there is precedent in such an issue across the country in the city manager movement, and various other consolidations(going the OTHER way and limited democracy and responsiveness)

republicans lmao

It's counter-intuitive because it makes the congress even more bloated, which will create more gridlock, all the while resting on the assumption that more people in congress will lead to less corruption (which while not impossible is not something you should take as a guarantee at all); term limits largely negates this problem and simply cycles people out, likely before too much corruption happens in the first place; not hard to understand. Also that would not be a "fixed" cost then as that isn't any sort of standardized thing, it's simply the cost of a bribe.

obviously the idea of 'growing' the house is not abnormal since it grew from 65 to 435 from 'founding' till 1920. the change and trend was related more to the urbanization of the country, not a 'size' problem.

Yeah and it's already quite grid locked today

dude, you keep saying term limits. Term limits adderss a DIFFERENT issue altogether. they are compatible

can you not understand the difference between a term limit and ratio of population to representative diluting your 'per session' voice

How exactly is the representative to population ratio as important?

because it raises the amount of voice per person. instead of having your vote diluted with 750k people, it's down to 250k or whatever amount.more reps, more reps to interface with the population, more responsiveness

more districts, smooths out gerrymandering shennanigans, turns the congress more 'parlimentry' instead of washing out so many 'minority' votes

The representative to population ratio should be 1:1 on almost every issue

for a state like california, that's basically what they have on the propositions

and that's amost 40million people

Sure, and I agree on that front, but if you have more people it will still create more gridlock.

You can't increase the amount too much

how is that even the case when a large state like california with 40million already does it

Well california isn't doing particularly well right now so they aren't exactly a shining example

California is doing great and carries much of the US on its back

it's the world's 6th or 7th largest economy, the proposition system is great, high income but low property taxes, it gets bills that the population wants out faster than almost any state despite its size

it's hamstrung by the federal situation because it has to harmonize with 'conservatives'

it's a major net-tax loser, the worst by gross, and upper third by relative measure

California is also having millions leave the state and has major problems with it's cities

millions leave, millions come, it can't grow forever other states also have industries that are competitive for jobs and population

yea what major problem does san diego have

i lived there 13 years

major problem with california cities is they are too popular, so they are crowded as fuck

and also have major city management problems

San Diego for instance is one of the areas with a large population of homeless people

@Sh0t the House ratio, is based on population

You are talking about the house right?

I just got back

the apportionment is

san diego has lots of homeless because it's a very homeless friendly city, the weather is good to live outdoors

i went from san diego to west palm florida, same problem

San Diego gay

you can be from anywhere in the us and end up homeless in san diego, since we dont have intra-national border control

The homeless population there has lead to a large poo clean up problem too

which is remarkable honestly

that's in san fran, which is a much more concentrated city

No it's also in San Diego

Pretty sure, it might be another poo related problem though instead of lurking on the streets