As a point of clarification, aren't you one of the people who thinks we need to "take this country back" to the time of the Founders?
That may happen but at the same time given the rules of how the US House is run there still would be an impetus for the parties to hold themselves together, also not forgetting national support to state elections. My impression of this will be say that a state like MN gets twice as many reps as they do now. Michelle Bachmann's district ends up electing Bachmann and another Republican slightly less radical Bachmann. When they get into the US House though both vote for Boehnor as speaker and both end up sitting on the same committees. The overall result is not that much different than what we have now.
This is just silly. Democracy demands that the people pick their representatives, and not the King or the High Priest. It's the House of Representatives, not the House of Lords or the Canadian Senate. (Not those aren't just as silly.) The idea is that whoever the people want get elected. There are millions of people in the country qualified to be Congresscritters, and probably tens of thousands of those that aren't repulsed by the idea. Even so, because democracy is messy, we'll elect a Sheila Jackson-Lee or two. That'll happen whether we have 435 Reps or 4350. At least with a few more, there will be a greater chance of them representing the people instead of just GE, Bank of America, Monsanto, or Lockheed Martin. The New Hampshire House has 400 members representing 1.3 million people, and it seems to do a good job. They definitely tend to elect citizen legislators.
What possibly makes you think this? Multiplying numbers doesn't make people any more likely to represent the people than corporations.
I'd also point out that, even now, there are dozens of House races every election that don't have a serious candidate on one side of the aisle. So the idea that there are just armies of people out there wanting to be elected but unable because there are "only" 435 seats is a bit silly. The reality is that the smaller the race, the less the individual matters. A Presidential race will have more to do with the individual candidates than a Senate or Governor's race. And those will have more to do with the individual candidates than a House race. And those will have more to do with individual candidates than a State Senate or State House race. The more you dilute, the more it is simply about the generic party affiliation. Adding more House seats does nothing to create diversity and it does nothing to promote good policy. All it does is lead to more dumbing down of elections and making people loyal to party over all else.
Can you also agree on strict spending limits are you holding the typical libertarian theme that money should rule unregulated?
This is brilliant. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/257803/re-expand-congress-daniel-foster And limited government means limited power, not limiting the number of representatives, ffs.
What? The conclusion he draws is the exact opposite of the facts he argues. Yes, it's true that showing favoritism in a small environment is more noticable - that's what's bad! If I have a small district, I'm more likely to push things to benefit a handful of people because locking in those votes helps me that much more. Nobody votes against a person because they helped someone else in their district; but people certainly will vote for you if you help them. So you end up with a bunch of legislators trying to curry more favor. That's why you have more nonsense projects that benefit a particular tiny group suggested in the House rather than in the Senate. And since the district is smaller, the project is smaller, which means its much easier to get it into the budget. It's death by 1000 needles.
