Well, kind of, CL… We can @uncapthehouse.bsky.social which would change apportionment while increasing the cost of regulatory capture and reducing the effect of dark money. More reps pairs nicely with proportional representation and ranked-choice voting. 435 reps aren’t enough for 330m People. 🇺🇸
If we set the number of residents per House district to the population of the least populous state (Wyoming)... ... the House would have ~585 Members. If we returned the number of residents per House district to the orginal 30K, there would be ~11,545 Members.
11,000 plus House Members would be a never ending circus. Question periods during committee meetings would take weeks. It is not going to happen.
You brought it up..! From reading foundational documents, it’s clear the framer would agree with either: (1) some version of the #CubeRootRule (~700 reps) (2) the #HalfWyomingRule (~1,200) (3) or a reiterated formula implied in #ArticleTheFirst (~1,700) #UncapTheHouse #hr4125 ✌🏻😎🇺🇸
Billionaires have the money to bribe any number you wish to send to Congress. More Congressmen on the take will only make it more acceptable.
Less congressmen only makes it more affordable and the current number of congressmen isn’t enough. If what you say is true, there’s no sense in any reform whatsoever b/c billionaires will simply be able to bribe their way in any system anyways. Do nothing or try something. More reps won’t hurt. 🤷🏻♂️
No, it is just your desire to shuffle about the number of seats which makes no sense. Campaign finance reform makes a Hell of a lot of sense, and there is nothing in the First Amendment which makes anonymous "speech" a right.