• Cort@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    2 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      2 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        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?

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

    • rooster_butt@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months 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.