The constitution originally said that we’d have one representative for every 30,000 people.
Which means the House should have about 11,000 members.
I looked this up to find a source because I'd never heard it. From what I can find, it's one of a few unratified amendments, but this one was proposed in 1789. Sure would've been great if they'd have ratified something like this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Amendment
As Congress did not set a time limit for its ratification, the Congressional Apportionment Amendment is still pending before the states. As of 2025, it is one of six unratified amendments.
Still an option.
By the end of 1791, the amendment was only one state short of adoption. However, when Kentucky attained statehood on June 1, 1792, the number of necessary ratifications climbed to twelve, and, even though Kentucky ratified the amendment that summer (along with the other eleven amendments), the measure was still one state short. No additional states ratified this amendment.
ONE FUCKING STATE SHORT
🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬
Interesting, how close are we today?
No additional states ratified this amendment. With 50 states today, 27 additional ratifications are necessary to reach the required threshold of 38 ratifications needed for this amendment to become part of the Constitution.
Every state west the East Coast, except Kentucky, has yet to approve it.
Edit: Some East Coast states have also not ratified it.
This amendment aint happening
We have a better chance of just uncaping the house as a law.
Important details from that link
The U.S. House of Representatives' maximum number of seats has been limited to 435, capped at that number by the Reapportionment Act of 1929—except for a temporary (1959–1962) increase to 437 when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted into the Union
So, as long as the population hasn't increased since 1929, everyone is getting appropriate representation lol
Check out CGP Grey's Rules for Rulers. It details the power dynamics of any ruling body and shows why authoritarians need to have small cabinets.
Not small enough. Keep going.
Get those standards up.
What makes you think you'd be the remaining one tho
What makes you think they want "smaller" government? It doesn't matter who the autocrat is, putting all the power in one person's hands sucks for everyone
*Almost everyone
Nah, everyone. It would suck for them much less than everyone else, but still suck in a different way. Narcissists aren't happy people no matter what they manage to achieve.
It's amusing to me that there isn't all that much difference between panels three and four. Orders still have to be passed down the chain to the people doing the work, so there are still at least six people immediately below the jackass.
There are people who, disturbed by "big government" today and its tendency to curb the advantages they might gain if their competitiveness were allowed free flow, demand "less govern- ment." Alas, there is no such thing as less government, merely changes in government. If the libertarians had their way, the distant bureaucracy would vanish and the local bully would be in charge. Personally, I prefer the distant bureaucracy, which may not find me, over the local bully, who certainly will. And all historical precedent shows a change to localism to be for the worse.
—Nice Guys Finish First, collected in The Sun Shines Bright, 1981
Non political memes: !memes@sopuli.xyz
