Representation in DC: Are you represented or Resented?

[BeFree]

What we need in DC are more representatives.
As it stands, each member of the house represents 600,000 people back home.

How in the heck can One represent so many? One can't.
The max should be One representing 30,000.

Someone once told me that GW - George Washington came up with that number and the country used to be represented that way.

So, if we had a One representing 30,000 ratio, how many house members would we have?

[redstate_democrat]

1. Entrenched interests in DC would never go for it.

First of all, the politicians themselves don't want their own power diluted. Secondly, the lobbyists wouldn't hold as much sway. They would go bankrupt trying to buy all the votes they needed.

[BeFree]

2. Exactly. n/t

[Muttocracy]

3. actually, it's not the same in all states is it?

I thought some of the smaller population states (e.g., Wyoming) were still over-represented due to the total # of representatives being fixed - and Wyoming always gets one no matter how much population grows in other states. I'm looking for the article I read last month but haven't found it yet.

[Muttocracy]

7. here it is... data on representation per state

http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/US.htm



Texas 702,813
California 677,241
New York 663,003
Alaska 655,435
Vermont 621,394
Wyoming 506,529

etc.

[Muttocracy]

4. have you seen this site? http://www.thirty-thousand.org

http://www.thirty-thousand.org/index.htm

[Pab Sungenis]

5. We'd have over 11,000 Congressmen.

435 is too few, but 11,000 is too many. We'd need to cap the number closer to 1,000.

[BeFree]

6. Why is 11,000 too many?

They build hotels and stadiums that hold more than that.

[Pab Sungenis]

8. Well for one thing

we'd spend $1.5 billion just on Congressional salaries.

[BeFree]

9. So?

The lobbyists spend at least that now.

You think lobbyists could afford 11,000 bribes vs 535?

[Hippo_Tron]

10. Actually, they could

For what they buy our government for it's actually a pretty good deal and they would gladly pay far more if they have to. The real difference is that it would cost substantially less to run for office and then in theory it would be easier to run for office by grassroots means rather than relying on lobbyist money. But in practice it doesn't work like that. The state legislatures have smaller constituencies and are full of people who take lobbyist money.