80 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
47 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
35 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply

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

🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

We have the tech to no longer need representative government. Fuck those corporate sell outs, let me represent myself directly.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Maybe you’re willing to, but we can’t even get a majority of Americans to vote once every four years.

(I’ve served in student government a few times, and while not directly applicable it was still eye opening - a lot of stuff will not affect you personally but you need to give a shit as an “elected” official because everything effects someone. I put elected in quotes because the first time I got talked into it and the second time happened because nobody else was willing - it’s deeply boring work most of the time.)

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

It doesn’t have to be one or the other. You can have representatives by default while allowing anyone to override that vote for themselves.

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
20 points

Not small enough. Keep going.

Get those standards up.

permalink
report
reply
12 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
11 points

What makes you think you’d be the remaining one tho

permalink
report
reply
25 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

*Almost everyone

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Political Memes

!politicalmemes@lemmy.ca

Create post

Non political memes: !memes@sopuli.xyz

Community stats

  • 2.9K

    Monthly active users

  • 156

    Posts

  • 743

    Comments