• nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If the number of seats in the House had not been frozen a century ago, this would not be a problem as it would provide representation proportional to population (as outlined in the US Constitution), rather than artificially amplifying the voices of low-population states. As it stands, citizens in Wyoming (pop. ~577k, 1 rep) have any twice as much representation per capita than those of Delaware (pop ~1.003M, 1 rep), while both have a single Representative. Compared to California (pop. ~39.24M, 52 reps), which has a ratio of 1 rep:~755k people.

      There is, to be said, an issue of maintaining the level of proportionality originally intended (1 rep : 30k people). This would require over 11k representatives today. However, using the “Wyoming Rule”, where the number of seats is proportional to that required to provide one Representative per population of the least populace state (currently Wyoming), the number is only about 575. That’s much more manageable and would do a better job of providing equal representation and making gerrymandering harder.

      • Chainweasel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re right. To be honest the website FiveThirtyEight always fucks me up on that number for some reason

    • cogman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because McCarthy gave away guaranteed power to avoid compromise with any Democrat.

      McCarthy made the deal that allowed the 8 to oust him.

    • Dudewitbow@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      In an ideal world, the speaker is supposed to be the most centrist person, but when you have parties of hardliners and refusal to make comcessions, you get the shit thats happening right now.