• atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    2 days ago

    People say this all the time but honestly it’s not really true.

    It makes sense for the executive - there is a lot of power concentrated in one human being.

    But this guy was a rep - he’s one of 435. One of 535 if you count the senate. He doesn’t have a lot of individual power in that position and it can take a long time to build credibility and connections to be able to work in congress.

    • halcyoncmdr@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      The House should be expanded like it was originally intended. Repeal the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 that capped the limit at the current 435, in large part just because they didn’t want to expand the building. That in turn created a second defacto Senate, resulting in a lot of the current gerrymandering issues due to artificially limited district numbers.

      If we removed that artificial limit and used the same proportions that were in place at the time there would now be 1200 representatives that represent equal districts across the board without any large or small outliers. Proper representation like the House was designed.

      Any Congress can do this, the specific apportionment is not part of the constitution, it is like any other law. That act was passed by a regular Congressional act 100 years ago, and it can be undone just as easily.