Simple solution to the redistricting problem...

Remove the cap on having 435 House Representatives, this isn't in the Constitution anyways, and TECHNICALLY is Unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court won't touch this issue, for separation of powers reasons.

The second thing to do is to have at-large elections per state for our Representatives, the details left up to the states, and besides, the Constitution doesn't mandate those either, just that states have the right to apportion its House members any way they wish. Use a simple ratio formula, like 1 rep for every 100,000 citizens, as counted by the census. This is a STATE issue, so should be pushed on a per state basis, at first, then we can deal with the problem above by a Congressional vote.

ON EDIT: OK, finger slipped, and the damned "4" button on this keyboard doesn't press down properly, had to use the numpad on the side. Dammit!

I always have a few keys that stick in one fashion or another, but still my argument stands, I'm going to edit. Goddamnit.

Probably have one in a drawer somewhere, too cheap to pay the 15 bucks for a new one, dammit, this thing worked on my 486, just fine. Then again, my 3 1/2 inch floppy drive just crapped out, had that since '92 or so. Not replacing that thing either.

OK, since I'm participating in my own threadjacking, other than my typo, what did you think of my solution?

I agree that Wyoming gets way too much clout for its population, but I wonder how effective a MASSIVE House would be. We really don't need more assholes crawling around the Hill.

I guess, off the cuff, I could live with an increase, so long as it is equitable and not too huge.

Thanks for bringing it up, though--it's something that was not on my radar to this point, but because of your post, I'll be mulling over and chewing on, now!!!!

First thing people have to get rid of is the myth of federal districts being mandated by the Constitution, they aren't, in fact, they aren't even mentioned, the ONLY requirement that the Constitution puts on states for federal representation is that they have to stick to a specific ratio, and then apportion it as they see fit.

For example, I'm an unrepresented Democrat, for no other reason than geography, no more, no less. I live in a district of OVER 600,000 people, two thirds of which are Republicans, the rest is Democratic or Libertarian, also, its a HUGE district, straddling two counties and several cities, its simply ridiculous to actually have only ONE representative represent all these people, our representative is simply NOT representative of ALL of them. Not to mention that, while I don't advocate "throwing away" votes on third parties now, third parties are MUCH more likely to win seats in the house under such a system as I propose. This may actually help us form, at least in ONE branch of government, a true multi-party system, no more wasting votes, in other words.

I also advocate the use of a runoff for Presidential elections, as well as abolishing the Electoral College, but one thing at a time here those are MUCH harder to change(Amendments and all that), but this is something that may seem like a RADICAL change, but is STILL within Constitutional limits.

EDITED for clarity.

I do see your point. Moreover, I wish the frigging gerrymandering would stop. I despise districts that are shaped like donuts, crescents, long skinny snakes, and so on. I really think that districts should represent, to the extent possible, intact COMMUNITIES--not a chunk of city A, a slice of Towns B, C, and D, and a nub of City E. Of course, the minute you have politicians deciding how to slice the pie, they're going to give themselves the flakiest, tastiest, and biggest slice they can get away with.

legally. Also another concern is that Representatives with TOO many consituents are less likely to listen to either an individual or even groups of constituents overall. This means they become unresponsive to the people they are supposed to represent, and this also leads to voter apathy, and is probably part of the reason why the United States has one of the LOWEST voter registration of any industrialized democracy. To be honest, let me clarify, in my district, about 30% are Republicans, 20% or so are Democrats or other, the rest are the apathetic majority. A system as I propose may actually "kickstart" voter registration around here, its an uphill battle, the most common complaint is that either voting is too inconvienent, I advocate making it a national holiday, or that Representatives, Senators, and the President simply don't listen to them, that their vote doesn't matter. Its hard to overcome that perception, when most of the time its TRUE. My vote didn't matter in 2000, and it didn't matter in 2004, nor in the mid-terms either, so there you go.

...100 senators in the U.S. Senate. But, I fully side with you on the issue and believe we should be allowed to increase and decrease representatives in direct proportion to the population in give areas. In fact I would like to see 4350 U.S. representatives and lobbyists should be pulled in and never be allowed to buy influence among any elected officials. The following shows that the house has not changed the number of representatives in almost 100 years. It's about time this institution is given back to people they are supposed to represent.

<snip>
The United States House of Representatives is, along with the United States Senate, one of the two houses of the Congress of the United States. Each state is represented in the House proportionally to its population, but each state is entitled to at least one Representative. The total number of Representatives is currently fixed at 435 by the Apportionment Act of 1911, though Congress could increase that number. Each Representative serves for a two-year term and may be reelected an unlimited number of times. The presiding officer of the House is known as the Speaker.

<link> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives

The first is to lift the artificially low cap, since 1911, we have TRIPLED in population, and have added TWO STATES, that's 4 senators and a slew of Representatives added to Congress that some Reps lost their jobs from other states to "Make Room" for these Senators/Representatives.

In addition to this, the PROPORTION for representation CANNOT reasonably be done on state level, because a small state, like Wyoming, could lower the bar to let's say 1 rep for every 20,000 people, while states like California could have it as high as 1/100,000 people. Right now the average proportion is about 1 Representative for every 650,000 people, give or take, and it varies GREATLY by state, depending on redistricting and the amount of people in some states, some have populations MUCH lower than 600,000, so they have, technically, better representation than those in larger states.

New Mexico and Arizona were added in 1912.

It was passed in 1911, but I don't think it didn't take effect till a year later or so. Actually, there HAVE been times, after this law was passed, that the amount of Representatives did break past the 435 barrier, and that was usually AFTER a state just joined and elected some reps. I think that number didn't change till a census took place, though don't quote me on that.

Redistrict NY, NJ, IL and NM.

Fight fire with fire.

Using the Republicans own unethical, and legally gray area, techniques to win elections is NOT the way it should go. This is like saying we should disenfranchise, or attempt too, as many white males in elections as possible in swing states for 2008. Its unethical and WRONG, period.

Instead, let's hit the Repukes with a broadside, a suggestion such as mine means that Gerrymandering would be IMPOSSIBLE to accomplish. Borders of STATES don't change, after all. Also, with at large elections, at a SET ratio, that is less than the ratio now, means that we would have more RESPONSIVE representatives, which may increase voter registration and participation, and we all know which party THAT would favor. But it would be perfectly legal, and perfectly ethical.

I mean, if we set a good example the Republicans will follow suit right? :sarcasm:

No unilateral disarmiment.

The lack of balls from our leaders is why our party does not control one branch of government.

Redistrict!!!

What we need is a different tactic here, rather than lifting from the Repuke playbook, which is ALREADY crooked, I mean, to be honest, if both parties are EQUALLY crooked, I wouldn't want to vote for them, and a LOT of people may just stop voting entirely if we did that. Talk about a way to LOSE elections. In this case, taking a high road, and taking Repukes by SURPRISE, using a LEGAL means to circumvent their attempts at fraud would be a hell of a lot more effective.

It's going to go to the SCOTUS and it's going to get smacked down because we thought it up.

This SCOTUS has said this is legal; let's roll.

to get rid of the districting system entirely, its perfectly Constitutional, doing that, any suits in response would get thrown out of court, and this is well before the SCOTUS would even hear it. Such suits take years, especially with appeals, and no judge will allow an injunction to take effect, so any states that DID practice at-large elections would practice them for one, perhaps two or more election cycles for House seats, this would be like putting the genie back in the bottle, get the ball rolling, and it becomes a LOT harder to stop it.

We have a Democratic legislature and Governor.

... I'd like the size of the house increased to about the mid-600s (say, 645) and for a aystem of proportional representation enacted - either by creating 3 to 5 member multimember districts (where applicable) and electing them through the single-transferable vote, or setting aside about 1/4 of the seats in the House for compensatory, at-large seats (similar to what's done in Germany, Japan, and several other countries, where at-large seats are distributed to make the party distribution closer to the proportion of the vote).

I also actually think we should expand the term of the House from 2 to 4 years, but that'd take an amendment.

To be honest, I don't really think an absolute number should be placed on the House at all, just a ratio, as was ORIGINALLY in the Constitution, of course THAT particular ratio actually is too small, but 1/100,000 people seems to be a good balance, it would increase house membership to a little less than 3000 representatives or so, but think of the benefits. First, no worrying about Gerrymandering, smaller states, some of them, would actually get more than 1 Representative, and also we would have far less pork, too many reps to bribe, more reps means more competition, and also could make our system more flexible. Without a winners take all system, as we have now, we could use a party-line vote system, or vote for candidates themselves, whatever the state in question chooses. The thing though is this, NO ONE in the ENTIRE country would be disenfranchised due to LOCATION, this is the biggest plus.

As far as your idea to extend the term for the House, I'm apathetic to that, to be honest.

Although at-large seats probably wouldn't be, unless they were distributed by state. But multimember districts are constitutional and were quite common before the Voting Rights Act (those old multimember districts weren't elected by proportional voting but simply by several votes - i.e. vote for a candidate for the first seat, then a separate contest for the second seat, etc.).

Say you live in a state with 10 house seats. With PR you don't vote for a single individual, but for a list of canidates nominated by your party. So if the election results in your state house elections are 40% Democrat, 40% Republican, 10% Green, and 10% Libertarian your state would be represented by 4 Dems, 4 Repubs, a Green, and a Libertarian. A nice result from PR is viable 3rd parties, this will also help party unity because we don't have to worry about DINOs (who can spit off to form thier own centrist party) and election-spoiling Greens.

I would also raise the number of House seats to 800.