Our "problem" is that we actually have too FEW legislators

[SoCalDem]

2 senators from each state + varying numbers of congresscritters by district..

....Large population states (prosperous) suffer, and low population states wield much more power than they deserve..

case in point..

Wyo...2 + 1= 3 legislators for about 532,668= 1 for every 177,556 people

California....2+ 53 = 55 for 36,756,666 = 1 for every 668,303 people

New York...2 + 29 = 1 per 627,732 people..

This is definitely unequal representation..

I know people say we have TOO many, but realistically, if we had representation based on the LOWEST per-rep numbers, we would NOT be having all these close votes, and all the time wasted on unreasonable expectations of "bipartisan" cooperation..

info from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population



edited to add this....

......from wikipedia......

The only constitutional rule relating to the size of the House says: "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand."<2> Congress has regularly increased the size of the House to account for population growth; but Congress fixed the number of voting House members at 435 in 1911.<1> The number was temporarily increased to 437 in 1959 upon the admission of Alaska and Hawaii (seating one representative from each of those states without changing existing apportionment), and returned to 435 four years later, after the reapportionment consequent to the 1960 census.

.....................................

[Cleita]

1. K&R

You are so right.

[terisan]

2. Yes the more the population grows the less representation we have and and many

ambitious politicians chasing too few slots.

[SoCalDem]

4. and they all get more marginalized and rigid in their thinking..

and more vicious..:(

[terisan]

7. I think so many of the senators are super rich, they should go into philanthopy

instead of politics. There are several who could probably have a big impact if they started addressing specific issues through their own non-profits.

[elizfeelinggreat]

3. k & r

[anonymous171]

5. The system was built to resist change. It's working pretty well.

Progressive change that happens way too quickly can cause huge amounts civil unrest. That is bad.

[SoCalDem]

6. working well?

We're broke..
We're in serious debt (worse than just broke)
We're headed into unemployment HELL
We have 2 wars going on..both sure losers
Most of the world no longer trusts us

and this nonsensical cycle repeats itself over and over and over..every time a republican adminsitration hangs around long enough to crash the whole system and steal all the money..

rinse repeat

[anonymous171]

9. The system isn't the problem. The people are the problem.

The democrats are incompete, the republicans are too malevolently competent. We need to become competent.

[DireStrike]

22. I disagree

Why do you think we have incompetent, or incompetent seeming Democrats in office?

Because the system prevents anyone who would work against the interests of the rich from gaining power.

[SoCalDem]

24. and the only PEOPLE, they meet are people they want money from

or people they think they can get money from...

and the people with NO money, get little, if any time from them..

[guardian]

8. You are right....but

That was done by design when the Constitution was written.

[SoCalDem]

11. we had a LOT less people then.. and the congressional representation grew

ad we did for a long time, and then it just stopped at 435...as if the same amount of peple just kept moving around, from state to state, and no "new" people ever arrived..

......from wikipedia......

The only constitutional rule relating to the size of the House says: "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand."<2> Congress has regularly increased the size of the House to account for population growth; but Congress fixed the number of voting House members at 435 in 1911.<1> The number was temporarily increased to 437 in 1959 upon the admission of Alaska and Hawaii (seating one representative from each of those states without changing existing apportionment), and returned to 435 four years later, after the reapportionment consequent to the 1960 census.

.....................................

[tridim]

13. I bet they assumed new states would all eventually have the same population density as New York

Not their fault of course, but it certainly didn't turn out that way.

[Mike 03]

10. Interesting and thought-provoking. The situation with state senators has concerned me for

some time, but I hadn't thought about the overall congressionperson to citizen ratio.

What frightens me is also how entrenched the senators can become in a given state. People will vote for a name on the ballot because they've always seen that name on the ballot. McCain, Kyl, Specter, whoever...

EDIT: Rec.

[The2ndWheel]

12. And even fewer ways of doing business

As in one.

1 system = 300,000,000 people. That's unequal representation.

[unblock]

14. i think this would be a great idea. one plus is that it would give third parties a voice

if we doubled the number of reps, a third party would stand a better shot of at least getting elected in a smaller district.

i don't see 870 congresscritters as any less manageable than the 435 we already have.

[SoCalDem]

16. and it would allow for reps to actually represent their constituents

..

smaller numbers allow for that..

2 senators per..is not a problem, but the house rep system is, for me at least..

3rd parties would definitely fare better with an enlarged body:)..and more legitimate "counts" would happen as well..

[Spider Jerusalem]

15. Meanwhile the British House of Commons has 646 MPs for a population 1/5 that of the US

Clearly there needs to be an increase in representation, but good luck with that; people tend to cling to outmoded things just because they've been enshrined in tradition and by being Constitutionally specified (for what it's worth I think that replacement of the US presidential system with a parliamentary system based on proportional representation rather than winner-take-all voting would be a tremendous improvement, but...it's not going to happen).

[baldguy]

17. 10,000 House members?

Considering the number of dangerous loons the House has NOW, that would truly be frightening.

[SoCalDem]

18. Not 10K.. Just the lowest common denominator

The Wyoming Compromise (my name for it)

1 per 177K people comes out to 1,695..but we could round it to 1500 (1-per 200K)...with 500 "in session" at any given time..:)

Most of the 435 we have NOW don't show up regularly anyway

[stillcool]

19. What does it matter how many ...

if the public is completely divorced from their representatives? Will a larger number of representatives be likely to do the right thing, when they can get away with doing anything they want?

[SoCalDem]

20. If there were fewer people to "serve", they would be more likely to

actually "know" the people they represent, and for the people to know them, too..

and with more representatives, it would be harder for little cliques to develop in congress.. A peice of legislation would rise or fall on its own merit..It would be very hard to "count noses" with more people in and out every few years:)

[Ravachol]

21. It also allows

For more intimate meetings. Here in Quebec, we have 125 MPs, for a population of 7 millions. 1 for every 56k, which means about 1 for every 42k voters.

I've met my current MP a good number of times already, both at his office and during the campaign. I was able to ask him a few questions at one of the "townhall-style" meeting.

Same can be said for our federal representation.

It's not illogical to adapt the number of congresscritters to the population; it is only sane to do so.

[Still Sensible]

23. It was purposefully set up that way

The house is made up of representative numbers based on population. Since the founding fathers were concerned that this alone would lead to the potential for large states to victimize the small ones, they decided that the senate would be the same number for each state. Thus, in the senate, small states actually have the advantage because the senator that represents Wyoming, for example, has an equal say as the senator from California, who actually represents a lot more people.

[SoCalDem]

25. I KNOW, why they did it ..back then... and I have no quibble with the SENATORIAL

representation, BUT when a bunch of recalcitrant "small states" pool their "power" , once in DC, and do nothing but obstruct... for little more reason that TO OBSTRUCT, then the unfair power they wield, must be considered.. We don't see them banding together to REFUSE the money that flows their way FROM those larger "less-represented" states, though...do we?

and

@ 1 per 150K, they too, would get more house members.