United States Congressional Appointment

What do you suppose would have been the outcome had the United States ratified an amendment limiting the size of of a representative's district to no more than 100,000 citizens? How would it have affected the rest of the world considering the United States current position in global politics?
 
What do you suppose would have been the outcome had the United States ratified an amendment limiting the size of of a representative's district to no more than 100,000 citizens? How would it have affected the rest of the world considering the United States current position in global politics?

Make this 50,000 and you'd essentially have (near-)OTL Article the First (also known as the fricking first ever US constitutional amendment proposal; coincidentally the second one eventually became amendment 27 IOTL).
(Plausible (side-)POD: the incorrect word in it is corrected properly and the version sent for ratification is the one that was intended; it was almost ratified IOTL anyway. Fun fact: the OTL misspelled version would've briefly been self-contradictory when population reached 8 million.)
 
You'll need a Capital building that is both
a) capable of holding over 3,000 representatives
b) capable of expanding every 10 years
 
You'll need a Capital building that is both
a) capable of holding over 3,000 representatives
b) capable of expanding every 10 years

As for b), the Representatives DID expand every 10 years 1793 till 1913, save one shrinking... 1843?
As for a), the 2012 Democratic Convention held 5554 delegates. Increase from the mere 4419 of 2008 Convention.

The last democratic convention to vote was the 1952 one, and the last democratic convention to elect a president was the 1932 one.
What are the half and quarter votes on the ballot returns, and what was the number of persons actually voting at these conventions?

2012 Republican convention made do with 2286 delegates, actually shrunk from 2380 of 2008, and 2509 of 2004 - but there were "alternate delegates". Do they participate? The last republican convention to vote was the 1948 one, with 1094 votes, and the last to elect a president was the 1920 one that also featured fractional votes. So what was the actual number of delegates voting to choose Harding?
 
What do you suppose would have been the outcome had the United States ratified an amendment limiting the size of of a representative's district to no more than 100,000 citizens? How would it have affected the rest of the world considering the United States current position in global politics?

Repeal or modification thereof once the government realized how quickly the US population grows. Simple.
 
Repeal or modification thereof once the government realized how quickly the US population grows. Simple.

Why?:confused:

I fail to see anything wrong with merely 3000 representatives. If the US had a population great enough to produce a Congress of over 50,000 Representatives, then maybe, but wouldn't that be too big to be effectively represented by a single legislature anyway?
 
The fact that there’s no sense in rebuilding the Capitol every ten years? The fact that we get along just fine with 435 right now? Sure, I could see a small expansion in the near future.

I would dispute the "get along just fine" part. :D

Jokes aside, I think 435 is fine. Imagine the uproar over how much pork-barrel spending 3000 congressmen and women would cause. . .
 
The comparisons to the Conventions are useful, but I think somewhat misplaced. Conventions are generally held in convention halls and sports arenas. Now, admittedly, the Roman Senate had no qualms about meeting in theaters when needed.

I'm just struggling to imagine a proper legislative chamber built to the specifications necessary to house thousands of delegates.

One thing is certain, however: The Senate would be even more prestigious in comparison. It would be almost impossible to properly debate in a chamber of 3000+ legislators, so I could imagine much more of the informal authority being ceded to the Senate; perhaps the House would tend to take its cues from the Senate.

Pity on the House Whips, too. Imagine trying to get 1000+ legislators in line. Might be interesting effects from that... If you've got a sizable majority in the lower chamber, you've got to keep hundreds, maybe even a thousand more Representatives voting the same way, than the minority party does. It could lead to a more unwieldy majority, regardless of who has it, and then, from there, cause the majority to switch back and forth more often.

And, of course, Gerrymandering would be less of an issue.
 
And, of course, Gerrymandering would be less of an issue.

Why? This wouldn’t stop it. You’d see the same type of districts unless a new amendment comes up.

No longer shall Congressional districts be redrawn by sitting state representatives. Congressional districts shall be henceforth be redrawn in a manner according to the mathematical Golden Ratio, where physically applicable within the bounds of state geometry. The center of the smallest district shall be situated in the center of the most populous city in the state at time of ratification and henceforth from the time of finalization of the most recent census. Expansion outward from the first district follows the mathematical Golden Ratio accordingly. New districts formed due to a change in population shall be created by halving the size of the district in which said population has changed appreciably.
 
I'm just struggling to imagine a proper legislative chamber built to the specifications necessary to house thousands of delegates.
Maggior Consiglio of Venice had 2746 members in 1527. Building a hall for them was feasible and was done with 16th century technology.
18th century USA was more populous than 18th century Venice - slightly.
 
Maggior Consiglio of Venice had 2746 members in 1527. Building a hall for them was feasible and was done with 16th century technology.
18th century USA was more populous than 18th century Venice - slightly.

I obviously do not mean the structural specifications. Simply the practicality of it all.
 
Why? This wouldn’t stop it. You’d see the same type of districts unless a new amendment comes up.

Its much harder to do so when you have to divide them up so severely. In the earlier days, obviously it won't make a difference. But when a single congressman is representing less than a modest city, it would be interesting to see them attempt to do so. Gerrymandering would be more on a neighborhood basis than anything else.
 
Here's another What-If about congressional appointments. What if, in the late 1900s or early 2000s, the states ratified a Constitutional amendment saying that Congress had to have an equal number of women and men? For the Senate, they might implement the law by having one Senator of each gender from each state. For the House, it would be a little trickier, but they might end up combining every two districts into one bigger district, and two representatives - one of each gender - from each district. What do you think? Would this run contrary to the ideals of democracy, or would it be an extension of democracy? How would politics change?
 
Here's another What-If about congressional appointments. What if, in the late 1900s or early 2000s, the states ratified a Constitutional amendment saying that Congress had to have an equal number of women and men? For the Senate, they might implement the law by having one Senator of each gender from each state. For the House, it would be a little trickier, but they might end up combining every two districts into one bigger district, and two representatives - one of each gender - from each district. What do you think? Would this run contrary to the ideals of democracy, or would it be an extension of democracy? How would politics change?

It would be totally absurd and unworkable. What happens in a state with only one representative? If South Dakota votes for a man, does that mean that North Dakota must send a woman to congress? What if everyone in California decides they don't like any of the female candidates and all vote for men?

May as well say that Congress must be equally divided between Democrats and Republicans.
 
It would be totally absurd and unworkable. What happens in a state with only one representative? If South Dakota votes for a man, does that mean that North Dakota must send a woman to congress? What if everyone in California decides they don't like any of the female candidates and all vote for men?

It could still be workable. First, they would simply expand the House. Maybe they would double the number of representatives. Earlier in this thread we have discussed Congresses with thousands of members. Or they could leave most of the states the same, but set the minimum number of representatives at 2, with it always being an even number. This would get rid of the North Dakota problem. If the House of Reps. is too large compared to the Senate, then give each state 4 Senators.

As for the idea that "everyone in California votes for the men," so be it. They can do this if they want to. The idea is that everyone will be represented by a man and a woman, not one or the other. In the real world, most people don't agree with the views of both Senators from their state, or sometimes either of them, but the two Senators are still supposed to do their best to represent the people of the state. The same is true for my proposition.

I don't think the amendment will get passed anytime soon, and it's certainly not going to fully resolve gender inequality in the government, but maybe you could explain a little better why it would be so absurd?

May as well say that Congress must be equally divided between Democrats and Republicans.

You're right, it would not be a good idea to mandate an equal division between Democrats and Republicans, especially since the boundaries between those parties are sometimes difficult to define. But reality creates a rough 50-50 split nonetheless. Each party has had at least 40 Senators since 1979. Despite all the political changes in America since then, when one party starts to gain the majority, the other party changes its positions so that it always returns to equilibrium eventually.
 
It could still be workable. First, they would simply expand the House. Maybe they would double the number of representatives. Earlier in this thread we have discussed Congresses with thousands of members. Or they could leave most of the states the same, but set the minimum number of representatives at 2, with it always being an even number. This would get rid of the North Dakota problem. If the House of Reps. is too large compared to the Senate, then give each state 4 Senators.

As for the idea that "everyone in California votes for the men," so be it. They can do this if they want to. The idea is that everyone will be represented by a man and a woman, not one or the other. In the real world, most people don't agree with the views of both Senators from their state, or sometimes either of them, but the two Senators are still supposed to do their best to represent the people of the state. The same is true for my proposition.

So, if everyone in California votes for men, and no women run, how are they going to be represented by both men and women? Further, how are you going to make the situation work where the districts of men and women are equal?
 
If "nobody" runs, then there's still an open seat in Congress. A single candidate could then step up the day before the election and win unchallenged. This will probably never happen, because there will always be some sort of political opposition, no matter how reluctant the candidates are to run.

But I get your points. My system does have some serious flaws in that it sort of forces people to run for office who might not necessarily want to. Thanks for the criticism.
 
Top