The inadequate size of the House distorts the population power of the states, which is already distorted in the Senate to favor less populated states. This in turn greatly distorts the relative power of the states in the Electoral College, which is based on the size of a states House delegation and its two Senators.

If the Contitutional maximum of one Representative per 30,000 were agreed to (that’s all it would take; this would not require an Amendment), my town of Fort Collins, CO, would have 4-5 Representatives. This is in contrast to the current reality where Marilyn Musgrave is the Representative for Fort Collins, Loveland, Greeley and all of eastern Colorado!

Clearly we can’t suddenly move to a situation where we have a House of Representatives becomes a 10,000 member body (300 M/30,000), but even doubling or tripling the size of the House would go a long way towards correcting the problems in our government.

Doubling the size of the House would mean, using my earlier example, that Fort Collins, Loveland and Greely could have one Representative while the rural eastern areas could have another; clearly a more favorable outcome.

Currently, Wyoming, my neighboring state, with a population of around 500,000, has a single Representative, while Colorado, with a population about nine times larger, has seven. In the electoral college, CO’s advantage over WY is only nine to three, which is 3-1.

If we doubled the size of the House (~1000 Reps), so that, on average 300,000 people get a Representative, Colorado would have fourteen, while Wyoming would still get 1. The Electoral College advantage goes to 16-3, or about 5-1.

If the size of the house is tripled, with a ratio of 1 per 200,000 or so, CO’s yield would be 22 or so, and Wyoming would get 2, a ratio in the House that more closely reflects the true populations of the states. The Electoral College ratio become 24 to 4 or 6-1.

Each increase increases the power of the House to investigate, to specialize, it makes it easier to run for House seats (if Fort Collins had four Reps, you can bet that it would be possible to run campaigns for MUCH less money!), it would undermine Party discipline (a good thing in my book), increase diversity, and much more!

There is almost no aspect of the current ills of our government that would not be improved by increasing the size of the House.

There’s a website about this: http://www.thirty-thousand.org/index.htm, if you’re interested.

Let me suggest that there is a structural problem that libertarians/conservatives/moderates/progressives,etc.(except the neocons) could get behind and that is actually having representative government; As mentioned before, Iraq parliament consists of 275 lawmakers for 27M people; the U.S. has 535 lawmakers for 300+M people. The Senate [populace is enshrined in the Constitution at 2 Senators per state but the Constitution’s language is ambiguous about the number of Representatives. Such has been set by the House at 435 members since 1941.
U.S. population in 1941 was 133,402,471 (source= http://www.demographia.com/db-uspop1900.htm

So we now have about 2 1/2 times the number of citizens and the same amount of Representatives; anyone else see what’s wrong with this picture?
I suggest a push- and Obama ,if elected, should be pushed- to rectify this; ESPECIALLY in view of the technology advances since 1941.
From: http://www.thirty-thousand.org…..onment.htm
“1992
— Overruling a U. S. district court decision, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled against Massachusetts on technical grounds involving “the separation of powers and the unique constitutional position of the President.” (The President is charged with calculating and transmitting the apportionment to Congress.)

And for more background: http://bryanbrickner.blogspot……quals.html

Is it any wonder ‘progressives’ have such a hard time getting people elected?

‘ll close with one of my favorite political stories. It concerns my all-time favorite president, FDR. He was meeting with a group of reformers trying to persuade him to support one of their goals. After they finished speaking, FDR said to them, “You’ve convinced me. I want to do it. Now make me do it.”

And that, my friend, is the task at hand.

FDR was a great and wise man, far above the craven, squirrely, poll-driven lot in the Congress now.

Unfortunately, there are a couple other major differences between this anecdote and the bipartisan political class of today.

1) they are not convinced by anything said in the Netroots – their world is the Village, they listen to David Broder.

2) They most definitely do not want to do it, if “it” is progressive change that inconveniences powerful interests.

3) uhm, lets just say whether we can make them do it is an open question.

One little suggestion that might get their attention is to imply that the support of passionate, politically engaged progressive cannot be taken for granted, it can be witheld, or directed elsewhere.

The (D) Party has taked everyone to the left of Joe Lieberman utterly for granted for the last 40 years or so, and it has worked great for them.

They get all the corporate and lobbyist bribes contributions that come their way, and then they craft legislation and vote against the interests of their faithful followers. Its a big win-win.

remember all the dumb low income wingnuts, voting against their interests by voting (R)?

The Left shouldn’t be so smug – voting (D) for decades – especially after Clinton jammed NAFTA through Congress over objections within his own party – has not fostered progressive change at all, rather, it has obstructed it, by averting the formation of viable alternatives to the least worst.

And that alternative may now be forming, nascent, budding, with the Accountability Now movement, and that is great.

Or is it just another (D) captured ‘more and better Democrats’ formation?

Because if it is, that is dumb strategically, as all your leverage will go *poof* just like when Our Nancy took impeachment off the table.

Now, whenever I get a call from the DNC, the DLCC, or the DCCC asking for money I tell them that I will NOT give money and I will NOT vote for Democrats because of telecom immunity, endless funding for the illegal war in Iraq, for the Military Commissions Act, for the PATRIOT Act, and because “impeachment is off the table.”

I have also unsubscribed from ALL Democrap mailing lists (when you unsubscribe, they allow you to enter WHY you are leaving – take advantage of that).

Actually, I’ve been staying ON the list [for e-mails & snail mail, anyway] and writing a response to everything I get from them. I figure it makes them read lots of responses.

Don’t know which tactic is more effective.

[I also point out that I’m giving to “good” Democrats individually through ActBlue & Blue America, and that $$$$ might have gone to them]

I encourage everyone to click on “favorite people,” which takes you to a piece on Huffington Post [terribly slanted in favor of Olbermann]. There’s a poll [who’s right Olbermann or Greenwald] that’s running about 50-50. Vote for Glenn.

So?

‘Barnacling’ about, I suppose.

But that’s the scoop as I know it — without the votes to sustain a filibuster, it’s a hollow threat to try one. But the threat can at least be used as leverage and that’s what they did, as I understand it, to at least force some advantage on something they wanted changed very badly.