One of the important of advantages of a larger house is that it could lessen role of money in the process. If districts were small enough that a determined candidate could just quit their job and spend two years attending church picnics, school board meetings, coffee shops, high school sporting events etc so that the majority of active voters would have first hand knowledge of the candidate it could really change the dynamics. Start with the people of the district instead of starting with getting commitments for the advertising money.
You have just identified the main reason why the expansion is unlikely to ever happen, as long as we have to live with the current supreme court interpretation of free speech as being equal to money. Campaign finance reform has to come first, I think.
Why do we need anything new designed? I believe that representatives should spend more time in their district, doing more work remotely. This would save money, make representation more in line with the district, and reduce lobbying. Maybe they have to go to Washington a few times a year, but they wouldn't require the extensive offices.
It says the founders of the US wanted 1 representative per 30,000 citizens, but if they did that today, it would mean thousands of representatives. To me this is a sign that the country is too large to have large, powerful central government. It would be better if more powers were devolved to the local governments where it's practical to have one person representing 30,000 citizens.
I think it sometimes feels like the country is hopelessly divided because candidates for federal office have to have an opinion on and act on local matters.
Each state could have a connected AV meeting place. Businesses and academics do this. It would save a lot of taxpayers' money. Maybe quarterly or whatever sessions for all in DC.
But one of our worst problems of representation may continue: with a solid 1/3 Democrat leaning state voter population, all four Congresdional seats have been gerrymandered so well that each contain 1/3 Democrat leaning voters so Republicans get all tbe seats. If gerrymandering not outlawed, then NO to several more Republican seats from my state.
Stopping jerrymandering seems like a thorny issue. Your scenario seems unfair because all the districts are around 2/3s on party, giving the other party no representation. OTOH if they drew the districts trying to create nearly 100% one-party districts, that too seems unfair if one party has a few nearly-100% districts and the rest are 55% for the other party.
The proportion of distributed seats would ideally follow the proportion voted for either party at the state level. This is easier to achieve with multi-member districts, which is currently illegal, but could at least get closer with non-gerrymandered (compact, contiguous, etc.) single-member districts.
One of the important of advantages of a larger house is that it could lessen role of money in the process. If districts were small enough that a determined candidate could just quit their job and spend two years attending church picnics, school board meetings, coffee shops, high school sporting events etc so that the majority of active voters would have first hand knowledge of the candidate it could really change the dynamics. Start with the people of the district instead of starting with getting commitments for the advertising money.
You have just identified the main reason why the expansion is unlikely to ever happen, as long as we have to live with the current supreme court interpretation of free speech as being equal to money. Campaign finance reform has to come first, I think.
Why do we need anything new designed? I believe that representatives should spend more time in their district, doing more work remotely. This would save money, make representation more in line with the district, and reduce lobbying. Maybe they have to go to Washington a few times a year, but they wouldn't require the extensive offices.
It says the founders of the US wanted 1 representative per 30,000 citizens, but if they did that today, it would mean thousands of representatives. To me this is a sign that the country is too large to have large, powerful central government. It would be better if more powers were devolved to the local governments where it's practical to have one person representing 30,000 citizens.
I think it sometimes feels like the country is hopelessly divided because candidates for federal office have to have an opinion on and act on local matters.
Does the expanded House mezzanine plan essentially eliminate the space for public viewing of House sessions?
Each state could have a connected AV meeting place. Businesses and academics do this. It would save a lot of taxpayers' money. Maybe quarterly or whatever sessions for all in DC.
But one of our worst problems of representation may continue: with a solid 1/3 Democrat leaning state voter population, all four Congresdional seats have been gerrymandered so well that each contain 1/3 Democrat leaning voters so Republicans get all tbe seats. If gerrymandering not outlawed, then NO to several more Republican seats from my state.
Stopping jerrymandering seems like a thorny issue. Your scenario seems unfair because all the districts are around 2/3s on party, giving the other party no representation. OTOH if they drew the districts trying to create nearly 100% one-party districts, that too seems unfair if one party has a few nearly-100% districts and the rest are 55% for the other party.
The proportion of distributed seats would ideally follow the proportion voted for either party at the state level. This is easier to achieve with multi-member districts, which is currently illegal, but could at least get closer with non-gerrymandered (compact, contiguous, etc.) single-member districts.