How would the US House look today if the apportionment weren't fixed at 435?

[JJohnson]

Let's say for whatever reason the 1929 Reapportionment Act fails to set the House permanently at 435, or that provision is struck as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. How would the US evolve if the congress cannot limit its size, and continues to grow to this day with the population? What kind of ripple effects would this have?

[octaviuz]

It probably wouldn't be struck down immediately. Maybe in the sixties along with the rulings that districts have to be equalized in size (Baker v. Carr, Reynolds v. Sims) there is another Supreme Court ruling that it is unfair for states which have gained population to lose seats.

[Jello_Biafra]

I've found some tools to make the apportionment calculation easy.

I made a thread about it AHB&M

http://www.alternatehistory.com/disc...d.php?t=231924

[CDurham]

There has to be a maximum at some point if only because it's reached the maximum safe occupancy limit

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by CDurham

There has to be a maximum at some point if only because it's reached the maximum safe occupancy limit

We'll simply build a Congress Building so large even Speer will stand in awe of it

[oberdada]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

We'll simply build a Congress Building so large even Speer will stand in awe of it

lol
He won't if it doesn't rain inside.

[Richter von Manthofen]

Originally Posted by oberdada

lol
He won't if it doesn't rain inside.

Or maybe they made him the lead architect...

[octaviuz]

Originally Posted by CDurham

There has to be a maximum at some point if only because it's reached the maximum safe occupancy limit

A non-loss standard would only increase the size by ~10 Reps each census. At worst, they'd have to change the seating to British-style benches rather than individual desks.

[Derek Jackson]

How about say 800 to 1000 representatives

[titulus regius]

Originally Posted by CDurham

There has to be a maximum at some point if only because it's reached the maximum safe occupancy limit

IIRC There aren't enough seats in the House of Commons for all MPs.

[Thande]

Originally Posted by titulus regius

IIRC There aren't enough seats in the House of Commons for all MPs.

Yeah, it was deliberately built that way because otherwise most of the time it would look too empty.

I don't think the US HoR could top China's National People's Congress, which has a shade under 3,000 members...

[Arachnid]

Originally Posted by titulus regius

IIRC There aren't enough seats in the House of Commons for all MPs.

That's by deliberate design. Churchill knew full well that 90% of the time only a minority of MP's are actually in the chamber. Thus any chamber big enough to seat everyone looks deserted at any time other than PMQ's and debates on major bills.

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Originally Posted by JJohnson

Let's say for whatever reason the 1929 Reapportionment Act fails to set the House permanently at 435, or that provision is struck as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. How would the US evolve if the congress cannot limit its size, and continues to grow to this day with the population? What kind of ripple effects would this have?

Resizing of districts has occurred multiple times over the history of the US. There's even some explicit mention of it in the Constitution, IIRC. So, it's not going to be ruled unconstitutional.

If it doesn't pass in '29, it would pass some time in the 30s or 40s. Congress CAN regulate its size, and will, because otherwise it would be too unwieldy.

[DCC]

I'm guessing the unspoken question is, "Would this benefit the Democrats or the Republicans"?

[JJohnson]

I hadn't really thought of this benefiting one part or the other. But it would be interesting, say if we have a House with 1 rep for every 50,000 citizens. That would be 6,174 representatives today. Each of them would have a 50,000-person district. How do you think politics would change with so many in the house? Would the representatives be more in-tune with their base? Would we get more turnover in the house membership? Would house members need to spend so much time fundraising for re-election? And would lobbyists not find it more difficult with thousands of representatives to try to lobby enough of them to get their way?

[TxCoatl1970]

The main issue you'd have with more House members is how long it would take to rise to power in a 1,000 member House, get good committee assignments and otherwise shine.
Plus if you think the various petty micropolitics causes gridlock now, wait 'til you get a bigger herd of cats from a wider political spectrum.
IMO, more House members become easier to bribe b/c they're such small districts that a little extra cash could go a long way.
Count me as one of the folks who think Citizens United pretty much ensures the current status-quo will continue. Money isn't everything, but it certainly helps.

OTOH the way districts have been gerrymandered to hell and gone here in Texas, splitting up some of the districts where you could actually get some community participation/engagement that would favor less corporate-minded candidates would make politics a tad more locally-centered.

The big issues I have with HoR are the two-year term doesn't give enough time to really consider national or international issues, you're always in fundraising/campaigning mode, until you've been there for six years or so.
Once you get past that threshold, you've got your donor list worked out, staff in place keeping tabs on polls and hot-button-issues, and it becomes inside baseball on the Hill with occasional touch-base visits.
The problem you have with the House is that it leads nowhere but the House.
In the Senate, you have an outside chance of getting noticed. So the game for Reps is hustling in the crab bucket for good committee slots, thus a lot of log-rolling to go and get along instead of what might be best for their district and the countryat large.
Lately, the trend in presidential candidates has been state governors or senators.
There's exceptions- LBJ, George HW Bush as ex-Representative Presidents, but they prove the rule.

[stubear1012]

For what is it worth, I have felt that it would be better to have the House of Representative run every four years with the President. I would also have half of the Senate run every 4 years also with the President. While this would result in 4 years terms for the House and 8 years for the Senate, I would hope that this would reduce some constant running for election.

Regarding Texas, I was reading that the Texas Constitution requires the Texas House Districts to be in whole country increments. I wish that that clause was for all state and federal districts since that would reduce some of the gerrymandering that we are seeing here. I would also like to see a clause that the districts would have to be compact. That might eliminate districts that go across half of Texas along a highway. I am amazed that while the state budget is being cut for eduction and health care, we can afford to waste money defending a gerrymandering map.

I rarely comment on politics here since I come here to relax and learn, but some days I get angry at what politicians do.

Thank you


Stubear1012