The Democratic Party has been Constitutionally "kettled", there is really only one doable solution

[Grey Lemercier]

Kettling (also known as containment or corralling) is a tactic for controlling large groups. You move to subdue a crowd by breaking it up and moving it into a contained limited area(s). This has occurred at both US House levels, and thus at Electoral College levels. Giant states like California, New York, etc are now cut off from numerically equal representation, they have become impotent cul-de-sacs. Take away all (not just Clinton's) of California's POTUS votes, Hillary loses the popular vote nationally as well. No one bothers to contest it, as it does NOT have a fair amount of House members, and thus it doesn't have a fair amount of EV's either. The Rethugs just write it off.

Imagine as it keeps growing. There simply will never be enough EV's and House seats (if the pot is 538 for the EC and 435 for the House) to give CA fairness at electoral power level in both the EC and the House.

The same kettling occurs for giant cities all over the nation. Tens upon tens of millions are denied fair electoral power, and the Rethugs have gamed the entire system for their benefit. Urban drift, the ever-growing trend to huge urban areas is allowing the left (who dominate in these mega enclaves) to be kettled politically, at multiple inflection points, as well, especially at state and even more so, federal levels.

There is a solution:

Increase the size of the House of Representatives, and thus the EC, no Constitutional Amendment needed

The Electoral College is never going away. The National Popular Vote Compact is unconstitutional (especially if the SCOTUS is RW).

Abolition will never occur, as even if the constitutional amendment were passed in the Congress, all it takes is 13 states (the smaller ones, of course) to block it. They have way more than 13 who oppose it.

BUT there is a fix, and it just doesn't fix the electoral college. If fixes the House too.

Expand the House to 1001. That would also Expand the EC to 1106 (100 for senators, 1001 for House, plus 5 for DC). It doesn't take a Constitutional Amendment either, just an Act of Congress (overturning a 1929 Act).

Its been stuck at 435 (with 2 temp added for AK and HI for a couple years, removed in 1962) SINCE 1913!


The population then was 97 million. Now is 325 million. The average rep has almost 750,000 people in his/her district.

Because the EC is based (in the constitution) off number of congress people, increasing the House also increases the EC.

THEN you can more fairly split up those 1106 EV's and those 1001 House seats. Right now, a Wyoming electoral vote is worth 3.7 times MORE than a California vote.


Expanding the House also, of course allow for a more representational distribution for the states as well, at HOUSE government levels. California, and the other large states get FUCKED right now in every way.

The main barrier to this will be getting House members to dilute their power, PLUS Rethugs to go along, as they KNOW they have all the benefits to the current system


Read this for more info. http://www.thirty-thousand.org/

The 1001 is just my own number, you could do it so many different ways (such as the much less impactful (but still better than nothing) Wyoming Rule https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule or double it, plus one (has to be odd number to avoid ties)

[Billy Jingo]

1. Ratify Article the First

It is the only Amendment of the original 12 not ratified.

Although there is some who believe it was ratified but that is a different argument.




After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

[Grey Lemercier]

3. That will never occur, for same reason as the Electoral College will never be abolished.

Increasingly the House size only takes an Act of Congress, not an Amendment. The "First of the First&quot what you posted) is discussed fully at the link I provided above.

[tnlurker]

2. Great idea

But it will never happen with this congress and with republican control.

I would prefer 1 rep per 100,000 people. we have the technology to have regional centers instead of everybody needing to be in DC. They would only come to DC once or twice per year. Committees would meet in regional centers or use video tech to meet from the regional centers.

Very doable...it just will not happen with the current republican control.

[Grey Lemercier]

5. Increasing the size of the House needs to be front and centre of all Democratic Party agendas.

Without it we may never get any sort of meaningful control and fair representation for decades.

I am gobsmacked that this stripping away of over 200 million peoples' equal representation over the last 104 years (especially the last 50) has not been addressed.

[Skinner]

4. Interesting. Obviously it wouldn't be easy to do.

But at least it's possible.

As an added bonus, I wonder if it would have any impact on the partisan make-up of the House. I suppose if the number of reps were high enough we could squeeze a few seats out of the small red red states (and they could squeeze a few from ours).

[tnlurker]

6. It would bring about the rise of true third parties

and coalition government. With that many reps and third parties getting a significant share I think the major parties might have to align with some of the smaller parties to govern. At least in the House of Representatives.

[Skinner]

7. It wouldn't.

As long as districts are winner-take-all, then there will be only two major parties.

Note that state legislatures, with their much smaller districts, are dominated by the two major parties.

[mopinko]

11. we used to have 3 member districts in illinois.

we did have all manner of small parties.
i will never really forgive pat quinn for spearheading that change. it just handed things over to staff, to the permanent govt.

[Grey Lemercier]

8. Yes, with 1001 or even Wyoming Rule sized increase the small states

would get more than 1 or 2 House seats too. I assigned them a minimum of 3 seats if it is increased to 1001. I am positive horse trading could occur on the number the minnows get, in order to get them to buy in.

The US House is sooo small when compared to so many other nation's main legislative bodies and adjusted for population.

Here in the UK our House of Commons has 650 members for a population of only 65 million. Sweden's Riksdag has 349 seats for only 9.8 million peope! The National People's Congress of China has 2987 seats.

[MarvinGardens]

9. I think it's a great idea.

I guess the hardest part might be getting it passed in the Senate, where small states have equal representation.

[Grey Lemercier]

10. We so should have done it when we had control of both the House and Senate

Tbh, unless Trump or Congress just does insanely unpopular things, the soonest we can realistically take back the House would be 2022, and ONLY then if we can stop and reverse Rethug gerrymandering post 2020 Census. If we get blown out at State legislative levels and further gerrymandering occurs, it will be 2032 before we get a shot, unless the Rethugs (which they surely must, I hope) blow up and turn the nation against them. The Senate is looking like 2024 at the soonest, maybe, maybe (small chance, but better if we hold them sub 57 seats in 2018) 2022, but so much depends on the 2018 midterms, where the Rethugs have a more than legitimate shot at hitting 60 seats.