Was the US theoretically more democratic in the past when the ratio was lower? Is it too expensive to expand the US House chamber to accomodate more rep's.?
2006-11-11 00:49:27 · 5 answers · asked by asbmuy 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The problem is then you would have a House with over 4000 members and it would be nearly impossible to get anything done
2006-11-11 00:53:57 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 9⤊ 0⤋
Theoretically more democratic (or more republican)? Sure, because members had fewer constitutents to worry about and had a greater likelihood of contacting and communicating with those constitutents.
Of course, we can't forget that staff has increased, that the means of communication (e-mail, podcasting, etc) have made communicating and listening to constitutents easier, and it would be a logistical nightmare if the House had 4000 representatives (could you find 4000 qualified people to send to Congress? how would committees work?)
Perhaps it's time to consider changing the numbers in the house. Money isn't really the object... If we can pay 2 billion for one stealth bomber, we can pay a few hundred million, or maybe a billion, for salaries for congresspeople, staffers, office expenses, etc. But we can't go back to a 20,000:1 ratio.
2006-11-11 01:01:48 · answer #2 · answered by Perdendosi 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It hasn't been "allowed" to increase.
The number of Representaives is fixed by law at 435. The polulation increases and decreases in the various districts. The districts are changed geographically based on the national Census taken every 10 years such that the rep/population ratio is roughly equal by district.
That is the rule.
To change it one would need to change the law.
Personally I believe that leaving it alone works just fine. Getting this group to agree on anything is a challenge. Having more of them would make it far more difficult.
2006-11-11 01:48:51 · answer #3 · answered by Carl 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Representation isn't exactly the issue since we have so many representative seats based on volume of illegal immigrants who have no vote. Seat numbers are based on population, not citizenship.
However, theoretically you may be right. I don't really see what difference it would make, though.
2006-11-11 01:17:02 · answer #4 · answered by DAR 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it has been at 435 since the fifties...its to control the ability to govern.
2006-11-11 00:54:28 · answer #5 · answered by koalatcomics 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋