politics

changed a bunch of vertical districts to horizontal for no real reason, and it split a bunch of places

i dont think they will raise seat numbers anytime soon

or rather lower the population needed for a rep

I'm optimistic they will, but not in the next couple years

dont need more Jasmine Crockets in there

It should be ~100k/seat

thats like

300 for california

so 3400 people in the house of representatives?

yes

they wouldnt do anything but re elect lol

which i guess

senators can keep being celebrities like they want to be

would that be a boost to republicans more than democrat?

neither

idk if the house is ever not blue in that scenario

there would just be more of them

I think Republicans might technically lose on paper slightly, because of Wyoming

idk 38 LA representatives vs 7 South Dakota reps

Lower the amount of seats

1 seat per state

nothing would ever get done spooky

a vote would take literally days

China has 3,000 reps in their congress btw

because Thomas Massie will demand a role call vote for everything (which is funny)

yeah but like they dont do anything its china

they also have like

a billion people

votes are digital, and can be done from anywhere in their capital working area

so you have to be present, but you don't have to literally be in the chamber

your standard is they should have 10k reps

Honestly, yeah

sorry, 14k

I agree with Spooky

Why not

I think having ~1M people per district is just stupid your rep doesn't represent you or your town or your city

its 700k

it's some random district drawn by the political parties that packs random people together

100k starts to get down to, very specific regions, townships, tri-city areas, etc.

it's not a magic number, it'll still be imperfect

but there's no reason to cap the number of reps, other than deciding that 435 is "big enough" for congress

so just make state reps the national ones?

Just make a council of 10 elders who run the country

if States had more power, than sure

435 was decided because they felt (in 1929) that any bigger would be too hard to manage

which now, sure its easier

the balance skews so heavily to the national level that state reps are mostly pointless

i just think the party that recommends expanding the government to that level will lose

and it will never pass

I disagree, because I think both sides would frame it as a win

same reason people generally like voting reform on paper, even if they hate it in practice

"more of my guys in office, less of those Washington bureaucrats"

until in practice, they all become Washington bureaucrats

also, even if you don't go to 100k right off the bat

i feel like the fringe of each party would just take over

how about 500k to start

its like 700k average per district now

I think dilluting the voting pool by ~1/7 will not suddenly result in Hitler winning FYI

i mean true

but i like the number 270 to win

they need to change their website then

also like

cant do this until all those illegal brownies are removed or dont count in the census

also I looked it up, most countries have larger legislatures than us, and have a better ratio of people:reps regardless of if they're bigger or smaller countries

not wildly larger (other than China)

and most countries are inferior

but most have 2-3x

so the technology exists!

fuck Canada

just fold in already quit resistingf

no

I think diluting the voting pool by 3/5th is a good idea

oh no

they dont get voting rights

we just take their land

I think if you literally kill all the black people like I told gent the only actual solution would be

then things work out

Pika you have 100 million indians in your country

Kill them too

I am not saying my country is not a shithole for having my government flood Toronto and southern ontario with Indians