-
While the Supreme Court has required meticulous precision in the apportionment of congressional districts within a state, by freezing the size of Congress at 435 seats for approximately 100 years, the interstate apportionment is now grossly out of compliance with the requirement of Article I, Section 2 and Amendment XIV, Section 2 thatClemons et al. v. U.S. Department of Commerce et al.--Complaint For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Added on 2009-10-05 13:51:56 by girlsquirrelAdded on 2009-10-05 13:51:56 by girlsquirrel
-
The population variance between the most under-represented congressional district and most over-represented district exceeds 80%. Fortunately, the current disparity and resulting inequity can be remedied by simply adding more members to the House of Representatives.Historic Lawsuit Seeks Larger Congress Under 'One-Person, One-Vote Added on 2009-10-05 13:44:17 by girlsquirrelAdded on 2009-10-05 13:44:18 by girlsquirrel
-
If there were more representatives serving smaller districts, they [Mr. Farris and Mr. Scharpenargued organizers of the legal challenge] each would not have to raise as much campaign money and could be more attentive to fewer constituents.Expand the House? Added on 2009-10-05 20:53:56 by girlsquirrelAdded on 2009-10-05 20:53:56 by girlsquirrel
-
In theory, every member of the House represents roughly the same number of people. But because each state gets at least one seat, no matter how small its population, and because the overall size of the House has not changed in a century, the number of people represented by a single congressman can vary widely.Expand the House? Added on 2009-10-05 20:47:24 by girlsquirrelAdded on 2009-10-05 20:47:24 by girlsquirrel
-
Perhaps, the problem people have with Congress is that congressmen represent far too many people.Expanding Congress - Blog - OpenCongress Added on 2009-10-18 20:27:25 by girlsquirrelAdded on 2009-10-18 20:27:25 by girlsquirrel
-
Expand the House? Added on 2009-10-05 20:55:05 by girlsquirrelAdded on 2009-10-05 20:55:05 by girlsquirrel
-
The proposal to dramatically expand the size of the House would ultimately generate more problems than it would fix. At its current size of 435 members, the House is already slow and inefficient, and doubling its size would only exacerbate these problems. Increasing the size of the House to 1,000 members would make the already protracted process of lawmaking even longer. Furthermore, a larger number of representatives with smaller constituencies and narrower interests would increase the potential for pork-barrel spending and inefficiency. Members of the House, in order to curry favor with their constituencies, generally try to direct federal funding toward their own districts through earmarks in legislation. It follows that having more representatives would likely result in increased spending on numerous projects that are not of national significance. Whatever gains in equity are achieved by expansion would be overwhelmed by losses in effectiveness.A Full House: The drawbacks of expanding the House of Representatives largely outweigh the benefits Added on 2009-10-05 13:45:47 by girlsquirrelAdded on 2009-10-05 13:45:47 by girlsquirrel
-
Redrawing the lines will address some of the population shifts over the last decade, but much of the disparity will remain, because it is built into the system. In theory, every member of the House represents roughly the same number of people. But because each state gets at least one seat, no matter how small its population, and because the overall size of the House has not changed in a century, the number of people represented by a single congressman can vary widely.On Politics - Expand the House? - NYTimes.com Added on 2011-07-14 13:53:36 by factorAdded on 2011-07-14 13:53:45 by factor
-
Just because a solution does not fix all of a problem does not mean that it should not be implemented to address part of the problem (0+/0- justifications) Added on 2011-07-14 13:56:19 by factor
Bookmarklets