We need to reapportion the House. And make reapportion something that happens every 10 years with the census. That would fix most of these structural issues with voting.
this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2024
204 points (96.8% liked)
politics
19107 readers
3680 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That would involve convincing current house members to dilute their power, and the senate which is becoming increasingly republican/minority rule dominated to go along with it. We can't even get them to stop trading stocks. The article makes a lot of great points about how problems in the constitution are self perpetuating and prevent themselves from being fixed, somewhat by design. I'm not saying we'll have another civil war or something, but at some point the government not responding to the will of the people is going to boil over in some way unless more progress is made in making the US government more democratic (meaning democracy, not political party).
This problem isn't technically a Constitutional problem. It can be solved with a simple act of Congress.
It can also be solved with a revolution if the rich refuse to play fair.
Hopefully we can do it without revolution, they tend to be bloody.
Yes, not a constitutional problem, but involves convincing house members to reduce their own power and convincing senators from small states to reduce their power to choose the president. So still very difficult to do, but easier than a constitutional amendment.
make reapportion something that happens every 10 years with the census
That's... the current state of affairs? New apportionments of Rep seats to states take effect on the 4th year of each decade and have done so consistently since 1933 and in particular the 1929 Permanent Apportionment Act. It also does little for the major structural issues with voting, which are much more about voting method and the drawing of voting district lines.
The 1929 law prevents the total number of Congressmen from changing. Adjusting the number of Congressmen is called reapportionment. What you're talking about is just redistricting.
I think the person above you is trying to talk about the number of house representatives being frozen but just phrased it a little vaguely. You're right that reapportionment happens every ten years, but the number of reps got capped at 435 in the early 20th century. It used to grow with population.
Because a state gets a minimum of one house vote, this means that states with at large representatives like Wyoming or Montana are often representing less people than bigger states. If we allowed the number of reps to grow again, it could be made more proportional to actual population and lessen the distortion from having a minimum of one representative creates. It would also lessen the electoral college advantage that small states currently have, since the electoral votes for larger states would go up while for smaller states they would stay the same. Giving Washington DC and Puerto Rico proper representation would help too. All of this would get closer to one person one vote for president, though still with the winner take all system causing issues as you point out. There's a lot to fix.
I don’t know where you put the line to qualify as a democracy but America certainly wasn’t over it before the Civil Rights Act; before that, we were an apartheid state. And if there was a time when Congress was responsive to the will of the people, it ended with Citizens United.
I would classify America as more of a hybrid kleptocracy/democracy. Local elections are mostly democratic. State level? Sometimes. At the federal level, government is not responsive to the will of the people at all.