this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2024
991 points (97.1% liked)

Political Memes

5430 readers
1684 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Cort@lemmy.world 70 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Number of people per representative should be set based on the state with the lowest population. CA should have 68 reps as they have 68.5 times the population of Wyoming.

[–] SmoothLiquidation@lemmy.world 26 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Honestly we should set it so Wyoming has like 5 reps and then use that as a baseline. Increase the total number of reps 10 times and make each district manageable for one person to campaign in.

This would negate the problems with the electoral college and make gerrymandering much harder to pull off.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

if we're going to do that why even have districts and just do party list proportional voting to elect a state's reps instead?

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Districts are nice in that you have a local representative beholden to you(ish) that you can bring issues to.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

assuming its not gerrymandered by a political party that sees you as an enemy

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago

Yeah, we thankfully don't have that problem in Canada

[–] frezik@midwest.social 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

An extremely large House would not be able to deliberate on laws. I could see ways to make that work, but we should be clear on what's going to happen.

A pretty good counterargument to this is to look at what the House does now. What passes for deliberation is mere posturing, like MTG saying Fauci should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity.

[–] roguetrick@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Deliberation only really needs to be done in committee. Otherwise you just vote.

[–] MelastSB@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's with the same total number of representatives, or will Congress need to be upgraded?

[–] chuckleslord@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago

Yeah, that would mean getting rid of the Reappointment Act of 1929 and implementing the proposed Wyoming Rule

[–] rooster_butt@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago

Or they can keep the current amount of reps but weigh the reps vote based on number of constituents they represent. If Alice is representing 50k people and Bob is representing 10k people then Alice's vote should be weighted 5x times.