Das Wahlkollegium, wenn das Repräsentantenhaus auf 896 angewachsen ist.
Von CH11DW
Das Wahlkollegium, wenn das Repräsentantenhaus auf 896 angewachsen ist.
Von CH11DW
29 Kommentare
If the UK can have like 700 MPs, the US needs more than 435 reps.
[deleted]
500? Wouldn’t it be 449?
New Hampshire probably deserves at least one
Why does Washington, D.C. still only have three presidential electors? The city has more inhabitants than Wyoming and Vermont.
I believe the amendment gives the District the number of electors it would have if it were a state, but no more than the least populous state. So it should be four in this case
Expanding the house would dramatically help the US in terms of fighting gerrymandering and keeping democratic norms.
Alternatively, ranked choice voting and the popular vote, no electoral college at all.
You know, the way it should be.
Edit: „alternatively“ was a bad choice of word. I meant „also“.
You’re missing out boy
So with this map, every state has at least two Representatives, which means even the little states will have redistricting/gerrymandering fights.
Now get rid of the electoral college
I don’t understand why Delaware always gets the same number of reps as Wyoming but has twice the population.
Wouldn’t it be 499 to win? 896 in the House, plus the 100 in the Senate is 996. Half of 996 is 498, so 499 would win, not 500.
Move it up to one district for every 30,000 people like the constitution suggests. Over 11,000 EC votes that way. Wyoming would have 30 or so, California over 1000. We have the tech to make it work. The law that capped seats was passed in the 1920s when they couldn’t afford an expansion on the capitol building. It’s been ruining federal politics ever since.
DC would have 4 votes as it is allotted the number if electors as the state with the fewest which as far ask I can see is 4.
Dam New Hampshire gets none.
Seems like safe Blue states generate 401 points and safe Red states generate 400 points.
Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia would still be deciding the president.
How many does NH have?
I’ve been screaming about this for years. I’m so happy other people are starting to pick up on this. They’ve kept the house artificially low since 1929.
Why increase the House to 896, specifically?
I’m curious…
What would need to legitimately happen for the US to actually increase the amount of representatives to truly reflect the country now?
Wouldn’t the situation be more fair?
I have a conspiracy theory that the federal government refuses to let the US House seats increase literally just because trying to fit all of them in the House chambers and House office complex would be impossible, which would mean that we would either have to massively renovate the capital building and House office complex and the extreme penny pinching for anything besides the military doesn’t allow for that.
What we need is the WY rule. The lowest population state gets a congressperson. That currently is a bout 600k people. Congress seats are then apportioned in 600k person increments. If the senate is population neutral, the house should be only population based.
896 in the house and even less would get done.
If your intention is to have nationwide popular vote elections that can be done with one ammendment and at a lower cost.
DC gets as many electoral votes as it would have if it were a state. So DC should have at least 4 if states like Wyoming get 4.
With the current number of electoral college votes, what would happen if there was a three-party system and no one reached the magical 272 votes?
And Wyoming still has too much representation
The U.S. Congress should have one seat for every 100,000 people. Wyoming and Vermont would have six seats, seven for Alaska and D.C., ten for Delaware, 32 for Puerto Rico, and 394 seats for California.
Just get rid of the electoral college and directly count individual votes nationwide.