And even if the building was a problem, just build a new building! If we can afford aircraft carriers, we can afford a new House of Representatives. (I would suggest modeling it after a sport stadium)
The permanent apportionment act of 1929 was a huge mistake. It needs to be fixed. I read an article saying that there should be 931 members of the house.
@@Zach-ju5vi Same delusional logic we all laugh at from this channels sociopath troll Zachoff the irrelevant. You constantly get put in your place but continue to come back expecting different results. That's called insanity you poor sick boy.
@@Zach-ju5vi Kind of hard to get ~600 people to vote to make themselves fat if it was paired with a term limit. Definitely harder than getting ~250 people like now.
@@Zach-ju5vi penny wise, pound foolish. The wages of the extra representatives is chump change compared to what we would save if we actually got a functional government.
Then don't give them a choice, and convince your state to ratify the Congressional Apportionment Amendment, which would set the size of Congress based on a mathematical formula. As population increases, so too does the size of Congress automatically. Using it, today we would have 1723 Representatives.
One of the problems with the current cap on the number of representatives is that it concentrates power into fewer hands as the population grows. The House should be at least 2 - 3 times its current size. In addition to the issues Robert raises, more congressional districts also make it more difficult to gerrymander them. Unfortunately, this does not solve the problem of the Senate, but it is still worth doing.
We could also break up some of the more populous states to increase the number of Senators, while also adding Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico to the list. California, Texas, and New York should all become multiple states.
@@arthurwintersight7868 dc is the capital and can’t be added, why don’t people get the whole point was making sure no state had too much power hosting the capital?? You want the people there to be “represented” give most of the land people live on back to Maryland/Virginia. It’s that simple
@@xShadowChrisx Currently, there is no part of DC that belonged to Virginia, all associated lands (Alexandria and Arlington) were reclaimed at the start of the Civil War. The possibility of returning the residential part of DC to Maryland has been discussed and rejected by both parties involved. Additionally, there is nothing specifying the size or shape of the Federal district that is to be independent of the states. DC has repeatedly petitioned for statehood, but (currently) the threat of a Senate filibuster has held up the latest bills.
@@Zach-ju5vi but they arent becoming less accountable...they become more accountable their power is diminished... so they have less ability to ignore their constituents like... who do you think is easier to hold accountable - a king that has absolute power... or a representative that represents a couple thousand people... or to make it even more clear... if someone represents 2 people and screws them over... what do you think how fast those 2 people will be in that guys face to tear em a new one? it is much easier for the constituents to remove a bad representative, the fewer people they have to motivate to take action PS: it also becomes much more expensive to bribe enough representatives to push through legislation for your interests, the more representatives there are
@@Zach-ju5vi Right, loss of accountability is the problem, which is what's happened by limiting representation. That's why allowing the house to expand again so they can more accurately represent the population would be a good thing. More representatives representing the increased population. Fewer representatives causes a greater divide between the reps and their districts. He outlines that in the video.
Make the senate reflect taxation. No taxation without representation. NY, Cali, Texas are the biggest payers. There is no reason Kentucky, New Mexico, and Mississippi should have equal say.
That’s the entire purpose of the senate lol, to ensure all states have equal say in at least one chamber of congress. Clearly someone doesn’t understand how the US government works
@@Zach-ju5vi Can you explain what makes rank choice voting a scam? Here's a simple example. If 3 friends get together to watch a movie and can't agree on what to watch, then rank-choice voting is a good solution. Assuming each person votes for their own movie first, then there is no winner. But if 2 of them choose the same movie as their second choice, then that one would win because it had the most support. Explain what makes that a scam.
I have been talking about this issue for some time. The cap on the number of representatives has reduced citizens' access to their representatives and service from the government.
Here’s a fun statistic: When writing the Bill of Rights, Madison proposed 12 amendments, only 1 of which has not become an amendment: a formula for calculating the size of the House of Representatives. Had we passed it, we would have over 2,000 members of Congress today.
Actually, more than *6,000* representatives. Namely, it would have mandated 1 representative for every 30,000 people until America's population reached a certain level (now long since passed), then 1 representative for every 40,000 people until her population reached another level (now also long since passed), then-ultimately-one representative for every 50,000 people. One representative for every 760,000 people? Come on!
@@grantorino2325a UK parliamentary constituency typically represents about 76000 people so on that basis the US house ought to grow 10 fold. However those are constituencies not polling districts so have to be at least arguably real communities so the largest and smallest vary a lot (110K for the Isle of Wight, 30K for the outer Hebrides, as Islands are obviously fixed communities with strong local identity).
Actually we would have 1723 seats in the House (based on 2020 Census population of ~331.5M) as the Madison Apportionment Amendment outlined a square root formula of the form: House size = √(10,000 + CensusPopulation/100) - 100
1 representative for every 250,000 people at least. 1,336 members. Most of the time the whole house doesn't meet all at once, and when they do we have conference calling. We live in the 21st century for God's sake. Make it make sense!
My argument takes it further. One representative per 30,000 people. As this means 11,000 representatives, they do not all go to DC and instead vote on all bills remotely from their home district. From there, twenty representatives from the same state can sponsor a legislator (who may be be a representative themselves) to represent them in DC and does what today's representatives do which is make speeches on the floor, introduce bills, sit committees, etc. This means up to 550 legislators who are more beholden to the 20 representatives than to lobbyists, and the representatives are much closer to their constituents both in number and location. Beyond that, put term limits on how long people can be on committees (18 years total), chairs of committees (8 years total) or speaker of the house (8 years total). Also, chairs and speakers due to their national position CANNOT be active representatives as they serve the nation and should not have conflict with the needs of 30,000 in their district.
Something like this would go a long way toward addressing my biggest counter-argument: more reps means more possible MTGs. If, as in your plan, the only reps getting the National stage are put through a filter of their regional peers after being elected by the people, maybe we’d hear less of the kind of nonsense we get from those full of prideful ignorance.
I would follow up with "there's no need to have the current legislative process." People can write bills, and if enough people co-sponsor it to pass it into law, it should become law.
Two words...TERM LIMITS. Professional politicians only creates an aristocracy which destroys a constitutional republic by making voting "by the people" a sham.
Actually it was passed in 1929 because the Congress of the period was still arguing about the census of 1920 and the 1930 census was looming. It was about the shift in power and influence from rural areas to urban areas. It was enacted just before the depression started.
Completely agree. This country has become too entrenched with things from the past. The house was designed to expand. The Supreme Court was designed to expanded by Congress. The Electoral College is beyond outdated. This country is behind because we refuse to embrace change and recognize that this country is not like how it was in 1929.
Exactly. And this isn't some radical leftist idea, political scientists who actually study this stuff have found that the optimal size of a legislature is the cube root of the population it's supposed to represent. For the US this number should be 692 as of the last census, about 59% larger than the current 435. The cube root proposal was endorsed by the NYT editorial board in 2018.
LMAO starts out with saying "And this isn't some radical leftist idea," ends up with saying "The cube root proposal was endorsed by the NYT editorial board in 2018"
Of course it isn't. A radical leftist idea would be adding democracy to the economy. Which for some reason is seen as controversial. That's what every Communist and Socialist wants to do. That's what the hammer and sickle flag means. A country is ONLY a Socialist country if the citizens can vote to decide what they want to be produced. That is one of it's main defining traits. If they don't have that right to vote, then it's not Socialism. Simple. Which is also why it's nonsense to talk as if Socialism/Communism is an "option on a spectrum". Socialism isn't a party you vote for to get seats on a parlament. Socialism is, metaphorically, the addition of more parlements. One for the economy in general and another one inside each business. It isn't a matter of "Let's let people vote for which economic system they want". That is nonsense. Socialism IS the economic system where people vote to decide what they want to be produced. On the other systems, it's one person or group that has completely power over a piece of land. Socialism is the nationalization of all private companies and the addition of economic voting rights. In other words, REAL democracy. ECONOMIC democracy. Class conscience. That is the defining characteristic of the radical left. It's what separates Socialists from the rest.
Democracy is great. WHY don't we use it for the economy and the workplace? Oh, yes. Because in SOME people's mind that somehow equates to "gulags" and "forced labor camps" or "starvation" or "100 million dead". Despite the fact that Private Property that does all these things and MUCH worse and yet people still defend it. You can't possibly pull the libertarian excuse of blaming the government. The US uses private prisons, so slave labor in prisons is 100% caused by private property.
The founders tossed around the idea of maximum district population of 30-50k. They even passed an amendment concerning district suze back in 1789…. It just needs 20 some odd states to ratify it. If we had districts of 100k we would be similar to the UK and Canada
That's actually a fundamental misunderstanding most historians and modern political pundits have about the Madison Apportionment Amendment. Rather than setting a fixed maxiumum size for districts, it actually outlined an iterative process for growing district sizes over time(and therefore how to steadily grow the House over time) that follows a "square root rule." Based on the 2020 Census of ~331.5M this would set the House at 1723 seats (and therefore the Electoral College at 1826 votes). I personally prefer the Cube Root Rule that would set House = 692 and EC = 795, but that's another topic.
@@theresebortzfield188 Keyword, “elected”, which in itself, has its own can of worms but, nevertheless, I’ve been sayin’ for decades now that maybe, just maybe, of the many very obvious issues of our governance, anyone holding any public job with the power to “appoint” another individual into any level of power, WITHOUT A FKN VOTE by “the people” ‘should be’ 100% ILLEGAL, throughout any U.S. Territories, regardless of political allegiance
@@seanbatiz6620 I'm sure you don't realize but you're proposing that literally every government employee be elected. Some polities in the US do actually hold elections for fairly low-level bureaucrats. Whenever you hear a story about blatantly bigoted and civil-rights abusing sheriffs, county clerks, or school boards they're usually elected.
I completely agree. But more importantly, we need to end gerrymandering, end the electoral college, and end filibustering. Then the government would work better. DA
As always, spot on the money Robert. We have to gain our representation back from our corporate overlords who have stolen it away from us. If we have no voice, we get no help. Pretty simple math. Keep up the outstanding work. Your efforts are greatly appreciated.
@@yourdaddy-mq4km Once again everyone, Your daddy is this channels sociopath troll, Zach. He has Reich derangement syndrome so bad he has taken on another user name. Poor little guy is very disturbed.
I'm entirely on board with the idea of more members in our legislatures. As an alternative to more numerous, smaller Congressional districts, I would love to hear your thoughts on multimember districts along with their pros and cons.
@Freya the Wanderer Interestingly enough, if you have a multi-member district with at least 5 members some form of proportional represention, gerrymandering becomes nearly impossible.
Another benefit I’ve been thinking about: a bigger congress would make lobbying more costly for corporations. With more representatives, more money and effort is needed to buy enough “representatives” to push through corporate interests. It’s not much, but it would help. I’d quadruple the size of the senate to help with this and the other benefits mentioned as well.
They tried to change House Apportionment to introduce a cap using a Constitutional Amendment, which was required since this was written into the Constitution. It failed, and then they did it with legislation... which is unconstitutional.
@@Zach-ju5vi so you think Republicans have NO chance of convincing people to vote for them? That's why conservatives are making it harder for certain people to vote. Some Republicans have even admitted that large voter turnout hurts their chances of being elected.
Another thing they could do is introduce proportional representation, as in the German system where two-thirds of the seats are still directly elected, but the rest are allotted so that the total is as close to the popular vote as possible. They could also increase the Senate from two seats per state to three, and have each state's senators elected on a single ballot every six years where the top three candidates would become senators. (You'd only need 1/4 of the vote to get elected...)
Germany's system provides for an equal number of directly elected deputies and deputies chosen by PR. To ensure that there is pure proportionality occasionally "overhang" seats are added if a party wins direct mandates far in excess of its share of the popular vote. But at no time do the direct mandates ever exceed half the total, often far less depending on the number of overhang.
Or just make it like Canada, where you vote for parties instead of individuals, and seats are awarded proportional to the votes each party gets. This would make smaller parties a hell of a lot more functional, and allow groups currently lacking any representation in the government, whatsoever, to have an actual voice in the affairs of the state.
@@arthurwintersight7868 Canada does not have PR, it uses the same system as in the USA. Candidates from various parties compete in "ridings" ie electoral districts and whoever wins a plurality wins that riding.
@@arthurwintersight7868 the big difference with Canada is that party discipline is much stronger and if you get elected on a party label you are expected to tow the "party line" or get expelled. Unlike here in the USA where every congressperson is a one man show and can flout party discipline with few consequences, especially if they have the ability to raise funds independent of their party.
Up to this proposition, you have had my complete respect. If the current corruption problem isn't corrected, increasing the number of dirtballs will not help. This two party system we have is not sustainable . If you look at the voting records of both sides , they nearly vote the same way on most issues. Take all corporate money out of our representations reach and that would go much further than increasing the number of corruptible representatives. Don't contribute to this cancer of a house of reps by increasing the number of defective members . Start by mandating sound morality and ethics with total and immediate eradication of those not meeting the standard . If this process had been followed, we wouldn't have the multiple pieces of shit in the House ,Senate , Supreme court and let's not forget about djt.
The framers specifically designed the government and the Electoral College to avoid exactly what Bob is espousing, a tyranny of a few states with oversized populations making all of the decisions for the many states with smaller populations.
As a Brit, I find your argument clear, logical and compelling. So it's got no chance of succeeding in modern America until the MAGA rabble have been banished. I've only just discovered your vids. They're superb. Thank you.
I've been saying this for decades. Article I, section 2, clause 3 of the Constitution says that there shall not be more than one representative for every 30,000 people. The current number of over 760K meets the letter of the Constitution, but is wildly out of sync with the spirit of it. I think there's constitutional grounds to say that the House must be made larger.
With the GOP leaning more and more towards fascism attaining that goal of more representation will be next to impossible. We need to first hold those legislators that were/are part of Trumps "Big Lie" accountable. Until then we are just spinning our wheels and making noise with no traction to go forward.
It's already hard to get a majority behind legislation, now you want to make it harder by increasing the size. The problem is with representation, corporations will by up members the same as before.
Your optimism is wonderful, and I'll keep watching because your logic is as well, but... maybe I'm just an old dog failing to learn a new trick, but videos like this usually make me sad. So many good ways to address so many important problems, but the representatives we have are basically certain not to even try. Which pales in comparison to the problem that many of them will be representing their constituents accurately, since so many people actively oppose fair and reasonable representation.
@@donsoards3356It's viewed as a problem now because the House is no longer representative. Likewise the Reapportionment Act of 1929 also ruined the Electoral College math prescribed in the Constitution that is supposed to be dominated by the House (i.e. House size that grows over time + Senate size that is supposed to stay fixed + additional EC votes granted to Washington DC by the 23rd Amendment = Electoral College size). Essentially the House is supposed to be dominated by the direct interests of the most populous states. Then the Office of the President via the Electoral College is supposed to be similarly heavily weighted towards the people (again, essentially House size that is supposed to be tied to population + Senate size that won't change without additional states, so as total population increases the Electoral College is supposed to basically look like the House with a rounding error to ensure small states are just a tiny bit relevant, not current situation the artificial cap on the size of the House is breaking everything). And then the Senate is supposed to acknowledge the needs of states equally. But right now we don't have this balanced approach (i.e. a lower legislative body that reflects the direct will of the people, an executive branch that is mostly tied to the people but influenced by states' needs, and an upper legislative body that is only concerned with states' needs).
The simplest and most important change to American democracy would be to require an outright majority in all elections, not just plurality, to break the 2 party hold on the country, by stopping "anti-worst" candidate voting instead of voting for a 3rd party candidate that may be risky. This would allow the rise of actual competition in deeply gerrymandered states.
It’s not only a good idea for all the reasons stated; if a new, modernized, and larger House facility were constructed even a short distance away from the Capital Building proper, it may bolster security by distributing risk-a January 6 event might be less feasible.
January 6th was as big of a deal as what happened with those portland riots not that big of a deal. Realistically it is good people are holding their politicians accountable a Jan 6th scenario is constructive for the people.
How would a bunch of cops letting protestors into the building be less feasible? Jan 6 only happened because they let it happen. And now they get morons still thinking it was somehow worse than the 2020 riots that caused billions in damages for nothing
@@MakeVarahHappen I'm completely serious. It's not my first priority in fixing government, but clearly the Founders had ideas involving 30,000:1, and there is clearly less connection today with 435. If you're going to go down this road, one rep per 30,000 is the next agreeable threshold past 435, while 576 is just completely arbitrary. Obviously 11,000 would involve numerous procedural and organizational changes to the operations of the House; Nuances I see no reason to preserve as sacrosanct. There's all sorts of shoddy BS built into the current mode of operations, like the HEAVY reliance on lobbyists by the skeleton crew of congressional aides actually running the thing, and the catastrophic corruption that campaign finance and the gerrymander brings into the situation.
I agree and we certainly need to enlarge the Supreme Court their should be at least 21 or 29 justices! If there were more per population. We also need to get rid of the electoral college. Thank-you keep re-posting this! That we have to get people used to the idea.
I don't know about 21 justices, but 13 would make sense because there are 13 circuit courts. One SCOTUS justice for each circuit court makes a bunch of sense!
@Freya the Wanderer Each circuit court has over 20 judges, only 3 of which hear any case at one time. It would be interesting if the SCOTUS worked in a similar fashion.
The electoral college is there to balance the mob nature of democracy for the security of the republic. Only get rid of it in case you are a power hungry politician in case you arent dont
Another factor to consider - make the elected representatives proportional to the votes cast. Today it's a "bipolar disorder" in US politics with just two parties. Many electable candidates are "cherry picked" by the party core to win an election in a district.
Of all the problems we have in our parody to democracy, having more representatives doesn't seem high on the list. Having representatives that actually represent people (and not corporations) would be a good start.
On one hand, you do make some very good arguments for expanding the house. On the other though.. It's hard to believe that expanding the house wouldn't simply open the way for more corrupted officials to get a paycheck off the rest of the American population. Or that republicans wouldn't find a way to pack it further with more of their people. And you can be 100% certain that they would raise taxes on everyone but the wealthy in order to accomplish this, rather than simply moving the money and resources from other divisions, like the military, to cover the costs. The issue with the cost isn't that we don't have the money, it's that our current officials are unwilling to use the money we already have on anything other than what it's already being spent on.
@@eddiekulp1241 Honestly, I rather doubt it with how badly democrats have been loosing control lately. But that's just my own outlook on the situation.
@Isaac Hartley The problem is doing it. Almost impossible in modern established societies.... Which is why I have high hopes for SpaceX and Mars. Elon wants a direct democracy on Mars.
Twenty years ago, I was watching CSPAN and Larry Sabato challenged people to come up with new constitutional amendments. I cam up with several but my first was abolishing the 1929 apportionment act, and replacing it with a cap on the size of congressional districts of a tenth of a percent of the total population. And no this doesn't just raise the cap on the size of Congress from 435 to 1000, as many states end up with a one to four extra seats because I also came up with an anti-Gerrymander amendment which requires districts to expand out radially from city halls (or equivalent), and favors high population density. Under my system Congress would presently have 1058 members.
We do need to expand the House of Representatives, but we also should abolish the Senate and replace it with a House of Nationalities that allows for the proportional representation of all different nationalities within the United States for the redress of grievances from these social groups.
I think the easiest solution would be to set the size of district to the size of the smallest state. Then you'd have a a self-adding system, that would have a fewer variances in district size. And I would want that as an amendment to keep congress from mucking with it latter on down the line.
First time I've heard of this, I didn't think 435 was a cap!!?? I thought all the redistricting was because of population growth to add reps? We also need DC and PR to be added as states so we get 4 more senators, wtf has this not happened already, particularly when we dems had house and senate...
435 members is big enough. Each congressperson probably has a staff of 15 people plus access to committee staffs. Multiplied by 435, there's already a large congressional bureaucracy. Modern technology made available to congresspersons also allows them to serve constituents better and allows them to access more information and analytical tools such as electronic budget worksheets. I don't see how smaller demographic districts coupled with more jostling congressmen would give the average citizen better representation.
Literally the stupidest argument I have heard this month. And currently that is saying a bit. Historically; Greece, Carthage, Rome, Byzantium etc; can all be used as failed examples of this practice. Corruption will grow. Thats about it.
@@Alamyst2011 yes. It does. I mean, I get that you don't understand that but it does. You're overestimating your ability to comprehend this subject. Every comment you've made on this video shows this.
@@TheHonestPeanut Your taking the opinion of a known fraud an party shill. The increase in elected delegates has the opposite effect. Look at evert parliament or senate in history that has increased membership. You are the one who is apparently lacking in knowledge of the subject
@@TheHonestPeanut he's not the one who isn't understanding here. It's unreal people could be ignorant enough to think making more politicians would result with less corruption SMH.
You are terrific Robert Reich. Clear, to the point, original. Here's hoping you are appointed to a position in the administration (if you want that?) What work/ post do you want? So we can help you get that? You need a louder megaphone📣!! With the Jasons/Johnson team? I'm a huge fan. Heard you when my late mother, Peg Brown, took me to your "The Long and the Short of it" joint talk at HU. Go, Robert!!! And THANK YOU, for your wisdom, et, et, et ... With heaps of appreciation, Elspeth Macdonald
Ironic that the very people we depend upon to make these changes are the very one’s who are causing the problems and are in a position to block them. I consider this a major fault in our system. Who checks and balances the rogues who were designed to do it in the first place?
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
“A building should not be an obstacle to a more representative democracy.”
@@Zach-ju5vi i know. I just love the statement.
@@Zach-ju5vi Look everyone it's this channels delusional sociopath troll, Zachoff the irrelevant.
And even if the building was a problem, just build a new building!
If we can afford aircraft carriers, we can afford a new House of Representatives.
(I would suggest modeling it after a sport stadium)
Keep pit simple
@@pmsteamrailroading Like the assembly in the Star Wars movie!
Hard to believe that the number was capped before we even had 50 states.
Is it though? I feel like that was always on the back burner, just waiting until they felt like the people had too much power.
Yup
Yea it was capped at a 100 because historically any more than that leads to in fighting and corruption. Basic history.
@@Alamyst2011 it's capped at 535.
@@TheHonestPeanut try 435
The permanent apportionment act of 1929 was a huge mistake. It needs to be fixed. I read an article saying that there should be 931 members of the house.
@@Zach-ju5vi Same delusional logic we all laugh at from this channels sociopath troll Zachoff the irrelevant. You constantly get put in your place but continue to come back expecting different results. That's called insanity you poor sick boy.
@@Zach-ju5vi Kind of hard to get ~600 people to vote to make themselves fat if it was paired with a term limit. Definitely harder than getting ~250 people like now.
@@Zach-ju5vi Don't be Debbie Downer. Just raise taxes on rich people. Oh, and cut off their life time full pay pensions. Even 1 term qualifies.
@@Zach-ju5vi penny wise, pound foolish. The wages of the extra representatives is chump change compared to what we would save if we actually got a functional government.
@@roberteltze4850 well we in germany are right now cutting down the number becouse it is less functional and exspensive
"A larger House would be more diverse."
This is one of the biggest reasons Congress would try to block it.
Hahaha. Sadly this is hilariously true.
Basically, they could care less that people are actually represented. Look how many vote against what their constituents want or need.
Because in their logic, diversity means going woke and that’s bad for their bottom line.
Then don't give them a choice, and convince your state to ratify the Congressional Apportionment Amendment, which would set the size of Congress based on a mathematical formula. As population increases, so too does the size of Congress automatically. Using it, today we would have 1723 Representatives.
@@Zach-ju5vi No. It would be an appropriate amount
One of the problems with the current cap on the number of representatives is that it concentrates power into fewer hands as the population grows. The House should be at least 2 - 3 times its current size. In addition to the issues Robert raises, more congressional districts also make it more difficult to gerrymander them. Unfortunately, this does not solve the problem of the Senate, but it is still worth doing.
We could also break up some of the more populous states to increase the number of Senators, while also adding Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico to the list. California, Texas, and New York should all become multiple states.
@@arthurwintersight7868 dc is the capital and can’t be added, why don’t people get the whole point was making sure no state had too much power hosting the capital?? You want the people there to be “represented” give most of the land people live on back to Maryland/Virginia. It’s that simple
@@xShadowChrisx - ...and what about Puerto Rico or Guam?
@@arthurwintersight7868 They've literally consistently voted against statehood. You want to ignore the will of the people there??? For what?
@@xShadowChrisx Currently, there is no part of DC that belonged to Virginia, all associated lands (Alexandria and Arlington) were reclaimed at the start of the Civil War. The possibility of returning the residential part of DC to Maryland has been discussed and rejected by both parties involved. Additionally, there is nothing specifying the size or shape of the Federal district that is to be independent of the states. DC has repeatedly petitioned for statehood, but (currently) the threat of a Senate filibuster has held up the latest bills.
Of course, the problem with this idea is that you are asking today's representatives to diminish their own power.
Yes, but they might also get away with doing less work since they'd have fewer constituents to serve.
@@Zach-ju5viso less representation is the answer?
They are ineffective
@@Zach-ju5vi but they arent becoming less accountable...they become more accountable
their power is diminished... so they have less ability to ignore their constituents
like... who do you think is easier to hold accountable - a king that has absolute power... or a representative that represents a couple thousand people...
or to make it even more clear... if someone represents 2 people and screws them over... what do you think how fast those 2 people will be in that guys face to tear em a new one?
it is much easier for the constituents to remove a bad representative, the fewer people they have to motivate to take action
PS: it also becomes much more expensive to bribe enough representatives to push through legislation for your interests, the more representatives there are
@@Zach-ju5vi Right, loss of accountability is the problem, which is what's happened by limiting representation. That's why allowing the house to expand again so they can more accurately represent the population would be a good thing. More representatives representing the increased population. Fewer representatives causes a greater divide between the reps and their districts. He outlines that in the video.
Thank you, professor. I have written to Congress about this for years and, as you might expect, have been ignored.
Did you send those letters registered, return receipt? At least you would know they made it past the front door ✌🏼😅
Thank you for defending America peacefully
With reasons and logic.
This makes those other guys look even more unreasonable.
Robert doesn't do anything but support the Status Quo. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
How unreasonable you do want them to look? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Logic tells you more Government is better? Bwahahahahahaha
@@timorean320 Your statement indicates you have confidence you are not one of the unrepresented.
@@CrazyLife2112 it wasnt a statement, it was a question. Reading Comp 101.
I've been saying this for years, it's good to hear someone with a bigger platform saying it too
Make the senate reflect taxation. No taxation without representation.
NY, Cali, Texas are the biggest payers. There is no reason Kentucky, New Mexico, and Mississippi should have equal say.
That’s the entire purpose of the senate lol, to ensure all states have equal say in at least one chamber of congress. Clearly someone doesn’t understand how the US government works
Yes, this is desperately needed! Can you do a segment on ranked choice voting next?
@@Zach-ju5vi Poor little Zachoff triggered again by the many people who agree with and admire the great Professor Reich. You really are pathetic.
It's not something corporations would like.
I've already done so! ruclips.net/video/7P6aYbUo19U/видео.html
@@Zach-ju5vi Can you explain what makes rank choice voting a scam? Here's a simple example. If 3 friends get together to watch a movie and can't agree on what to watch, then rank-choice voting is a good solution. Assuming each person votes for their own movie first, then there is no winner. But if 2 of them choose the same movie as their second choice, then that one would win because it had the most support. Explain what makes that a scam.
@@Boris80b If it's something corporations don't like then it's probably the right thing to do.
I have been talking about this issue for some time. The cap on the number of representatives has reduced citizens' access to their representatives and service from the government.
Here’s a fun statistic:
When writing the Bill of Rights, Madison proposed 12 amendments, only 1 of which has not become an amendment: a formula for calculating the size of the House of Representatives. Had we passed it, we would have over 2,000 members of Congress today.
Actually, more than *6,000* representatives.
Namely, it would have mandated 1 representative for every 30,000 people until America's population reached a certain level (now long since passed), then 1 representative for every 40,000 people until her population reached another level (now also long since passed), then-ultimately-one representative for every 50,000 people.
One representative for every 760,000 people? Come on!
@@grantorino2325a UK parliamentary constituency typically represents about 76000 people so on that basis the US house ought to grow 10 fold. However those are constituencies not polling districts so have to be at least arguably real communities so the largest and smallest vary a lot (110K for the Isle of Wight, 30K for the outer Hebrides, as Islands are obviously fixed communities with strong local identity).
Actually we would have 1723 seats in the House (based on 2020 Census population of ~331.5M) as the Madison Apportionment Amendment outlined a square root formula of the form:
House size = √(10,000 + CensusPopulation/100) - 100
1 representative for every 250,000 people at least. 1,336 members. Most of the time the whole house doesn't meet all at once, and when they do we have conference calling. We live in the 21st century for God's sake. Make it make sense!
I couldn't agree more. We are a huge diverse population!!! Thank you for informaint the public
Keep sharing this folks! More Americans need to hear Robert Reich! 👍
You're not very bright are you?
Right on! He's a good guy. ❤
My argument takes it further. One representative per 30,000 people. As this means 11,000 representatives, they do not all go to DC and instead vote on all bills remotely from their home district. From there, twenty representatives from the same state can sponsor a legislator (who may be be a representative themselves) to represent them in DC and does what today's representatives do which is make speeches on the floor, introduce bills, sit committees, etc. This means up to 550 legislators who are more beholden to the 20 representatives than to lobbyists, and the representatives are much closer to their constituents both in number and location.
Beyond that, put term limits on how long people can be on committees (18 years total), chairs of committees (8 years total) or speaker of the house (8 years total). Also, chairs and speakers due to their national position CANNOT be active representatives as they serve the nation and should not have conflict with the needs of 30,000 in their district.
Something like this would go a long way toward addressing my biggest counter-argument: more reps means more possible MTGs. If, as in your plan, the only reps getting the National stage are put through a filter of their regional peers after being elected by the people, maybe we’d hear less of the kind of nonsense we get from those full of prideful ignorance.
I would follow up with "there's no need to have the current legislative process." People can write bills, and if enough people co-sponsor it to pass it into law, it should become law.
Two words...TERM LIMITS.
Professional politicians only creates an aristocracy which destroys a constitutional republic by making voting "by the people" a sham.
1929 is when the great depression struck. When many are poor, the few that benefited from the crisis become very powerful.
Actually it was passed in 1929 because the Congress of the period was still arguing about the census of 1920 and the 1930 census was looming. It was about the shift in power and influence from rural areas to urban areas. It was enacted just before the depression started.
Completely agree. This country has become too entrenched with things from the past. The house was designed to expand. The Supreme Court was designed to expanded by Congress. The Electoral College is beyond outdated. This country is behind because we refuse to embrace change and recognize that this country is not like how it was in 1929.
Exactly. And this isn't some radical leftist idea, political scientists who actually study this stuff have found that the optimal size of a legislature is the cube root of the population it's supposed to represent. For the US this number should be 692 as of the last census, about 59% larger than the current 435. The cube root proposal was endorsed by the NYT editorial board in 2018.
It would make the house ideologically diverse which isn't great when you want a nation divided. I think its terrific
LMAO starts out with saying "And this isn't some radical leftist idea," ends up with saying "The cube root proposal was endorsed by the NYT editorial board in 2018"
Of course it isn't.
A radical leftist idea would be adding democracy to the economy. Which for some reason is seen as controversial.
That's what every Communist and Socialist wants to do. That's what the hammer and sickle flag means.
A country is ONLY a Socialist country if the citizens can vote to decide what they want to be produced. That is one of it's main defining traits. If they don't have that right to vote, then it's not Socialism. Simple.
Which is also why it's nonsense to talk as if Socialism/Communism is an "option on a spectrum".
Socialism isn't a party you vote for to get seats on a parlament. Socialism is, metaphorically, the addition of more parlements. One for the economy in general and another one inside each business. It isn't a matter of "Let's let people vote for which economic system they want". That is nonsense. Socialism IS the economic system where people vote to decide what they want to be produced.
On the other systems, it's one person or group that has completely power over a piece of land.
Socialism is the nationalization of all private companies and the addition of economic voting rights.
In other words, REAL democracy. ECONOMIC democracy.
Class conscience. That is the defining characteristic of the radical left. It's what separates Socialists from the rest.
Democracy is great. WHY don't we use it for the economy and the workplace?
Oh, yes. Because in SOME people's mind that somehow equates to "gulags" and "forced labor camps" or "starvation" or "100 million dead". Despite the fact that Private Property that does all these things and MUCH worse and yet people still defend it. You can't possibly pull the libertarian excuse of blaming the government. The US uses private prisons, so slave labor in prisons is 100% caused by private property.
@@MrMeticulousOneOnce again it needs to be explained that what is considered "left wing" in the US isn't actually all that left wing.
The Senate is the branch that "treats states equally" the representatives are supposed to *represent*. They do not.
The founders tossed around the idea of maximum district population of 30-50k. They even passed an amendment concerning district suze back in 1789…. It just needs 20 some odd states to ratify it.
If we had districts of 100k we would be similar to the UK and Canada
That's actually a fundamental misunderstanding most historians and modern political pundits have about the Madison Apportionment Amendment. Rather than setting a fixed maxiumum size for districts, it actually outlined an iterative process for growing district sizes over time(and therefore how to steadily grow the House over time) that follows a "square root rule." Based on the 2020 Census of ~331.5M this would set the House at 1723 seats (and therefore the Electoral College at 1826 votes).
I personally prefer the Cube Root Rule that would set House = 692 and EC = 795, but that's another topic.
Not sure we can talk about proper representation without mentioning the importance of Statehood for DC
Don’t forget Puerto Rico
Representation not Republicans WE THE PEOPLE need effective and responsible elected officials.
@@theresebortzfield188 Keyword, “elected”, which in itself, has its own can of worms but, nevertheless, I’ve been sayin’ for decades now that maybe, just maybe, of the many very obvious issues of our governance, anyone holding any public job with the power to “appoint” another individual into any level of power, WITHOUT A FKN VOTE by “the people” ‘should be’ 100% ILLEGAL, throughout any U.S. Territories, regardless of political allegiance
I'm sure he has a video on statehood for DC.
@@seanbatiz6620 I'm sure you don't realize but you're proposing that literally every government employee be elected.
Some polities in the US do actually hold elections for fairly low-level bureaucrats. Whenever you hear a story about blatantly bigoted and civil-rights abusing sheriffs, county clerks, or school boards they're usually elected.
I completely agree. But more importantly, we need to end gerrymandering, end the electoral college, and end filibustering. Then the government would work better. DA
@@Zach-ju5vi Typical projection from this channels right wing fascist troll. You all know him. It's Zachoff the sociopath.
As always, spot on the money Robert. We have to gain our representation back from our corporate overlords who have stolen it away from us. If we have no voice, we get no help. Pretty simple math. Keep up the outstanding work. Your efforts are greatly appreciated.
He's on the money alright.... The money he gets to shill his lies.
@@yourdaddy-mq4km Still trying to pass yourself off as You daddy huh Zachoff you sociopath. Nobody is buying it,
I'm glad you brought this up. Education brings awareness of possibilities for change. Who knew? I didn't.
Education does, indoctrination does the opposite.
@@yourdaddy-mq4km Once again everyone, Your daddy is this channels sociopath troll, Zach. He has Reich derangement syndrome so bad he has taken on another user name. Poor little guy is very disturbed.
“A building should not be an obstacle to a more representative democracy.”. Keep sharing this folks! More Americans need to hear Robert Reich! .
I'm entirely on board with the idea of more members in our legislatures. As an alternative to more numerous, smaller Congressional districts, I would love to hear your thoughts on multimember districts along with their pros and cons.
Now we have to make sure that the new districts are not gerrymandered!
@Freya the Wanderer Interestingly enough, if you have a multi-member district with at least 5 members some form of proportional represention, gerrymandering becomes nearly impossible.
I prefer moving back to the old standard of 200,000 per district. Yes, that's a new building. Worth it
Another benefit I’ve been thinking about: a bigger congress would make lobbying more costly for corporations. With more representatives, more money and effort is needed to buy enough “representatives” to push through corporate interests. It’s not much, but it would help. I’d quadruple the size of the senate to help with this and the other benefits mentioned as well.
They tried to change House Apportionment to introduce a cap using a Constitutional Amendment, which was required since this was written into the Constitution. It failed, and then they did it with legislation... which is unconstitutional.
Brilliant. You make a solid case for expanding the House.
@@Zach-ju5vi so you think Republicans have NO chance of convincing people to vote for them? That's why conservatives are making it harder for certain people to vote. Some Republicans have even admitted that large voter turnout hurts their chances of being elected.
The problem with US, is that you don't have direct elections.
The system has just 2 parties.
Or, 1 party away from dictatorship.
“1 party away from dictatorship” is a good slogan for some reason.
This will never happen while the donor class finds advantage in the current system. They don't want more representation and less power.
I’ve been saying this for years …. Not that anyone ever listens to me 🤷🏻♀️
Robert Reich is the voice of truth and wisdom.
Another solution would be to give each house member a weighted vote based on the number of constituents
Another thing they could do is introduce proportional representation, as in the German system where two-thirds of the seats are still directly elected, but the rest are allotted so that the total is as close to the popular vote as possible.
They could also increase the Senate from two seats per state to three, and have each state's senators elected on a single ballot every six years where the top three candidates would become senators. (You'd only need 1/4 of the vote to get elected...)
Germany's system provides for an equal number of directly elected deputies and deputies chosen by PR. To ensure that there is pure proportionality occasionally "overhang" seats are added if a party wins direct mandates far in excess of its share of the popular vote. But at no time do the direct mandates ever exceed half the total, often far less depending on the number of overhang.
Or just make it like Canada, where you vote for parties instead of individuals, and seats are awarded proportional to the votes each party gets. This would make smaller parties a hell of a lot more functional, and allow groups currently lacking any representation in the government, whatsoever, to have an actual voice in the affairs of the state.
@@arthurwintersight7868 Canada does not have PR, it uses the same system as in the USA. Candidates from various parties compete in "ridings" ie electoral districts and whoever wins a plurality wins that riding.
@@arthurwintersight7868 the big difference with Canada is that party discipline is much stronger and if you get elected on a party label you are expected to tow the "party line" or get expelled. Unlike here in the USA where every congressperson is a one man show and can flout party discipline with few consequences, especially if they have the ability to raise funds independent of their party.
@@arthurwintersight7868 We actually don't do it that way in Canada. (But we SHOULD!)
Up to this proposition, you have had my complete respect. If the current corruption problem isn't corrected, increasing the number of dirtballs will not help. This two party system we have is not sustainable . If you look at the voting records of both sides , they nearly vote the same way on most issues. Take all corporate money out of our representations reach and that would go much further than increasing the number of corruptible representatives. Don't contribute to this cancer of a house of reps by increasing the number of defective members . Start by mandating sound morality and ethics with total and immediate eradication of those not meeting the standard . If this process had been followed, we wouldn't have the multiple pieces of shit in the House ,Senate , Supreme court and let's not forget about djt.
Always great information. This one was especially crucial.
Thank you sir, I've been ranting about this for years. Validation feels good.
@@Zach-ju5vi I bet you're fun at parties, dingus
@@Zach-ju5vi Wasn't seeking it was fortuitous, Inshallah.
@@Zach-ju5vi As always this channels irrelevant troll Zachoff is triggered by the great Professor Reich. GOOD !
Imagine an Electoral College that actually reflects the popular vote! Boggles the mind 😯
Even if it did, it would still be a needless beurocracy.
Let people vote directly.
The framers specifically designed the government and the Electoral College to avoid exactly what Bob is espousing, a tyranny of a few states with oversized populations making all of the decisions for the many states with smaller populations.
Doing this without solving gerrymandering and campaign finance FIRST is a terrible idea.
Agreed! Also, won't that help with the gerrymandering we deal with?
Thanks for pointing that out.
End Gerrymandering end ELECTORAL COLLEGE end filibuster stack SCOTUS13 Restore women's bodily autonomy and Gun reform and restore LGBTQ rights
Help clarify this for me, please.
Do you mean "jury-rigging", or "gerrymandering"?
Maybe.
I was asking for clarification of the term.
What type of "jury-rigging" are we talking about?
@@Zach-ju5vi Nothing you say has any credibility you Zachoff. Go home and get your shine box.
It will only get worse
As a Brit, I find your argument clear, logical and compelling. So it's got no chance of succeeding in modern America until the MAGA rabble have been banished.
I've only just discovered your vids. They're superb. Thank you.
I'm not sure how many more fat six-figure salaries with full benefits and accelerated retirement benefits we can afford.
I've been saying this for decades. Article I, section 2, clause 3 of the Constitution says that there shall not be more than one representative for every 30,000 people. The current number of over 760K meets the letter of the Constitution, but is wildly out of sync with the spirit of it. I think there's constitutional grounds to say that the House must be made larger.
With the GOP leaning more and more towards fascism attaining that goal of more representation will be next to impossible. We need to first hold those legislators that were/are part of Trumps "Big Lie" accountable. Until then we are just spinning our wheels and making noise with no traction to go forward.
ok, but that's looking back. More reps would make the maga farce less likely to begin with. I think thats the real point here
I would argue that the current democratic party is far more fascist than the GOP.
@@Alamyst2011 I don't think you could.
@@TheHonestPeanut Obama's drone program. Lol
@@Alamyst2011 thanks for proving my point for me.
if you are under 40 years old in America you have 5% representation in Congress........
we need term limits for Senate
we also need an Upper Age Limit, 65 should be the retirement age for Governing no questions no extensions
I’m sorry….but the government is already huge and inefficient as it is
It's already hard to get a majority behind legislation, now you want to make it harder by increasing the size. The problem is with representation, corporations will by up members the same as before.
Your optimism is wonderful, and I'll keep watching because your logic is as well, but... maybe I'm just an old dog failing to learn a new trick, but videos like this usually make me sad. So many good ways to address so many important problems, but the representatives we have are basically certain not to even try. Which pales in comparison to the problem that many of them will be representing their constituents accurately, since so many people actively oppose fair and reasonable representation.
Could you imagine 1000 members in the House? Oh man! It would be AWESOME.
Great video!
Since 1790 our Senate representation ratio has increased about 25 times. No wonder the average citizen has little representation.
No... Senators have always been 2 per state.
@@cteal2018 That is now a problem.
@@donsoards3356It's viewed as a problem now because the House is no longer representative. Likewise the Reapportionment Act of 1929 also ruined the Electoral College math prescribed in the Constitution that is supposed to be dominated by the House (i.e. House size that grows over time + Senate size that is supposed to stay fixed + additional EC votes granted to Washington DC by the 23rd Amendment = Electoral College size). Essentially the House is supposed to be dominated by the direct interests of the most populous states. Then the Office of the President via the Electoral College is supposed to be similarly heavily weighted towards the people (again, essentially House size that is supposed to be tied to population + Senate size that won't change without additional states, so as total population increases the Electoral College is supposed to basically look like the House with a rounding error to ensure small states are just a tiny bit relevant, not current situation the artificial cap on the size of the House is breaking everything). And then the Senate is supposed to acknowledge the needs of states equally. But right now we don't have this balanced approach (i.e. a lower legislative body that reflects the direct will of the people, an executive branch that is mostly tied to the people but influenced by states' needs, and an upper legislative body that is only concerned with states' needs).
All this is moot as long as the senate continues to exist. Abolish that House of Lords!
Thank you!! This is just simple arithmetic and an acknowledgement that equal representation is good.
The simplest and most important change to American democracy would be to require an outright majority in all elections, not just plurality, to break the 2 party hold on the country, by stopping "anti-worst" candidate voting instead of voting for a 3rd party candidate that may be risky. This would allow the rise of actual competition in deeply gerrymandered states.
It’s not only a good idea for all the reasons stated; if a new, modernized, and larger House facility were constructed even a short distance away from the Capital Building proper, it may bolster security by distributing risk-a January 6 event might be less feasible.
January 6th was as big of a deal as what happened with those portland riots not that big of a deal. Realistically it is good people are holding their politicians accountable a Jan 6th scenario is constructive for the people.
How would a bunch of cops letting protestors into the building be less feasible? Jan 6 only happened because they let it happen. And now they get morons still thinking it was somehow worse than the 2020 riots that caused billions in damages for nothing
Why the hell go for 576 members instead of the Constitutional number of about one per thirty thousand people?
Because that would require 11,000 representatives.
@@MakeVarahHappen Yes, and? 576 can't do anything additional that 435 is unable to do. 11,000 representatives could.
@@TrogdorBurnin8or you cannot be serious.
@@MakeVarahHappen I'm completely serious. It's not my first priority in fixing government, but clearly the Founders had ideas involving 30,000:1, and there is clearly less connection today with 435. If you're going to go down this road, one rep per 30,000 is the next agreeable threshold past 435, while 576 is just completely arbitrary. Obviously 11,000 would involve numerous procedural and organizational changes to the operations of the House; Nuances I see no reason to preserve as sacrosanct. There's all sorts of shoddy BS built into the current mode of operations, like the HEAVY reliance on lobbyists by the skeleton crew of congressional aides actually running the thing, and the catastrophic corruption that campaign finance and the gerrymander brings into the situation.
I agree and we certainly need to enlarge the Supreme Court their should be at least 21 or 29 justices! If there were more per population. We also need to get rid of the electoral college.
Thank-you keep re-posting this! That we have to get people used to the idea.
I don't know about 21 justices, but 13 would make sense because there are 13 circuit courts. One SCOTUS justice for each circuit court makes a bunch of sense!
@Freya the Wanderer Each circuit court has over 20 judges, only 3 of which hear any case at one time. It would be interesting if the SCOTUS worked in a similar fashion.
The electoral college is there to balance the mob nature of democracy for the security of the republic. Only get rid of it in case you are a power hungry politician in case you arent dont
The real problem is the district voting system, and the resulting two party system.
I hear what you're saying and it makes sense, but i highly doubt this will do anything to fiks the problem off corruption within the political system.
Another factor to consider - make the elected representatives proportional to the votes cast. Today it's a "bipolar disorder" in US politics with just two parties.
Many electable candidates are "cherry picked" by the party core to win an election in a district.
But but but, I thought the number 435 was brought down to us by Moses, on a stone tablet, where it was written by the fiery finger of God almighty.
🤣👍🏼
I think having more districts would also decrease the effects of gerrymandering. It wouldn't eliminate it, but it would decrease it.
@@Zach-ju5vi It's been done many times before you Zachoff. Take it on the arches, clown
Thank you!!
Asking the current representatives to give up power is like asking a starving dog to give up a found bone.
@@Zach-ju5vi The exact opposite is true you Zachoff. You're logic as always is based on right wing fear mongering blather. Go play in traffic, clown.
@@Zach-ju5vi True
Dc also needs statehood
Of all the problems we have in our parody to democracy, having more representatives doesn't seem high on the list. Having representatives that actually represent people (and not corporations) would be a good start.
The House of Representatives is broken but the Senate is way more broken. How can Wyoming have the same amount of representation as California?
Thank You, Robert Reich ⚖️
On one hand, you do make some very good arguments for expanding the house. On the other though.. It's hard to believe that expanding the house wouldn't simply open the way for more corrupted officials to get a paycheck off the rest of the American population. Or that republicans wouldn't find a way to pack it further with more of their people. And you can be 100% certain that they would raise taxes on everyone but the wealthy in order to accomplish this, rather than simply moving the money and resources from other divisions, like the military, to cover the costs. The issue with the cost isn't that we don't have the money, it's that our current officials are unwilling to use the money we already have on anything other than what it's already being spent on.
Or democrats would pack it
@@eddiekulp1241 Honestly, I rather doubt it with how badly democrats have been loosing control lately. But that's just my own outlook on the situation.
Get rid of politicians.
Go for direct democracy. The ppl choose not corrupt politicians
Check out Switzerland 🇨🇭
They have more than one person in their executive branch, something I only wish the U.S. had.
@Isaac Hartley Yea I agree even with my country.
I want to see ppl move towards a Switzerland style of government.
@@CountryLifestyle2023 It’s a no-brainer.
@Isaac Hartley The problem is doing it.
Almost impossible in modern established societies....
Which is why I have high hopes for SpaceX and Mars. Elon wants a direct democracy on Mars.
@@CountryLifestyle2023 Bruh knowing Elon he’d declare himself dictator of Mars.
Agreed.
Twenty years ago, I was watching CSPAN and Larry Sabato challenged people to come up with new constitutional amendments. I cam up with several but my first was abolishing the 1929 apportionment act, and replacing it with a cap on the size of congressional districts of a tenth of a percent of the total population. And no this doesn't just raise the cap on the size of Congress from 435 to 1000, as many states end up with a one to four extra seats because I also came up with an anti-Gerrymander amendment which requires districts to expand out radially from city halls (or equivalent), and favors high population density. Under my system Congress would presently have 1058 members.
Yup, that's all we need...more politicians. Sometimes Robert is so out of touch!
He is a fraud. Has been sense the 70s.
Thank you Mr Reich... you're exactly right on this issue as well as all others.
No. He is wrong. As usual. His opinions are old and tired
Yes!
@@Zach-ju5vi Your opinion means nothing here you Zachoff.
We do need to expand the House of Representatives, but we also should abolish the Senate and replace it with a House of Nationalities that allows for the proportional representation of all different nationalities within the United States for the redress of grievances from these social groups.
OMG
Is this going to be on the exam?
Every two years.
@@Zach-ju5vi Same old sociopath logic from our boy Zachoff the irrelevant troll.
@@Zach-ju5vi Zachoff I don't hate you. I feel sorry for you. Now go home and get your shine box.
I think the easiest solution would be to set the size of district to the size of the smallest state. Then you'd have a a self-adding system, that would have a fewer variances in district size. And I would want that as an amendment to keep congress from mucking with it latter on down the line.
Whatever "Shorty" here proposes, his end goal is the same: to make me poorer.
First time I've heard of this, I didn't think 435 was a cap!!?? I thought all the redistricting was because of population growth to add reps?
We also need DC and PR to be added as states so we get 4 more senators, wtf has this not happened already, particularly when we dems had house and senate...
Literally not how it works
I love this and I love how you have solutions to problems but can actually help
@@Zach-ju5vi YAWN....ZZZZzzzz....
Better idea? Multi-member districts and proportional representation.
435 members is big enough. Each congressperson probably has a staff of 15 people plus access to committee staffs. Multiplied by 435, there's already a large congressional bureaucracy. Modern technology made available to congresspersons also allows them to serve constituents better and allows them to access more information and analytical tools such as electronic budget worksheets. I don't see how smaller demographic districts coupled with more jostling congressmen would give the average citizen better representation.
An expansion of the House should also lead to the end of gerrymandering.
@@Zach-ju5vi Everything you spew here is deluded tripe everyone expects from you Zachoff.
Alternate solution: America needs to stop growing. We can't even take care of the people we have.
I’ve seen two videos from you and the simplicity but ingenuity of the ideas are astonishing
Literally the stupidest argument I have heard this month. And currently that is saying a bit.
Historically; Greece, Carthage, Rome, Byzantium etc; can all be used as failed examples of this practice.
Corruption will grow. Thats about it.
The video explains the mistakes you made here.
@@TheHonestPeanut No. It doesn't. He provides opinions. Not facts and literally no proof.
Take his word bro lol
@@Alamyst2011 yes. It does. I mean, I get that you don't understand that but it does. You're overestimating your ability to comprehend this subject. Every comment you've made on this video shows this.
@@TheHonestPeanut Your taking the opinion of a known fraud an party shill. The increase in elected delegates has the opposite effect. Look at evert parliament or senate in history that has increased membership.
You are the one who is apparently lacking in knowledge of the subject
@@TheHonestPeanut he's not the one who isn't understanding here. It's unreal people could be ignorant enough to think making more politicians would result with less corruption SMH.
1:23 Hmmm... Now who could that be modeled after? 🤣
Nope
The "diversity" you should really be looking for is more independent/third-party representatives.
Three is a magic number, as they say.
I'm for this. Let's go!
One thing though? It'll be cheaper to buy the representatives.
You are terrific Robert Reich. Clear, to the point, original. Here's hoping you are appointed to a position in the administration (if you want that?) What work/ post do you want? So we can help you get that? You need a louder megaphone📣!! With the Jasons/Johnson team?
I'm a huge fan. Heard you when my late mother, Peg Brown, took me to your "The Long and the Short of it" joint talk at HU. Go, Robert!!! And THANK YOU, for your wisdom, et, et, et ...
With heaps of appreciation,
Elspeth Macdonald
Ironic that the very people we depend upon to make these changes are the very one’s who are causing the problems and are in a position to block them. I consider this a major fault in our system. Who checks and balances the rogues who were designed to do it in the first place?
Thank you for making this vid. It's interesting and easy to understand. I've subscribed.
Money, or special interest groups, is what Congress truly represents. I don't think expanding the House can fix it.
If you make it bigger then it will take more special interest money to corrupt them. Until money is taken out of the equation nothing will change.