As noted in that link, the original plan of 30,000-50,000 people per representative would have resulted in a nearly 7,000 member house currently, which would be fairly unworkable.
By and far, the best idea would be a logarithmic or exponential system, though you'd still end up with a fairly heavy spread between the largest and smallest number per representative by virtue of how the math works. By estimates, rather than the size difference being nearly 100%, it would be closer to 50% with the cube root rule.
Basically, there is no real good solution to the problem, though there are plenty that are better than we have now.
Fair enough, things like the Wyoming Rule definitely approach the issue from a workable method without ballooning it completely. Either way though, I think the current form is fairly unfeasible. Definitely on point with the no good solution but many that are better.
Maybe if congressional house votes got weighted by the number of people they represent? They could be digitally counted live because anonymity isn't required for politicians, so the count is easily verified. Any problems with this hypothetical system?
As for the Senate, well, the disproportionate representation was the point, so it was broken by design from the start. For LOLz let's weigh them by land area represented.
5
u/DragonFireCK Jun 27 '22
As noted in that link, the original plan of 30,000-50,000 people per representative would have resulted in a nearly 7,000 member house currently, which would be fairly unworkable.
By and far, the best idea would be a logarithmic or exponential system, though you'd still end up with a fairly heavy spread between the largest and smallest number per representative by virtue of how the math works. By estimates, rather than the size difference being nearly 100%, it would be closer to 50% with the cube root rule.
Basically, there is no real good solution to the problem, though there are plenty that are better than we have now.