Read on Twitter
I am increasingly of the mindset that no good governance reform is more valuable than massively increasing the size of the House of Representatives. So many good things could flow from that.
Okay to expand on my thinking:
1) the thing that tipped me over the edge on this policy is that state-by-state pacts to award electors via district rather than winner take all seem to me the most feasible path to EC reform.
1) the thing that tipped me over the edge on this policy is that state-by-state pacts to award electors via district rather than winner take all seem to me the most feasible path to EC reform.
2) pretty much any expansion combats gerrymandering. Itâs not perfect, but the smaller the district the harder to gerrymander.
3) itâs an extremely durable reform even in a post-filibuster world, bc youâre not going to get 1000 House Reps to vote for their job to go away lmao.
3) itâs an extremely durable reform even in a post-filibuster world, bc youâre not going to get 1000 House Reps to vote for their job to go away lmao.
4) Psychologically it just brings reps and communities closer together. If you represent 150k ppl rather than 700k, youâll naturally be more responsive to your constituentsâ concerns. The combats the nationalization of politics while also giving minorities of all kinds a voice!
4b) and I mean not just the minority groups we typically hear about. Ppl joke but with a smaller district covering an area that skews super young, you could maybe get a rep or two for whom âgamingâ is a real issue lmao.
5) as gerrymandering advantage decreases and becomes less fixed in terms of partisan lean, it will be easier and easier to pass further gerrymandering reform.
Oh and even 6) if people see their reps more, care about their reps more, invest in their reps more, that might help people invest less in the Senate, which is bad and should be destroyed lmao.
So overall I see it as a generally pro-democracy move that also has the advantage of creating a strong platform/base for important future reforms, like increasing the power of the House vs the Senate, EC reform, and ending gerrymandering.
Thereâs also a good objection that expanding the House would increase the power of parties and decrease that of individual reps, which I think is also likely. But I think that is already so set in stone that expanding the House is unlikely to exacerbate it THAT much.
And it even *could* reverse it. After all, itâs easier to have a strong personal brand with 150k people than 700k, no? Get really tied in with community orgs in your district, etc. Ofc, could be even easier with multi-member districts, buuuut...
I could definitely see House expansion creating a thousand mini-Mitt Romneys whose strong personal brands with their constituents allow them to buck the party more often than they would otherwise be willing to do.
