation rather than promoting grassroots representation ratios you are partially responsible for all the evils and injustice and immorality and wickedness in the world, that is to say most every evil in the world is rooted in poor tyrannical representation ratios in governance. Representation is the ratio between liberty and tyranny. The representation ratio determines whos interests are represented in a society and to what extent. Thus a grassroots representation ratio empowers the people to seek life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, while tyrannical representation ratios empower a few at the great expense of the many, throughout history mankinds governance has always with very few notable exceptions enriched a few at the expense of the many.

It should be 30,000 for each representative. One of the factors behind gridlock is just how many people want this position. Each one these candidates has to say I will be a leader which means none follow. Second the congress of 535 in a nation of 330 million people is an aristocracy. Having more congressional people on both the senate and house level will dilute the aristocratic element that the body has accrued.

YES!

Why does my copy of the constitution say shall not be over 30,000 per one representative

Everytime I learn about a decision that, if changed, would move our Union towards more Democratic ideals, I subsequently learn that the issue is divided along Partisan lines and that those pulling against the forces of fair Representation belong to the Republican Party. A true Patriot would choose the voice of the People over his own interests.

one can only adequately represent themselves in government. the entire concept of a republic is bunkum. everyone on the census needs their own seat in the senate or we should just do away with the senate entirely.

Dammit, I'm tired of this whole small states should get more power issue, why don't they divide all states so they can have the same population??

What i am hearing is we need more representatives to more accurately represent, but that would give places with more people more representation so that isnt good. how is that not good? i dont mean to step on large states with small populations parades but, you do have less to represent. I would propose changing the minimum to 2 representatives then use the current "wyoming rule" at about 500k.

Keep it as it is... but start electing tribunes of the plebs who have the ability to veto any bill passed by congress and nothing else. The fact that the former congressmen said that the system isnt busted just shows how out of touch these people are from the consequences of the policies they endorse. We need to get out of this idea that only government can do things.

Thanks For Update Real News 2020

Recommendation: 1. Each state elects its representatives in larger districts or at large ones via Single Transferable Voting. (after banning partisan gerrymandering) 2. 6,000+ non-voting advisory representatives are elected from runnings across the states, districts, and territories ... this number is pegged at 1/30k, they would serve as public lobbyists for the people. OR pass an amendment to: 1. use mixed-member proportional representation in the house 2. Use instant runoffs for all Senate seats.

Congress includes the senate as well right? Two senators from California, two senators from North Dakota... that’s the real problem. But you want to keep the BS magnified in the house. Heresy!

I actually have a super simple idea. Just increase the hkuse to where its one representative per 50k. Over time u add more and more. Btw if u do thT rn you would have have i think around 6564. It might seem like a lot but for a whole nation its doable and with simple rules u can manage this without feeling too much

I say it should be 1000 + 50 (1 per state) + 1 (tie breaker) for a grand total of 1051 representatives.

There is a pending amendment!

Reddit has a sub called r/uncapthehouse if you're interested.

One representative per 100,000 inhah.

No

Increase the house membership to 1050, merge Delaware, Rhode Island, Vermont and Connecticut to adjacent mid-size states. Do not even think of granting statehood to DC. Give it back to Maryland.

If people are concerned about not being represented, they should actually reach out to their representatives to convey how they could represent you better! An incredibly small of people actually do this, and an incredibly small amount of people actually vote.

cube root rule

Until I watched this video, I thought the Wyoming Rule was the way it was down already.

*You're wrong, Martin Frost; you commit the logical fallacy of False Equivalence* at 7:25. You cannot justify the increased representation a Representative must do by saying "but remember, Senators can represent states that have millions of people," because *Senators represent States, Representatives represent the Population.* And are you seriously going to let a building stand in the way of growing and improving democracy? It sounds like the benefits are pretty clear to everyone else in the video, perhaps you simply don't care about democracy and our nation enough to *learn.* Good job to everyone else, though. Here's a solution to the Wyoming rule: _add more Representatives._

Or we could decrease the size. Let's say 50 members. 1 per state and the weight each one's vote is equal to the percentage of the national population their state has.

So this seems like a way to increase the power of the democrats, because they are doing such a bang up good job lately. I would rather see an overhaul that took some influence away from the big cities, NYC and LA and such are terrible places for the average American to live, but they get to tell the rest of America how to live? No. No. 👎