Reapportionment of Representatives/Senators

Liberty
1

US Constitution Article I, Section 2, Clause 3; ‘…The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative;’

Representatives being apportioned to the populations they represent is extremely important to the function of our democracy. This goes hand-in-hand with apportioned indirect taxes.

One member of Congress, regardless of their standing, could not accurately represent and communicate with 700,000+ people.

Representatives should be apportioned per every 30,000 citizens as said in the Constitution, and our Census should be updated for more accurate represenation of our population. If the House is too crowded, than better apportionment needs to be figured, but must not exceed what is possible for an individual.

2 Likes
2

You mentioned something along the lines of this in another thread.
To with I responded with:

https://forum.policiesforpeople.com/t/end-property-taxes/347/503?u=leftcatcher

You then DM’d me with:

EthanHowardMfrr
#Ethan Howard

I feel as though the dissolution of the States would destroy the power of local governments and their constitutions. Counties simply need more citizen involvement, not their own constitutions. Apportioned Representatives would require that districts be redrawn to meet constitutional requirements, aka 30,000 people. Most Major cities would have to be split and redrawn into new districts anyway. Some type of incentive needs to exist, or term limits, to encourage new face in these local offices, sheriffs, judges. Messing with the foundational structure and function of the US on level such as disolving state structures would never be accepted, I fear, on a national level.

“Counties simply need more citizen involvement”
rise of the Micro-State (UMSA🤪) would make involvement inherently required.

“Some type of incentive needs to exist, or term limits”
getting rid of the middle man is all the incentive you need, Micro-State (county) governments would much rather deal with money from the source, and with less strings, and with more clout.
As for term limits, to terms crossed the board, all elected offices, and all offices should be elected for better or worse.

“Messing with the foundational structure and function of the US on level such as dissolving state structures would never be accepted”
NY and CA would eat it up.
TX would take some convincing that they would get more money and be better represented on a federal level. An they could still be north TX, and south TX, and west TX, etc. they can still keep their cultural heritage (because that’s just how TX is)
Also they wouldn’t be beholden to Austin anymore (bill signed right there)

As for the 1 representative per 30,000 people, many Micro-States would have 1, but some would have more, like NYC, or LA, Los Vegas (Clark county) etc.
Everyone would be represented more efficiently, and your Rep & Senator don’t live 250 miles away, they live within your Micro-State (county) their local.
And they wouldn’t need so much staff to listen to their constituency.

I think given a chance, with enough information well documented with so much lead time it’s not funny so as to be transparent, that is a bill that would pass with flying colors.

3

We have district representatives in our states. Mine lives in my town and used to run a restaurant.

I believe in, and support the Union of our Several States, the districts and counties that lie therein. The current system of local to state to federal is the perfect form of checks and balancees any government of this millennia. I couldn’t support a union of city states.

A great example of the destabalization that such a concept would bring is the Jacksonian Era State Banks of the 1830s and '40s. Which allowed foreign influence, and mismanagement of speculative loans.

1 Like
4

That would mean each major metropolis in America, such as the San Francisco Bay Area, and the Greater Los Angeles area in California, for example, would have more representatives, compared with rural areas in California.

Given that cities tend to be more progressive, rather than rural areas that are more conservative, would that mean that our systems of governance would shift to a House and Senate with a majority of progressive members? If that is the case, then such a proposal would not be favorable to conservatives.

1 Like
5

I really wasn’t think of this in a partisan manner, but rather the original discussion that took place when determining the members of Congress by our framers.

The Senate has limited seats for exactly this reason, equal representation of the State governance, yet larger populations need larger voices, thus the system of differing rep. amounts based on population. Congress wouldn’t be split into two otherwise.

With that in mind, the system wasn’t built to favor equality accross political identities, but rather equal representation per the amount of people living.

I live in a rural area, I’ve lived in an urban area. Here in a rural area I am actually able to communicate with my county rep. In a larger city such communication was impossible. Technically, in my state only half of us are represented per the citizen to representative ratio (3mil population in 1920 → 6mil modern population).

If Missouri, Montana, or New Mexico want a larger voice in the House, they need larger populations. This is a key function of our representative democracy.

The Senate used to be representative of State values. Today, with the popularity and use of political organization of parties, Senators function as further representation of party values. If we want to continue to the general election of Senators, than their affiliation with political parties needs to end if we want them to be representative of State interests.

Unfortunately yes, cities would get more representation → because there are more people. If there was a group of 10, and 3 wanted change, should the other 7 have to adhere to a minority?

These values are direct foundations of our ‘constitutional representative democracy’. Representatives that vote in the better interest of the majority while adhereing to a set of constitutional guidelines. Majority systems can be scary sometimes, Socrates is a great example of why, so I understand the thought process.

I agree with you, but I think the values of proper citizen to rep. ratios outway the advantage that the current system awards to rural areas.

I will give way and say there are multiple avenues to take, and I am no judge of what is the absolute best for society. But, the struction of population representation vs. state representation is a prime example of the local vs. federal functionality of our government that has begun to be subverted.