I'm hoping a Democratic staffer in DC picks up on this thread and runs with it. There is a neutral legislative fix for the democratic dilemmas we face. Use the upcoming apportionment act to expand the House and mandate redistricting commissions. How so? (1/8)

The house size (currently 435) is set only by law. It has been a bit bigger (up to 437). Expand the house to somewhere between 536-665 makes constituencies a lot smaller; keeps any state from losing a congressman; and gives most states more representatives. (3/8)

Also, a bigger house makes it easier to draw VRA-compliant districts and districts to represent communities of interest. You can reduce staff sizes per member, hold staffing levels constant, and maintain costs while increasing membership. (4/8)

And, an expanded house significantly reduces the distortions of the electoral vote by adding several new electors to most states, and making it more proportional. (5/8)

The use of commissions, much like limits to only using SMDs made in the 1968 Act, is well within the scope of Congress's Article I powers. Indeed, ten years ago, some GOP lawmakers discussed this idea (I spoke with Devin Nunes about it at his invitation.) (6/8)

It doesn't take a constitutional amendment. You have the votes in both chambers, and a president who believes in justice, equality, and egalitarianism. The next president ought to be willing to sign it. (7/8)

For anyone who says "665 is too big!" Well, that's the size of the House of Commons. The House doesn't have reserved seating. And we know it will hold more people, based on joint sessions. And, the Cube Law indicates that it is a number that is efficient.

Glad to discuss. (8/8)