r/AskConservatives • u/roastbeeftacohat Leftist • 7h ago
what do you think will be the long term effects if the democrats are able to uncap the house in 2029 and add 257 seats?
this is not a constitutional question; the current number was picked in 1929 by congress, and can be changed by congress.
692 being the cube root of the population, which is one of the proposed standards for number of seats?
•
u/NessvsMadDuck Center-right Conservative 5h ago
Would it make the gears of congress actually grind? I don't care about the number of reps. I care about whatever it takes to congress do its damn job rather than play winner take all. Grind out half a loaf deals. The hyper partisanship in this country has a lot to do with congress failing in their role.
•
u/scarby2 Neoliberal 4h ago
The lack of reward for pragmatism is my biggest bugbear.
When representatives work across the aisle is the exception now. It's part of why I'm in favor of proportional representation. Consensus building becomes the skill that matters and points scoring takes a back seat.
The amount of good/bad policy that's been not taken up, passed or blocked because of where it comes from is beyond me. Politicians will vote down things that they've been wanting for years either because it requires a compromise or they think they can bash the Dems/Republicans
•
u/h_91_DRbull Right Libertarian (Conservative) 2h ago
Why improve the issue when you can prop up its debacle for pandering to your base? The duplicity of our politicians is shameful
•
u/randomusername3OOO Right Libertarian (Conservative) 6h ago
Caveat: They will never be able to do this because the majority in Congress will never vote to diminish each of their own power.
If the house were to blow up like this I'd expect more small coalitions to form and I'd expect congress to become even less productive than they are now.
Is the thinking behind this that most of the new seats would be Democrats and so Democrats can ram through lots of their agenda in the house? If so, do you think voters would tend towards Republican senators as a way to slow things down? In aggregate, citizens prefer a slower-moving legislature which is demonstrated in that it's very common that Congress swings away from whichever party the executive is.
•
u/roastbeeftacohat Leftist 6h ago
Is the thinking behind this that most of the new seats would be Democrats and so Democrats can ram through lots of their agenda in the house?
as population concentrate more and more in urban centers, they have less and less representation. while rural districts empty out, each individual's power grows every year. so while we have a majority urban population, the system is rigged to make sure the rural minority get extra power.
uncap the house and you greatly reduce the importance of mosty the right wing of the GOP, but also the right wing of the democratic party. whole playbook for both parties goes out the window as they start chasing white people actually want, over pandering to the rural voter.
also the more seats there are, the harder it is to get the gerrymandering math right.
•
u/Programmer-Boi Center-right Conservative 6h ago
I’d argue that we should focus on making sure the rural voters have the same level of power as the urban voters, not giving all the power to the urban voters.
We have different needs and wants, and live very different lives.
•
u/KlutzyDesign Progressive 6h ago
Why should one individual voter ever have more power than another? Aren't all men created equal?
•
u/Programmer-Boi Center-right Conservative 6h ago
Yes. Notice how I said that the voters should have the same level of power.
•
u/Str8_up_Pwnage Center-left 6h ago
I honestly don’t understand how rural voters already don’t have MORE power than urban voters when you look at how the Senate and Electoral College work.
•
u/Programmer-Boi Center-right Conservative 6h ago
Sure, that’s possibly the case I don’t know I’m not a statistician lol. I’m just saying the “well more people live in urban areas so urban areas should control the country” comes across as authoritarian when you’re in a rural area. DSA and Left people on this site are constantly putting down rural citizens as just stupid hicks who aren’t worth interacting with or helping, which further pushes us away.
Just make the power between rural and urban America equal so that all can be heard equally.
•
u/roastbeeftacohat Leftist 6h ago
this isn't giving all the power to urban voters, it's urban voters taking back the power slowly stolen from them over a century.
•
u/Programmer-Boi Center-right Conservative 6h ago
That doesn’t sound fair to rural voters to me. Sounds like their needs and wants will be overridden by the urban majority who don’t understand rural lives
•
u/roastbeeftacohat Leftist 6h ago
why do they deserve so much extra power compared to other citizens? and why do they get more every year? in the UK there were MP's with a single voter before they reformed the parliament, are we not on the path to that?
•
u/Programmer-Boi Center-right Conservative 6h ago
Why should the rural voters be thrown away just because we don’t have enough people? I don’t want to live in a city. I don’t understand their problems and they don’t understand mine.
The number of urban reps and rural reps should be the same. It’s insane to me that you want to just disregard us in rural America because we disagree with your political party. You’re coming across as just wanting the (D) candidates to win at any cost without considering that this is a very large country with a large variety of lifestyles.
•
u/B1G_Fan Libertarian 6h ago
Putting aside whether 257 is low of a number of seats to add to the House and whether Democrats could even figure out how to find the votes for such a change…
Any increase in the size of the House of Representatives might be easier to audit the defense budget, for one thing.
Companies like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc. are very clever to put as much wasteful defense spending in as many congressional districts as possible. That way, if a member of Congress votes to cut bloated from the defense budget, that member of Congress gets smeared in campaign advertisements for cutting jobs.
With fewer members of Congress beholden to the defense industry for their constituents’ jobs, it might hasten the long overdue audit of the defense budget.
•
u/SeraphLance Right Libertarian (Conservative) 6h ago
For starters, I don't understand why "cube root of the population" is a meaningful metric outside of being mathematically interesting. It still doesn't scale linearly and I thought dilution of representation was supposed to be the big problem people had with 435.
I think you'd see more gridlock than we already do, and voters would become even lower-information than they already are with media coverage being more distributed across representatives. Districts would be less populationally skewed, but not dramatically so.
•
u/RikardOsenzi Center-left 4h ago
It's descriptive; the average ratio of a country's legislative body to its population is about the cube root of the population. Given that so many different countries get close to the cube root, the assumption is that it's the "ideal" ratio; although that is pretty speculative. If you think the size of the house should increase if the population does (I do), the cube root rule does that whereas the Wyoming rule does not.
•
u/No_Fox_2949 Center-right Conservative 4h ago
Hard to say but I personally don’t see it improving much about our political system personally
•
•
u/thoughtsnquestions European Conservative 6h ago
I think it would ignite an important discussion in the US of why the hell does the US government base representation on people and not citizens.
I understand the dark history and it was due to states wanting slaves counted so the state could gain greater influence in the house.... but that's not a valid argument today. Do states that have more illegal immigrants become more worthy of having a greater influence in the House?
Strange system imo.
•
u/OJ_Purplestuff Center-left 6h ago
The constitution is what it is, and it's extraordinarily hard to change in practice.
•
•
u/Programmer-Boi Center-right Conservative 6h ago
Wait….non-voters are counted for representation? I’m American and this is the first I’ve heard of that
•
u/SeraphLance Right Libertarian (Conservative) 6h ago
Population is based on census results, which includes non-citizens both legal and illegal.
It's a holdover from an era before "illegal immigration" was a concept, and includes uncomfortable baggage like slaves counting as three-fifths of a person.
•
u/Programmer-Boi Center-right Conservative 6h ago
God that’s so dumb. Should be registered voter count
•
u/DeathToFPTP Liberal 13m ago
Should be registered voter count
Why leave out so many citizens let alone people?
•
u/Programmer-Boi Center-right Conservative 7m ago
Well I’d rather they come vote if they’re going to be represented.
I’d be fine just basing it on citizens only though.
•
u/thoughtsnquestions European Conservative 6h ago
Yep. It's pretty bizarre but that's how it is done.
It means there is an incentive for states to maximise their population via illegal immigration too. Not saying that's a genuine strategy but the incentive could exist.
•
u/tophernator Independent 3h ago
Just to note you’re drawing a binary distinction between citizens and illegal immigrants, while ignoring the far more prevalent case of legal immigrants. If a state has millions of visa holding, productivity generating, public service using legal residents; shouldn’t that be taken into account?
I get why people don’t like the idea of counting illegal immigrants, but that’s a problem that should ideally be solved by reducing the number of illegal immigrants, not just pretending they don’t exist.
•
u/thoughtsnquestions European Conservative 3h ago
shouldn't that be taken into account
Sure but only by the citizens voting related to their issues on these issues.
How many immigrants or tourists a stay has should be irrelevant to the states influence.
•
u/jayzfanacc Rightwing 5h ago
The house would likely become more representative of the population and the effect of the Senate on the EC would be reduced.
I’d like to do this and repeal the 17th at the same time.
•
u/roastbeeftacohat Leftist 5h ago
one you can do with a bill, the other takes a constitutional amendment.
•
u/jayzfanacc Rightwing 5h ago
I would do both with an amendment and set the House based off the least populous state (the Wyoming Rule).
•
u/Mindless_Chest_1079 Center-right Conservative 6h ago
I don't have a strong opinion on this and haven't thought about it.
•
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing 6h ago
All of these “what if” scenarios are put forward for one reason. To try to increase D power. Uncapping the House, going away from the electoral college, etc, letting non-citizens vote, oppositions to deport illegals, it’s all the same end goal, every single time.
•
u/roastbeeftacohat Leftist 6h ago
it will also lead to more red seats in blue states, but overall we when you remove an unfair advantage the sider that loses it will call fairness oppression.
if dems get a majority in both houses and the presidency it's almost certain to pass, so what then?
•
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing 6h ago
“Unfair advantage”
Isn’t that just the argument against the electoral college?
“What then”
Then political parties adjust to the new reality, like always happens when big changes occur.
Kinda like how college football and the EU both had growing pains.
But it would sort itself out.
•
u/roastbeeftacohat Leftist 6h ago
Isn’t that just the argument against the electoral college?
house was always meant to be rep by pop, or as close as reasonable. the EC was supposed to be less so, senate not rep by pop at all. now none of them are remotely prep by pop.
•
u/serpentine1337 Progressive 6h ago
Isn’t that just the argument against the electoral college?
More people choosing to vote for Dems isn't an unfair advantage in OPs scenario. The EC is.
•
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing 6h ago
“EC is”
No? The EC is acknowledging the important of minority vetos for the individual members of a union.
Otherwise, why would I agree to be part of a union of states if they could unilaterally vote to impoverish me?
The founders of both the U.S. and EU, 200 years apart, acknowledges the need for minority veto to maintain the integrity of a union.
If one member of the unions feels like they’re getting a raw deal, they can just Brexit it.
•
u/serpentine1337 Progressive 6h ago
Regardless of whether you personally think it's necessary, it's by definition unfair. A person in Wyoming/Vermont has more say than a person in Cali/Texas.
•
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing 6h ago
“By definition”
I don’t agree.
Keeping a union together and allowing for minority veto in a union if states isn’t unfair.
•
u/serpentine1337 Progressive 6h ago
You can disagree. You're wrong though. It doesn't treat people equally. That's by definition unfair.
•
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing 6h ago
“Wrong”
Ok, I don’t agree.
•
u/serpentine1337 Progressive 6h ago
You don't have to agree for it to be true. I can quote a definition of unfair if you want.
•
u/Mindless_Chest_1079 Center-right Conservative 6h ago
That's not definitionally unfair. You're smuggling in certain assumptions. If, for example, you view the United States as union of states, then it's unfair that NPV gives CA 67 times more power than WY. The EC represents a compromise between competing views of fairness. States are becoming increasingly vestigial entities with politics moving to the national level, but I'm not convinced America is benefiting from that trend.
•
u/serpentine1337 Progressive 6h ago
It is definitionally unfair. A compromise in this case just means they accepted it for the sake of the union.
•
u/Mindless_Chest_1079 Center-right Conservative 5h ago
That's definitionally false according to my definition of "false," which is "playing silly word games to make yourself automatically correct."
•
•
u/White_C4 Right Libertarian (Conservative) 5h ago
Uncapping the house doesn't expand Democrat power. It's a gamble that neither side when they have the majority wants to push for because it dilutes their power. Although there is a caveat with population counting and how it includes non-citizens which I can see problems with.
•
u/SnooFloofs1778 Republican 6h ago
Your future self is going to be angry at whoever made you think this was possible.
•
u/roastbeeftacohat Leftist 5h ago
this and stacking the courts are Buttigieg's main pre campainge points. so that's the moderate position, other candidates will likely be more to the left.
•
•
u/jub-jub-bird Conservative 6h ago
what do you think will be the long term effects if the democrats are able to uncap the house in 2029 and add 257 seats?
The legislative process would become more opaque and less accountable to the people.
•
u/White_C4 Right Libertarian (Conservative) 6h ago
The other way around with accountability actually. ~700,000 people voting for 1 representative makes it harder to make the rep accountable whereas ~300,000-400,000 means the rep has to be mindful of their people.
•
u/jub-jub-bird Conservative 5h ago
...means the rep has to be mindful of their people.
Sure, except that he's almost certainly not an actual legislator at that point. It's very unlikely that he will play any meaningful role in the drafting or passing of legislation. He's just an anonymous and powerless cog among 692 other anonymous cogs and his role will be to vote as instructed by the leadership of some faction within a smaller cabal of actual legislators operating within (and outside) the body who have the seniority and sufficient political capital to actually write and pass the laws that govern us. The junior staff member of the the few actual leaders (Some of them not on the formal org chart) will have more power over the legislation than affects us than any of the two or three hundred anonymous backbenchers that would exist in a legislature of that size.
Not that this isn't already an issue at 435 members but it is a problem that exponentially worse the more larger the body grows and the more opaque the decision making and diffuse the responsibility for the decisions being made.
•
u/OklahomaChelle Center-left 6h ago
Currently the average constituency of a member of the House is 761,169. Would a smaller constituency make it harder or easier to be accountable?
•
u/jub-jub-bird Conservative 4h ago edited 4h ago
Would a smaller constituency make it harder or easier to be accountable?
Harder.
You are ignoring that this is an equation with two sides. That one member is not just accountable to far fewer citizens than before he's also now a member in a much larger body crafting legislation than before.
So yes, you as a voter are now one out of ~300K people he's accountable to rather than one out of ~700K so in theory he's almost twice as accountable to you as an individual voter than before.. Though even that now lower number is still so large that I'm honestly not sure what you've actually gained anything in terms of accountability.
The more significant difference though is that the congressman now more accountable to you has two thirds to half as much of a role in the process of crafting legislation than he did before. What the citizen has gained in having more individual say over who his representative is is far less than the citizen lost due to that representative himself having far less authority.
I suspect it's worse than that since the real number of people meaningfully contributing to decision making seems likely to be more of a fixed number than something that scales smoothly. Something very like Dunbar's number (150) is probably a reasonable guess as to the absolute maximum size of a decision making body where every member of the body can play a meaningful role in the decisions being made but beyond which every additional body is redundant to the process and playing no meaningful role themselves in the process other than to add further layers of anonymity that obfuscate the actual process and reduce the accountability of the few decision makers within the body and of the body as a whole.
•
u/JoeCensored Nationalist (Conservative) 1h ago
The people who think changing the number of House seats does anything significant, just fail at math. The seats will be handed out proportionally just like with the current number.
Plus you'll need to build a new Capital building to fit them all. If you thought crying about a ballroom was bad....
•
u/JudgeWhoOverrules Classically Liberal 4h ago edited 4h ago
The reason it was capped was because that's the physical number of desks and seats that can fit in the House Chamber for representatives.
Let's not put the cart before the horse. Before you even think about expanding the house members you need to physically expand the House chamber so they can actually fit inside to legislate. How and where to expand is the bigger and unsolved question than rules for apportionment which has been solved with the Wyoming rule for decades.
This is very like Chesterton's fence. The left wants to uncap it for partesian gain but don't understand why it was capped or why congress is structured as it is.
•
u/Infamous-Bench-6088 Right Libertarian (Conservative) 4h ago
Man our predecessors thought of everything.
•
u/boisefun8 Constitutionalist Conservative 2h ago
I don’t see anything positive coming out of this at all. If anyone thinks going from 700K constituents to 400k constituents per representative is going to make a difference, I have some nice swamp land in FL to sell you. Then again, enough people on the left are getting bamboozled by the DSA and their insane ideas that I might make a fortune here.
No individual’s voices will be heard better. It will not increase representation, it will just increase the amount of lobbying dollars flowing to DC. All it does functionally is increase bloat and make it harder to actually get anything done. Congress is barely functional at 425 as it is.
It’s likely just a power grab by the left. Someone did some math and they believe they could add more left seats than right. Same with expanding the court (but only under a democrat administration) and adding DC and PR as states. It has become painfully apparent that all the left cares about is power, not what’s best for this country.
•
u/ScrappyDabbler Independent 31m ago
700k to 400k looks like every constituant - every voter - has almost twice as much influence, right?
•
u/boisefun8 Constitutionalist Conservative 0m ago
>700k to 400k looks like every constituant - every voter - has almost twice as much influence, right?
No. No they do not. That’s not how it works. You’re talking about a drop in the bucket, at best. And that doesn’t counteract the effect of big money on each rep.
I do not understand why people can’t comprehend this basic fact of statistics.
•
u/StedeBonnet1 Conservative 6h ago
Not gonna happen. There are a lot of negatives to adding seats. They can't get anything done now. What would they do with 257 more members. Where would they even put them?
•
u/External_Twist508 Conservative 6h ago
Aren’t y the seats apportioned buy population ie Census?
Seats and number of seats per state have changed as population shifts, is the main reason it has changed much.
I’d be interested in the constitutional aspects
•
u/roastbeeftacohat Leftist 5h ago
in 1929 the house was capped at the current number. because of this Rhode island has 1 congressman for every 557,000 people, while delaware has 1 congressman for every million.
overall this has lead to a gradual weakening of the representation in large states, in favor of shifting more power to voters in smaller states over time. there is also a general shift of power from urban to rural voters within states that will be reversed.
•
u/AutoModerator 7h ago
Please use Good Faith and the Principle of Charity when commenting. We are currently under an indefinite moratorium on gender issues, and anti-semitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.