Why are there only 435 members in the U.S. House of Representatives?

PrettyLitter helps keep tabs on my cat's health - and keeps odors down. Save 20% on your first order and get a free cat toy with code "mrbeat" at PrettyLitter.c...
Mr. Beat explains why there are 435 members in the U.S. House of Representatives. Get involved at nocapfund.org/
Thanks for reading the description you lovable dork. This was produced by Matt Beat and Beat Productions, LLC. All images and video by Matt Beat, used under fair use guidelines, or found in the public domain. Music by ‪@ElectricNeedleRoom‬(Mr. Beat's band), Dan Lebowitz, Otis McDonald, and Media Right Productions.
Here's an annotated script with footnotes: docs.google.co...
Sources/further reading:
nocapfund.org/
thirty-thousan...
www.vox.com/20...
en.wikipedia.o...
centerforpolit...
archive.fairvo...
www.census.gov...
www.census.gov...
www.pewresearc...
​​www.npr.org/20...
projects.fivet...
en.wikipedia.o...
archive.fairvo...
Another good video about Uncapping the House:
• How to Make Congress L...
Related videos:
• The U.S. House of Repr...
• How Many U.S. Represen...
• The House of Represent...
• I called every U.S. Re...
• The Speaker of the Hou...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @iammrbeat
For business inquiries or to send snail mail to Mr. Beat:
www.iammrbeat....
/ iammrbeat
How to support and donate to my channel:
Subscribe to @iammrbeat & hit the notification bell 🔔
Join for great perks on Patreon: / iammrbeat
Donate to Mr. Beat on Paypal: www.paypal.me/...
Buy Mr. Beat a coffee: ko-fi.com/iamm...
Cameo: www.cameo.com/...
Subscribe to my second channel: The Beat Goes On
Patreon for The Beat Goes On: / thebeatgoeson
Connect with me:
Links: linktr.ee/iamm...
Website: www.iammrbeat....
Podcast: anchor.fm/theb...
Reddit: / mrbeat
@beatmastermatt on Twitter: / beatmastermatt
Facebook: / iammrbeat
Instagram: / iammrbeat
Beatcord: / discord
TikTok: / iammrbeat
Mr. Beat's band: electricneedle...
Merch:
matt-beat-shop...
www.bonfire.co...
sfsf.shop/supp...
amzn.to/3fdakiZ
Affiliate Links:
Useful Charts: usefulcharts.c...
Fourthwall: link.fourthwal...
StreamYard: streamyard.com...
Why are there only 435 members in the House of Representatives?
#ushouse #government #politicalscience

[@iammrbeat]

Should we increase the number of members of the U.S. House of Representatives? If so, what should that number be? And we really enjoyed the sponsor for this video, and so did our cat! PrettyLitter helps keep tabs on my cat's health - and keeps odors down. Save 20% on your first order of PrettyLitter and get a free cat toy with code "mrbeat" at PrettyLitter.com/mrbeat

[@rowboats_navy]

Not sure, but happy to be first

[@robertelam4246]

@@iammrbeat yes they should be one for every 30,000… they should work out of their districts… be paid directly by their states…. And meet using Zoom or Teams

[@nfpnone8248]

Read my comment! We do not have a choice, or any control over, the number of representatives that are in the House, as the calculation is designed to account for population growth and migration between the States. If you can’t understand something as basic as ratios, proportions and percents, there’s no hope for you! The reason why there only 435 representatives in the House is because the Parties couldn’t seat representatives and senators by party affiliation with the required process for choosing representatives and senators, or that number of representatives, 11,021, based upon the 2020 census! Which does not allow for controlling the House by majority party affiliation!

[@MichaelWells770]

When I went over these numbers some years back, I came up with 905 representatives.

[@nfpnone8248]

@@robertelam4246 The districts for the US Congress are the States themselves and they cannot be subdivided, and only the States have representation and suffrage in Congress, not parties!

[@EforEvery]

435 is the maximum number of Representatives Mr. Beat can call on a livestream

[@iammrbeat]

Fair point hahahaha

[@nebulan]

Didn't it take multiple streams? 😅

[@iammrbeat]

@@nebulan That was the U.S. Senators. It took me several days to call every member of the U.S. House.

[@super_steven_1776]

@iammrbeat oh my god, you were actually serious? I thought that was a joke. Cudos to you, my man. That's dedication to content.

[@haruko1854]

@@iammrbeat Where can I find those streams if they still exist? I'd be interested in watching the ones of Bernie Sanders, Joe Manchin, Angus King and a few others

[@gugurupurasudaikirai7620]

Because it takes 435 members of the House of Representatives to change a light bulb

[@ahseaton8353]

And 1 Aide to call the GSA

[@zoinked1351]

Need 420 members because funny number

[@donw4889]

They still get it wrong as well.

[@thinless4439]

Unfortunately this is so true

[@TheJdkeyes]

Bold of you to claim they can make any change

[@bjdon99]

Fun fact, from 1959-1962 there were 437 house members because Alaska and Hawaii were admitted in 1959. At the time they each only qualified for 1 Rep each, and so until the 1962 reappointment for the 1960 census there wer 2 extras. It made no sense that in 1962 they all decided to go back to 435 instead of keeping the 2 extras, so 2 of the other 48 states had to lose 1 each that they otherwise would have had starting with the 1962 elections. Completely absurd.

[@iammrbeat]

Completely absurd indeed.

[@ryanharrelson6935]

This sets a precedent for other states entering the Union. If DC or Puerto Rico became states, big states like California or Texas would lose representatives.

[@courier6960]

@@ryanharrelson6935 Honestly I think nowadays that wouldn’t fly whatsoever, and instead both parties would use it instead to try to shuffle the electoral maps by adding more people and potentially creating new swing states.

[@dirtyharry205]

You seem upset.

[@edwardblair4096]

​​@@courier6960Now that sounds like what they were trying to do with the Pre-Civil War Senate. The State of Dakota was split and admitted as two separate states partially to balance out the admittance of additional "southern" (or substitue another word that starts with "S") states. Edit: I could be wrong in my timeline and it was more about keeping balance between the Republican and Democrat political parties. But either way the basic principle holds.

[@Gizzy411]

I don’t even think they need to have seats in the house. They can show up if they have something to say but otherwise can hang out in their home district and vote electronically and watch things on video

[@iammrbeat]

Exactly

[@Compucles]

@@Rylee_DJ Maybe it means Congress can be "in session" continuously across he entire year, save for national holidays and a week off at the end of the year?

[@crosseyedcat1183]

@@Rylee_DJ Your representatives should be close to you and your local issues as a priority. The idea that they should exist in a faraway place removed from the place they represent is a bit silly if you think about it. We don't live in the 1700s anymore. We can communicate instantaneously across vast distances. There are few functions of Congress that actively require people to be present. The pandemic showed that you can remotely do many functions of Congress. Sessions of Congress should be reserved for debating very pressing emergency issues and rare that cannot be resolved in-person. It takes representatives away from actually you know... understanding the issues people in their district face... Also, having all your representatives in one place is a massive security risk as Jan 6th showed. A coordinated attack could take down the government. If instead reps stayed close to home, it would be much harder to stage a coup or try to disable the US Congress.

[@Rylee_DJ]

@@crosseyedcat1183 Good points, I asked my question only in curiosity. Didn’t mean to be hostile in anyway, thank you for the response.

[@b.s.864]

But that would be inconvenient for the lobbyists!

[@leopardsun]

Ollie is the 436th member of the House of Representatives

[@iammrbeat]

If only...

[@waspwrap1235]

@@iammrbeattechnically there’s more than 435 if you count non voting members

[@benjaminhigham3624]

⁠@@waspwrap1235What’s their job?

[@stuffingtonjfluffypantsiii]

@@benjaminhigham3624 To represent territories that aren't states like Puerto Rico, Washington DC, Guam, and the US Virgin islands. They can talk about what their constitutes want and need but since those aren't states the representivies have no voting power.

[@ChuJungyin]

😼

[@thunderslug2722]

My representative is from my hometown, has an office in my hometown, has served for over 30 years, and I never seen him once

[@iammrbeat]

With more reps, more would be visible in their home communities.

[@night6724]

@@iammrbeat No they wouldn’t look at anywhere in Europe

[@night6724]

@@iammrbeat Unless you’re an incredibly small country like ireland or norway that’s just not feasible

[@Sagealeena]

@@night6724 In Australia (a giant, sparsely populated country) I’ve seen my state and federal representatives many times. We have 150 members in the House of Representatives (180,000 each, or approx 120,000 electors each). My federal representative is also the leader of a minor party and I’ve seen him at local events making speeches, he opened a new addition to my primary school building, he’s been at local marches and protests, and his office is a block away from my old work. I only recently moved to an area with my current state representative but I’ve already seen her when I went to vote at my local primary school during the referendum last year (she became the state leader for the minor party a few months ago). I also get a monthly newsletter in the mail which updates me about what they’re both working on (such as saving the public housing a block from my house where several thousand people live). The state representative where I used to live I would see all the time, even at small local events like a farmers market, and his office was around the corner from my house. I’m also in a Facebook group he created so local bike riders can raise any issues they’re having. I’ve even seen representatives from the upper house (76 in the Senate) and they represent a much larger number of people. One time I was at a work event (40th birthday for a non-profit health org) and halfway through a conversation I realised I was talking to a prominent senator. The main reason I think is because all these representatives are from a minor party and so put work into their local community because they won’t get votes just from being part of one of the major parties. Where I used to live, my federal representative was from a major party and I didn’t see him very often. I did occasionally see the political leaders from the major parties, but not often their local representatives or candidates. There were also times when I was younger when I probably saw the representatives, but I didn’t realise.

[@Nick007Gaming]

@@night6724 In Canada I have directly spoken to my Rep in the House of Commons a good couple of times!

[@RomWatt]

For comparison, the UK's House of Commons has 650 seats for a population of about 66 million, so that's one seat per just over 100,000 people.

[@night6724]

Keep in mind they had pretty bad 600+ members since the 15th century and before Ireland’s separation was 700. But also understand for a long time there was a lot of sketchy practices like University Constituencies (members and alumni of a university like cambridge would vote for their member) and the rotten boroughs, areas that were depopulated but owned by aristocrats allowing them to essentially appoint their own members with some families owning a dozen rotten boroughs. Plus in parliamentary systems the executive and cabinet are from the Legislature unlike the presidency

[@zoanth4]

They also have 8 parties and can't get anything done either.

[@night6724]

@@zoanth4 What are you talking about Labour has 400 seats. Britain has FPTP so it’s basically a two party system like America.

[@night6724]

@@RomWatt Also you’re overlooking British constituencies aren’t drawn to equal population. North Shropshire has 77,052 members whereas Isle of Wight West has 54,911 members. Scotland has one as low as 21k

[@zoanth4]

@@night6724 how many seats has labour had over the last 15 years? Not quite as many, which meant coalitions were a thing. Now britain gets to be socialist for a while. Guess the pains of marxism hasn't gotten to them enough yet

[@jljordan1]

Ollie finally gets recognized… even if he’s just a cat.

[@iammrbeat]

Even his pee gets recognized! heh heh

[@SanderDoesThings]

@@iammrbeat I think you meant represented*

[@t.hurson2298]

Ollie 4 Prez

[@DGAMINGEN]

Even crazier is the size of US city councils. Irivine, California has 300k inhabitants and 7 members (expanded from 5) while Cincinnati, Ohio has 9. In comparision Ludwigshafen, Rhineland-Palatinate in Germany has SIXTY (all of who serve for free). US city councils are tiny and in my opinion the main reason smaller parties don't have local success. Ludwigshafen for example has 10 parties elected. I think both the number of districts for US city councils needs to be increased, there need to be multi-member districts + additional levelling seats. Seriously nothing annoys me more than how US city councils are run. There can't be specialized members and they have to outsource everything to unelected technocrats.

[@Descriptor413]

To be fair, city councils seats tend to not have an official party affiliation tied to them, but you still raise a good point. I'm on a city council, and even with 14 members for a city of 26k, it's a lot to keep track of. That being said, we could probably be better organized...

[@iammrbeat]

Thank you for bringing this point up. It deserves a whole separate video for sure.

[@SamAronow]

The US doesn’t have more successful small parties because we use FPTP almost everywhere and there are no major regionalist movements.

[@DGAMINGEN]

@@SamAronow The Working Families Party has a few seats.

[@doomsdayrabbit4398]

This! This! This! All three levels of government - federal, state, and municipal - have too few members in their legislative bodies, which has led to the decline in the quality of life for the average American as the population has increased exponentially over the last century.

[@gimpsor]

I've literally emailed my representative about this issue and got brushed off.

[@iammrbeat]

KEEP EMAILING THEM

[@doomsdayrabbit4398]

Write letters.

[@EVILJAMARR]

Mr Beat is my favorite. I think he’s one of the best teachers and he’s found his medium. I watch his videos several times, never just once. I wish he had a greater reach!

[@iammrbeat]

Thank you so much!

[@night6724]

@@EVILJAMARR I’m sorry to hear that

[@Hexapp]

In Finland our parliament has 200 representatives which is one for every 27 500 citizens.

[@iammrbeat]

Finland does a lot of things better than the United States.

[@night6724]

@@iammrbeat Like what exactly?

[@night6724]

@@Hexapp Yeah and your country has 5 million people. The US has 330 million. At some point you have to cap it. India is the largest democracy in the world but “only” has 500 MPs.

[@DGAMINGEN]

@@night6724 Wild how you namedrop undemocratic and anti-freedom Systems.

[@MustardAndFries]

This would be insane for the population of the US lol we’d have 10,000 representatives

[@timphares3061]

The UK has around 1/10 of our population, but has 650 members of the House of Commons.

[@wolfeson1]

more like 1/5th

[@Cowman9791]

11:05 You forgot to mention that there was one occasion where it was 437 immediately after Alaska and Hawaii became states, although that went back down to 435 shortly afterwards.

[@ithinknooneshome2451]

I’m about to call my Congressman Adam Smith to extend my support the expand the House of Representatives

[@adamsfusion]

Alternatively, we could also force new states into existence until each state only contains 90,000 people. :)

[@btuckervideos4705]

A proposal to increase membership: 1. Least populated state = 3 members in US House (arbitrary number, I know) 2. Average population of district = (Population of least populated state) / 3 3. State population / district average = number of districts per state; round to nearest integer Wyoming (least populated state) would have 3 members, would give an average district size of 192283 Across the whole US, this would give around 1750 members of the US House

[@iammrbeat]

Basically the Wyoming Rule 2

[@btuckervideos4705]

@@iammrbeat yes, amended to give 3 seats to the smallest state rather than 1

[@bjdon99]

That would make the electoral college 1855 (as DC gets the same 5 votes that Wyoming does per the constitution.)

[@night6724]

@@iammrbeat How about having at large districts

[@jamesonmiller8283]

@@night6724 At large districts only make sense if there is a pool of candidates and they use a ranked-choice system. Then the lowest vote getter is eliminated, and their voters apportioned to the voters' next highest choice, with this repeated until you have the appropriate number of reps.

[@patrickgillespie5506]

There’s actual 441 reps in the house. 6 are non voting members for DC, Puerto Rico, and the territories

[@Compucles]

Technically true, but are they truly "representatives" if they can't vote?

[@bjdon99]

When Democrats control the house they let them ‘vote’ so long as their vote doesn’t change the outcome. Republicans don’t allow that when they run the house. Also if Puerto Rico were a state they’d have 3-4 Congressmen, not just 1 non-voting delegate.

[@RaymondHng]

@@Compucles Non-voting members of the United States House of Representatives are called either delegates or resident commissioner. They are not House Representatives.

[@Compucles]

@@RaymondHng So good, they picked a logical name for them, and there aren't actually 441 reps. I was just pointing out the inconsistency in the original comment.

[@wiscopolo44]

Personally, I would like to see house seats allotted based on the population of the smallest seat, particularly, that Wyoming would get 2 seats, which would give the nation 1148 seats, 1160 if you add DC and Puerto Rico. It would be a large, but manageable and more representative house. For example, the UK parliament is 650 seats, with about 1/4 the population. Edit: This is the so-called Wyoming Rule. Also, I would prefer DC to be mostly absorbed into Maryland, as opposed to being granted statehood, to prevent altering the Senate. Edit 2: I am from Wisconsin.

[@iammrbeat]

I like the Wyoming Rule as well.

[@night6724]

@@iammrbeat Or the cubed root rule

[@night6724]

@@wiscopolo44 Why would DC and PR get seats? PR is a territory. Also just because the UK does something doesn’t mean we should copy it. They’ve had 600+ seats since the 17th century. 1148 is too large.

[@wiscopolo44]

@@night6724 I just mean, I would prefer PR/DC to become states with full representation. Also, I see a 1100 seat house as being a good population/seat ratio without becoming crazily large.

[@night6724]

@@wiscopolo44 Why should they? PR is not culturally similar to america enough and DC is the federal district. It’s not meant to be a normal city or state.

[@BobbleCube]

I personally believe that the house should be tripled and salaries at least halved

[@noragibson5293]

This is one of your best videos. It is very informative and also really fun to watch.

[@iammrbeat]

Thank you!

[@spineonthepine4933]

I'm so glad you brought up the reapportionment act, it's one of the most critical failures of leadership in our past and materially decreased the efficacy of every American's vote. I'm of the opinion that between 100 and 200k per just given the size and logistics of things. But it's a HUGE deal to increase representation and increasing representation strikes at the heart of that.

[@night6724]

@@spineonthepine4933 Dude that’s not how congress works and wasn’t the point. Also having more politicians doesn’t make a country more representative if the politicians are useless

[@spineonthepine4933]

@@night6724 It was the point, you're wrong but it's fun to say wrong things on the internet. Did you watch the video? How it talked about the reapportionment act and how it limited seats and how that's bad or are you just botting around? And, also in the video was the point that that's expressly how congress used to work. So, I'm not even sure you're commenting on the right video here. You sure you're in the right place? Are the politicians in the room with you right now?

[@night6724]

@@spineonthepine4933 No it wasn’t. I did watch the video. You think politicians causally talked to people in the 19th century? There’s a reason why they made the minimum age to become a rep 25 years old. The congress was always designed to dilute the voices of the people do they can come with feasible solutions. Saying “Oh 1 rep now represents 700k people” is irrelevant. The House was never meant to be the unfiltered demands of the populace.

[@0008loser]

​@@night6724 what are you yapping about, your not only wrong but spewing unrelated strawmen

[@souptime8635]

The EU has 720 members of parliament (MEPs) and it changes constantly as more members are added or leave

[@Quintinohthree]

It works a bit differently to how the US does with the degressive proportionality and minimum of 6 seats to a maximum of 96, but basically yes, the EU parliament is still responsive to population change.

[@matthewmangan6251]

that's one per 623,000 people, not far off from the US

[@nedludd7622]

​@@matthewmangan6251But there aren't only 2 parties.

[@LakeGameCreepr]

I love when i know the answer to a question without watching the video. But i still watch the video because your videos are great Mr Beat!

[@christopherulichney]

The lack of representation in the House is also the reason why the Electoral College is so messed up.

[@Compucles]

No, the electoral college is messed up for three different reasons: 1. News and travel are no longer slow or difficult like they were in the 18th Century, so the original motive for the Electoral College no longer exists. 2. The method of electing the Electors was changed to follow the lines of political parties rather than the original method of voting for whom you simply thought was most qualified to vote for the President and Vice President. 3. 48 out of the 50 states use a ridiculous winner-take-all method for choosing the Electors across the entire state among the political parties.

[@MustardAndFries]

@@Compuclesisn’t the “winner take all” system what is being advocated for by popular vote advocates just on a national scale that favors population centers? The popular vote takes 50 state elections, one could say federal, and turns it into a single election.

[@night6724]

@@Compucles That’s not the point of the EC. it’s to compromise between states and the union. States should get a say in deciding the president.

[@zoanth4]

@night6724 especially smaller states that hold most of the resources , farmland and industry of the usa. Cosmopolitan liberals and ghettoized peoples should not have a winner takes all approach in our republic because they all choose to love in a tiny part of america together.

[@Compucles]

@@MustardAndFries No, it's not! The popular vote is every individual vote going to each individual candidate, about as far from winner-take-all as you can get! Under the current system, all the votes of an entire state go to a single candidate despite usually at least 40% of the popular vote going to the other candidates. Even if you stick with the electoral college, they should at least be decided on a district level like they are in Nebraska and Maine. You're supposed to favor population centers as being where the most people actually live, but the rural votes still count proportionally, and they still have just as much access to the various campaign ads and televised debates. It's no different to how the candidates favor the swing states under the current system. It was indeed the point of the EC when the founding fathers created it. It's just been twisted beyond recognition since then. Check your U.S. history again. Meanwhile, the states don't need a say in deciding the President as long as every voting citizen in those states (and D.C.) has equal say in it. There was never a need for such a theoretical compromise.

[@EliStettner]

I’ve studied gerrymandering a lot, I did a whole year long research project into it for school. The situation with gerrymandering today is certainly better than it was in 2012. We are making progress!

[@johnchessant3012]

A more reasonable formula is the "cube root law" which says that the size of any legislature should be the cube root of the population it represents. (This was endorsed by the NYT editorial board in 2018.) So the US population is about 334 million which means the House should have about 694 members.

[@RazvanMihaeanu]

Just put 1 Rep. for 1 million people and end this useless debate! 334 House Reps. And increase the years of mandate from 2 to 4. The solution is not more Reps but less! Communist China has 1.4 billion people and over 3000 Reps in its Congress! Insanity!

[@GamingGringo]

We need a House of Representatives to manage the House of Representatives.

[@GamingGringo]

And maybe a House of Representatives' Representatives to keep an eye on them too.

[@zoanth4]

​@GamingGringo we already do - global PAC donors and billionaires monitor our congress.

[@iammrbeat]

Heh, unironically yes

[@shryggur]

I'd call them The Ranch of Rerepresentatives, The Villa of Rererepresentatives, etc.

[@DiamondKingStudios]

Under the enlarged system, that’s what people would expect the Senate to do, but states as large as California, Georgia, Michigan, and Texas would need intermediate legislators to keep them all in line…

[@taylorstephens122]

I just emailed my US Representative about this issue and shared your video with him. Let’s hope for a more representative future for US citizens! Thanks, Mr. Beat!

[@kennethp7411]

1 to 1 representation in Congress. Every man (and woman) a Congressman

[@iammrbeat]

That's bloody anarchy!

[@LordScrambles1]

​@@iammrbeatdemocracy!

[@RicktheCrofter]

@@kennethp7411 This would not work. Every time a bill came up for a vote, there would have to be the equivalent of a quorum voting. That is: A supermajority of citizens would have to vote every time a bill came up for a vote. As it is, for federal elections, there is barely a majority voting. And federal elections only take place every two to four years. If we can barely get a majority voting for federal elections, how are we going to get a supermajority voting once a week or more? With no supermajority voting, no bills can pass. Which may not be a bad thing.

[@theman4884]

@@RicktheCrofter So we then only vote on bills every 2-4 years.

[@austinthesan-antonian3932]

This is more than 7x the constituents per representation than the UK.

[@iammrbeat]

As he mentioned in the video. So much for "taxation without representation!"

[@night6724]

@@iammrbeat Except the US has representation via the House and Senate. Also britain at the time had dozens of rotten boroughs and university constituencies

[@night6724]

@@austinthesan-antonian3932 Why do you think britain has 650 MPs?

[@RaymondHng]

@@night6724 The U.S. has state governments with representative legislatures. The independence of the state governments is protected by the U.S. Constitution. The United Kingdom is a devolved government within a unitary state. People in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are also represented by the Scottish Parliament, Senedd (Welsh Parliament), and the Northern Ireland Assembly respectively. England itself does not have its own devolved government. A federation differs from a devolved state, such as the United Kingdom, because, in a devolved state, the central government can revoke the independence of the subunits (Scottish Parliament, the Senedd and the Northern Ireland Assembly in the case of the United Kingdom) without changing the constitution.

[@night6724]

@@RaymondHng Well the majority of seats are English so it wouldn't matter. But what is your point?

[@KenobiEditz66]

Lovely Video as always Mr. Beat!! Thank you for teaching me

[@iammrbeat]

Well thanks for the kind words and thanks for being my virtual student. :)

[@davidvergolini9740]

we should expand the house, implement rank choice voting, and do away with districts......

[@kaiudall2583]

Rank Choice Voting ❤

[@realEvanBriggs]

UNCAP + PROPORTIONAL we need PR because it nullifies gerrymandering without the need for these "dog and pony show independent redistricting commissions"

[@khenanaqlan6909]

"mr beast give me money" -someone

[@HistoryNerd808]

As a conservative, this goes against my priors on this kind of thing(for instance, we disagree immensely on the Electoral College.) but I think the arbitrary 435 members of the House is something that needs reforming(and honestly, for the people who think the EC is problematic unlike me, it would bring the EC more in line with the PV as a byproduct.) It's supposed to be the people's house with the Senate(and EC) countering the populist whims, a cooling saucer to use Washington's analogy. I'm particularly open to the Wyoming Rule on how to do so: maintaining the principles of both the House and of state autonomy in representation. Under that rule which determines number based on total population divided by the least populated state, we'd have 575 reps right now.

[@Gizzy411]

We can discuss the legitimacy of the electoral college once each American counts as the same number of electoral votes

[@Electro2200]

I'm British, tho I feel the US might benefit from an independent district commission to draw the districts independently. Though, I understand that it might not be realistic due to the polarisation within US politics that might lead to alot of toxicity. The UK has one that works and has shown to maintain it's independence over its existence. So if we can ensure that, the US certainly can do it yaknow👍🏼

[@HistoryNerd808]

@@Electro2200 A lot of states actually have set up their systems that way

[@darkbrightnorth]

I’m Canadian so I never understood why the US does this. the boundary commission, which is independent and has no political gerrymandering either has the power to create a limited number of seats every election cycle to match with population. It created five last year. Our conservatives here in Canada are usually the ones pushing for reform and for seats to be giving based on population as well as left so maybe that’s a big factor in why

[@andyb1169]

@@HistoryNerd808 personally I think EC reform would be good. Nebraska and Maine do it the best. If all states were like that I think it would drive voter turnout and help the disenfranchised voters in CA, NY and the deep south and Midwest. Those two states have some of the best voter turnouts for registered voters.

[@raymondkizer1216]

The New Hampshire House of Reps has 400 members which means each member represents about 3300 citizens.

[@marcusbrown188]

Helps to keep the unemployment rate down just make everyone a politician

[@RaymondHng]

@@marcusbrown188 Each New Hampshire House Representative receives only $100 per year.

[@livthedream91]

So…xenophobia, classism, and racism are “why”. Sounds about right.

[@night6724]

@@livthedream91 Yes because we need more politicians

[@vulpes7079]

In Brazil, our Congress has consistently had more than 500 members since the 1960s. Currently, it has 594 members; 81 Senators (3 for each of the 26 states and the Federal District [!]) and 513 Deputies. There's a lot of overrepresentation of small states due to the cap on the number of deputies per stte being 70, if that were removed São Paulo for an example would have more than a hundred. It also has a minimum of 8 deputies per state. However, the number of seats is not capped and may change with every census Oh, and we have a population somewhere in the region of 216 million people EDIT: We actually have 205 million people, my bad

[@iammrbeat]

So Brazil's government is representing its citizens better than the United States of America.

[@night6724]

@@vulpes7079 Dude at some point you have to cap things off. Germany’s bundestag recently capped itself at 700 members due to getting too large. And the senate doesn’t represent the populace it represents the states. Can you not understand government beyond “guberment represents me”?

[@vulpes7079]

@@night6724 I was gonna respond to you, but you seem to have a real problem with things such as being polite and trying to understand other's viewponts, and so I don't believe you will be arguing in good faith at any point. Please enjoy the rest of your day and try talking to people as politely as you would talk to your mother.

[@night6724]

@@vulpes7079 Why don't you respond? You are not arguing in good faith by saying this

[@night6724]

@@vulpes7079 ok im sorry can you explain to me the problem of "representation"?

[@beaubritt2273]

This would be great. I think it could help grow minor 3rd parties. The UK has about 100,000 residents per constituency, and 650 seats in parliament. The smaller the number of people in each district would also alleviate the need for large amounts of money to campaign and win. Also, tactical voting could come into play. Ive learned a lot recently about how UK elections work and there is much to be gained from it. If we cant get proportional representation, I think the UK size of constituency would be the next best thing. Maybe we could even also have a prime minister figure too from our house elections. There are many countries with prime ministers and presidents who perform different functions, like in France.

[@iammrbeat]

Both increasing the membership and adding proportional representation would also end political polarization.

[@darkbrightnorth]

France is a good idea for electoral reform in general with their two rounds of elections making third party candidates more viable

[@bobboberson8297]

the speaker of the house functions very similarly to a prime minister

[@night6724]

@@iammrbeat How would those things end polarization? Look at brazil or europe. There is tons of polarization. Have by more colored dots does not fix anything.

[@night6724]

@@darkbrightnorth Ah yes let’s copy france that had the most polarizing election and just sent literal communists to the parliament and will be a gridlock government for the next couple of years.

[@blast2095]

One downside of a large House of Reps is that each representative becomes less important. For example, in Australia, Labor has a majority of 2. Therefore, bills must be carefully considered to garner the support of all members of a party, as it only takes a few dissidents to block a bill (this happened a lot under the previous government). In the UK, where Labour now has a majority of 82, PM Keir Starmer can essentially ignore large portions of his party. So while more representatives may mean that constituents are more likely to be heard by their representative, it also means representatives are less likely to be heard by party leadership.

[@devinsexton9476]

I dont really know what to say, except for that the video needs to be very successful in the algorithm so more people can know about this. Interaction earned!

[@alonkatz4633]

The U.S. is the third mlst populous country in the world, and yet its citizens still don't have the power they deserve.

[@iammrbeat]

And here we were the OG of a representative democracy. It's nuts.

[@doomsdayrabbit4398]

And with the third worst legislator ratio on the planet.

[@seannolan9857]

It's not like China's doing any better at that...

[@doomsdayrabbit4398]

@@seannolan9857 Oh no. We're not *worse* than China, so we win.

[@night6724]

@@doomsdayrabbit4398 Ok how about germany and britain with the largest elected legislatures? They’re doing worse than the US.

[@SmookieYT]

I think your intro is underappreciated Mr. Beat, never change it!

[@iammrbeat]

I'm glad you dig it. :)

[@timphares3061]

Except in 1959-60, when after the admission of Alaska and Hawaii, the House was temporarily increased to 437 (1 for each new state) until after the 1960 census.

[@livephysiology]

There is a similar discussion in California. The California Senate has 40 senators, meaning each senator represents over 900,000 people. Some have argued to increase the size of the senate for greater constituent representation, while others have argued if the United States Senate can have two senators for millions of people, the California Senate is fine the way it is.

[@jdotoz]

I don't think there's any reason for the states to have senates.

[@SomePerson-d3z]

I’m a conservative Republican and I’m all for increasing the US house.

[@robertAGC]

I love the idea of the house staffers staying in their home districts. I love the idea of overwhelming the campaign field so much that it complicates would be large donors.

[@iammrbeat]

Yeah millionaire and billionaire donors would have a much more difficult time trying to influence elections.

[@night6724]

@@iammrbeat I really don’t see how considering money still affects politics in like Brazil and Mexico.

[@night6724]

@@robertAGC 1. They already have staffers in their home towns 2. How would schedules work with different time zones

[@0008loser]

​@@night6724 get off your phone geezer, your missing out on bingo in your retirement home

[@robertAGC]

@@night6724 True enough, but I would like each individual member to have less of a presence in Washington. As for the time zone issue, I’m not worried about it. I live on the west coast and work with co-workers all across the country and in India. I’ve been doing this before the pandemic. It might be a challenge at first, but people will adapt.

[@Maring0418]

i love how pure and innocent this deadpan/awkward humour is. You never really know if he's actually as bad at using emotions as he makes himself out to be, because it's all so engaged yet deadpan. So much time has gone into the editing and the research, all the while Matt Beat has a very half-assed, bored or just kind of awkward vibe. Regardless, these videos are simply amazing for their historical accuracy and their easy-to-take-in nature. As a Swede, there just is so much to learn about this very fascinating nation.

[@CC-ru4rr]

first time watching a mr beat video this early 😆i remember you talking about this in your constitution amendments wishlist PS: we want to see more of ollie!

[@iammrbeat]

More Ollie? Right on. :) Thanks for being here early to watch!

[@Clueback]

Oh geez, don’t get me started on the electoral college

[@zoanth4]

@@Clueback no

[@iammrbeat]

IT SUCKS! :)

[@bjdon99]

This would have serious knock-on effects on that. The power of small states would be much smaller if Wyoming still only gets 3 electoral votes but California goes from 52 to 69 or so if you follow the Wyoming rule. (There are 67x more people in CA than WY so they’d get 59.)

[@magicwindow6682]

@@iammrbeat IT REALLY SUCKS!! :)

[@ThunderTheBlackShadowKitty]

EC allows Republican voters to win FAR more than they actually would in presidential elections.

[@sunburstinn]

My wife was listening to the ad about Ollie and said "Where was that when I had my UTI and ended up with sepsis in the hospital?!?!

[@kaiudall2583]

Increasing the number of representatives would help reduce the partisanship of representatives. Plus you would be able to actually talk to your representative.

[@FilmNerdy]

Wouldn't introduce proportional representation help fix a lot of these representation deficits as it reduces safe seats and people would be able to vote beyond just the two party system

[@buggs2024]

If each US representative should represent 700,000 people on average, then we should expand the US House to 476 seats, a 41 seat increase. That also means that the Electoral College would go from 538 electoral votes to 579 electoral votes. Expanding the US House is actually an issue that I discovered by myself without anyone informing me. One day I just decided to look at how representatives are distributed and down the line, I realized that 1 House Rep represents roughly 780,000 people. I just sat in my chair with my mouth fully gagged. I was like, "How is 1 person suppose to be in charge and hear out 780,0000 people? How is that realistic?" From then on I have been an advocate for expanding the House. No wonder we are so divided, no wonder there are only 2 major parties. There is no room for growth. Our government is so inefficient and we wonder why we are failing? It's not because of immigrants, it's not because of gay or trans people, it's not because of other religions. It's because we are run by an out-of-touch oligarchy.

[@guspolly]

There's been schalarship showing that the best regression pattern for the sizes of national legislatures around the world is the cube root of the population. If the US used the cube root of the apportionment population after the 2020 census, we would have 692 representatives. (DC/PR/etc is another video entirely...)

[@hummingcloud9889]

I think that greater representation would result in more potential for third parties. Instead of a third party needing to get the votes of at least 250,000 people, they could advertise to fewer people in order to get a seat. In Canada, we have around 100,000 people per representative, and we see a couple strong third parties like the NDP, PPC, and the Greens. (Bloc Québécois doesn't really count because they're a regional party.)

[@iwuedfh]

as another canadian, true! i hate first past the post and how unfair it makes elections but i do love our ridings, they aren't gerrymandered because a commission makes them and they actually feel pretty local, there are more people here than in america who vote their MP based on the MP itself and not party or leader although while the PPC is the 6th largest party, i don't think they can be considered a strong 3rd party, to me they are just the largest minor party with 0 seats

[@TiberiusX]

1/30,000 as it should be!

[@sydguitar99]

How can you expect 1 person to present the values and ideals of almost 1 million people! Also the fact that Congress people only have 2-year terms means that they are constantly in election mode and not "getting things done" mode.

[@kevinaguilar7541]

Which makes you wonder why do people vote for them if they don't get anything done.

[@sydguitar99]

@@kevinaguilar7541 Its the way the House of Rep is designed unfortunately. I think 4 yr term limits will prevent them from constantly being in election mode. I think Senators should also be at 4, 6 is way too long and leads to complacency

[@kevinaguilar7541]

@@sydguitar99 I would say 4 years enough. 6 is way too much and makes it less consistent to know when you need to pay attention in those elections.

[@zoanth4]

@@sydguitar99 direct democracy is worse than representative democracy. But then again you must be more intelligent than every great political thinker in the west over the last 300 years.

[@zoanth4]

@@kevinaguilar7541 cuz the parties in charge tell people that's who they get to vote for via the broken primary system.

[@Rey__Jan]

I was actually thinking about this the other day and I’m not even American 😅 Thank you for reading my mind and answering my question, Mr. Beat

[@bendebord2282]

I think it would be cool if you made a video series called “Basics with Mr. Beat”, where you explained the basics of the 3 branches of government, the basics of how presidential elections work, etc

[@iammrbeat]

I've kind of already done this throughout the years if you go back and watch. I've made lots of basic American government explainer videos since I used to teach it in the classroom.

[@asdfjkl5713]

This was one of the worst decisions in US History. Now we have certain districts with much higher populations than others. This creates the drastic inequality in the electoral college.

[@JohnParks-zc1pn]

No, the average size of a House district is consistent across the country. What drives the inequality of the Electoral College is the requirement that every state have at least 3 electors, regardless how few people it has.

[@drago2689]

​@@JohnParks-zc1pnthe average house district is not evenly distributed in part because of what you mentioned. Wyoming automatically gets 1 representative which gives them an average district of 580,000 people while California has 52 districts at the size of about 760,000 per district and Montana/Delaware have an average district size of over 1 million. It's true a good amount of states are around the 750,000 which is about what the average should be compared to the total US population but on a state by state basis there is a ton of variation between about 500,000 and 1,000,000. This inherently creates unequal representation between states depsite the fact that the House is supposed to represent the people evenly. There definitely needs to be an expansion to at least that of the Wyoming Rule. I'd also say elimate gerrymandering with independent districting commissions.

[@nickmcdonough4461]

I think Mr beat has a cloning machine… you might wanna get those clones under control

[@Descriptor413]

He probably got it from LGR

[@iammrbeat]

For real. They are starting to take over my life.

[@waspwrap1235]

8:30 the map of the original gerrymander is literally the area I grew up in

[@ajevans1422]

In an unrelated note. That is a really cute cat.

[@shannonbeat]

🐈

[@sycamoregrad901]

Love Pretty Litter! It’s so hassle free, especially after I removed the top cover of the litter box. . And since it’s right beside the toilet, it’s easy to scoop and flush!

[@matthewkendrick8280]

Don’t worry Mr. Beat, I’d never click away.

[@shadex08]

Mr. Beat your cats are adorable. Ok, time to get informed here now.

[@iammrbeat]

Thanks. I'll tell them you said that!

[@whimsicalhamster88]

America being a democracy is hard to square with this and The Senate. Don’t get me started on how Puerto Rico and other territories basically get no representation at all.

[@night6724]

@@whimsicalhamster88 The US isn’t a democracy it’s a representative republic. The Senate was designed to represent states themselves. PR is a territory. Why aren’t you crying over Samoa? And representative democracy doesn’t mean have a million politicians running around doing nothing. You literally don’t know what you’re talking about

[@whimsicalhamster88]

@@night6724 And your credentials to explain this to me are…? Why do right wing commenters always go straight to the elementary school “Why are you crying?” bit? Like people pointing out facts triggers you/them so you have to go ad hominem? America does a disgraceful job actually representing the will of the people through its elected representatives compared to other nations and its not close. Closing your eyes and covering your ears to how every other thriving democracy works and yelling “Why are you crying, snowflake?” is the solution you’ve found to just not learn new things, I guess.

[@ICHope1]

@@night6724He said PR and “other territories”. There are several.

[@Compucles]

@@night6724 A representative republic is a *form* of democracy known as a "representative democracy" as stated multiple times in the video! Obi-wan Kenobi: Anakin, my allegiance is to the Republic, to democracy!

[@Compucles]

Puerto Rico and the other locally inhabited territories have their own representative governments. Possessions like Midway Atoll that only have military bases don't need a government beyond normal military rules.

[@lecooldude]

even just going to 1k representatives would already reduce the amount of people per representative by like 400k!

[@archivesincomplete]

Video begins at 3:22

[@BrightBlueJim]

..and still takes forever to get to the point.

[@SamEvans118]

Fascinating video. I thought 435 was the actual representative number for the current population, never knew it was capped. Thanks for introducing me to the uncap movement and how that might make the House of Representatives more, well, representative.

[@matthewmangan6251]

I’d suggest a 500k threshold system California-77 districts Texas-61 districts Florida-45 districts New York-39 districts Pennsylvania Illinois 25 districts Ohio-23 districts Georgia-22 districts North Carolina-21 districts Michigan-20 districts New Jersey-18 districts Virginia-17 districts Washington-15 districts Arizona Tennessee Massachusetts 14 districts Indiana-13 districts Missouri Maryland 12 districts Wisconsin Colorado Minnesota 11 districts South Carolina Alabama 10 districts Louisiana Kentucky 9 districts Oregon Oklahoma 8 districts Connecticut-7 districts Utah Iowa Nevada Arkansas 6 districts Kansas Mississippi 5 districts New Mexico-4 districts Nebraska Idaho West Virginia 3 districts Hawaii New Hampshire Maine Montana Rhode Island Delaware 2 districts South Dakota North Dakota Alaska Vermont Wyoming 1 district

[@iammrbeat]

Sounds like a good start.

[@matthewmangan6251]

​ @iammrbeat one thing i'd argue is there are sub-legislatures-by state, by county, down to town, so representation isn't completely awful a lot of state houses have around the 50,000 ratio that the Founding Fathers wanted, but others have 1 district for 200,000 it's obviously easier for smaller entities to have good representation-Iceland has less people than any US State but there are of course other issues-the Senate is totally unbalanced, giving equal power to the smallest states and the largest states i could POSSIBLY see the argument that it gives politicians from smaller states more national visibility-in California you'd get a lot of attention being mayor of Los Angeles or San Francisco, less so the mayor of Cheyenne, but that doesn't change the fact that small state senators have the same voting power, which definitely isn't fair

[@reinpeng2913]

Right on, Mr. Beat!

[@jrmusickid]

I’m surprised you didn’t mention that increasing the size of the House would also increase the size of the electoral college, and make presidential elections more representative as well.

[@maxwellhorne5965]

An issue I've never thought about. I like the idea.

[@iammrbeat]

I'm surprised it hasn't been brought up more!

[@VinceHere98]

We should expand it to 585 as Blumenauer proposes. His bill is truly spot on. We should also introduce electoral reform and let a couple 3rd parties have their chance to shine.

[@Quintinohthree]

Can you explain the reasoning for 585?

[@albertyu750]

Interestingly enough, the US congress has a size of 535 representing 343 mil people. That is worse than China's congress with a size of 2977 representing 1423 mil people. US citizens have less representation while claiming to be the de facto shining beacon of democracy. Of course, one could argue how much representation Chinese citizens actually get at the federal level, but honestly US citizens ain't fairing much better. On another note, raising the cap on the House of Rep would also raise the number of electoral votes. This might shift some power in favor of one party over another.

[@Cinnamonfr]

6:47 Mr. Beat has officially lost it

[@iammrbeat]

I AM NOW THE SENATE

[@squishy172]

What scares me of increasing the cap is the effectiveness of congress. They already take forever to pass legislation, now imagine 2x amount of bills, opinions, that they have to go through. Nothing will ever get done. I think the main issue is our main political parties do not feel the need to serve what the American people want. This could be done with 435 or 100 representatives. The important thing is holding our representative accountable

[@drago2689]

I'd actually argue the opposite. Doubling the size of the House of Representatives would enhance representation by allowing each member to serve fewer constituents, which would lead to more personalized attention and diverse/constructive perspectives, and easier constituent to representative accountability. Additionally, a larger House could lead to more specialized and effective committee work, with improved workload distribution and greater responsiveness to their electorate. The inefficiencies we see now are a result of partisan gridlocks, corporate lobbying, bad governence by party leaders, and complex and arguably outdated processes like the refusal to fully utilize technology for communication, data analysis, Congressional voting, etc as well as traditional "debates" and filibusters that are used to outright kill/stall bills rather than actually make arguements for/against them. I mean you could make an arguement that the entire bicameral legislative system of having both a House of Reps and a Senate is inherently inefficient and bureaucratic. Countries that have ditched one of their legislative chambers have seen increase in streamlined decision making and reduction in costs through a simplified legislative process and increased accountability since one chamber can't shift responsibility onto another.

[@coinbowl]

If I vote Democrat and my representative is Republican, am I really represented by him? I argue that I am misrepresented. This is why I prefer party list proportional representation.

[@Quintinohthree]

Yep. Any single-member only system by nature only elects delegates, never representatives.

[@davelindgren5245]

I’m pretty sure you would also support stacking the Supreme Court because you don’t agree with their recent rulings

[@vulpes7079]

​@@davelindgren5245that's what Trump did because he didn't agree with the Supreme Court's rulings

[@davelindgren5245]

@@vulpes7079 Keep drinking the cool aid.

[@vulpes7079]

@@davelindgren5245 no counter arguments?

[@raymondkizer1216]

Mr Beat what number of seats would you like to see the House expanded to?

[@jackthebro6548]

Video starts at 3:03

[@Jin420]

Love your kitty!! So adorable!

[@beagleboi1442]

I do think we need more Reps but I think we should go with the Cube Root route were if you cube root the population of 2020 you would have 692 Representatives

[@night6724]

@@beagleboi1442 subtract 100 for the senators

[@beagleboi1442]

@@night6724 why would that subtract for the Senators?

[@night6724]

@@beagleboi1442 for one they represent the state populations at large and it keeps it more manageable. 700 is pushing the ability to manage government

[@rationalobserver3675]

What is the ideal number of representatives? Maybe 435 is too small (maybe...), but just saying that "more representatives means better representatives" doesn't make any sense either. Why stop at any arbitrary number, why not have a million representatives then?

[@RextheRebel]

Why not just have a direct democracy?

[@night6724]

@@RextheRebel because it’s stupid

[@blueerosion]

If you think this is bad, remember that every representative in the Indian Lok Sabha represents about 2.6 million people.

[@iammrbeat]

Yeah that sucks

[@doomsdayrabbit4398]

India has 1.4 billion people. The US doesn't even have 0.4 billion yet.

[@blueerosion]

@@doomsdayrabbit4398 Yeah that’s true, it’s much harder to have proper representation in India than the US, but I still feel like there can be more done in both countries to solve this.

[@daniloprado199]

The engagement with the audience makes it feel like a community.

[@chambicoty277]

Idk mrbeat, Why does the house of representative have 435 members?

[@iammrbeat]

I'll tell you...

[@Jabid21]

It needs a combination of changes to fix the situation at the House, if the House gets larger, it also needs to address the following. 1) No Gerrymandering by State legislature- Independent bodies to draw districts and it needs to be made compact according to population distribution without any district "wrapping around another". 2) Multi-member districts- Each voting district will have multiple members representing for the district. 3) Proportional representation- Each multi-member district will see proportional representation based on percentage of voters voting for each party.

[@Scamuel31]

Maybe they didn't like the number 436. Not very aesthetic!

[@iammrbeat]

So what about 437?

[@timphares3061]

We need to expand the House.

[@TheSmileMile]

I think we should not only expand the House, but we should double the size of the Senate. 1 senator so that we can elect a senator every 2 years per state, meaning every state can influence the makeup of the senate every election cycle. We should also shift the elections of the other 2 senators around to fit this plan. The second Idea I have is more experimental, we randomly appoint a senator from every state for 6 (or 12) years. They can preform all the functions, and are subject to all the same rules as any other senator, they just get picked at random. If they choose to they can run for an elected seat after their term is up they can, but a new person gets chosen for their seat. I think having a bloc that is not self-selecting and not subject to needing to run for election might have interesting affects on our congress. Though, I think any "randomly selected" number should be the minority of the make-up of the Senate.

[@RaymondHng]

As the upper chamber of Congress. a Senator's term is six years. The terms are staggered, so only one-third of the Senators is up for election. A typical U.S. Senator may have a staff of about 30-50 people. This includes staff in Washington, D.C., and state offices. Doubling the size of the U.S. Senate means hiring 300 to 500 staff members. The salary of a U.S. Senator's staff member can vary widely depending on their role, experience, and location. Chief of Staff: Salary Range: $150,000 to $200,000+ per year. Role: The chief of staff is the highest-ranking staff member, responsible for managing the senator's office and staff, overseeing legislative priorities, and advising the senator. Legislative Director (LD): Salary Range: $120,000 to $180,000 per year. Role: The LD oversees the legislative staff and helps develop and manage the senator's legislative agenda. Communications Director/Press Secretary: Salary Range: $70,000 to $150,000 per year. Role: Manages the senator's communication strategy, including media relations, social media, and public statements. Legislative Assistant (LA): Salary Range: $50,000 to $120,000 per year. Role: LAs handle specific policy areas and advise the senator on related legislation. State Director: Salary Range: $80,000 to $150,000 per year. Role: Oversees all state offices and constituent services, ensuring that the senator’s home state is well-served. Staff Assistant/Receptionist: Salary Range: $40,000 to $60,000 per year. Role: Entry-level position involving administrative tasks, answering phones, and handling constituent correspondence. Legislative Correspondent (LC): Salary Range: $40,000 to $60,000 per year. Role: LCs are responsible for drafting responses to constituent letters and assisting LAs with research and other tasks. Caseworker (State Office): Salary Range: $40,000 to $80,000 per year. Role: Works directly with constituents to address their concerns and navigate federal agencies.

[@sniperboi21]

Mr. Heat with this one🔥🔥🔥

[@ErikNilsen1337]

Respectfully, Mr. Beat, I am surprised you didn’t even address Federalist No. 55 in this video. The Founders explicitly warned against having too many representatives. I hardly think they would find it unreasonable to cap the number at 435. “Nothing can be more fallacious than to found our political calculations on arithmetical principles. Sixty or seventy men may be more properly trusted with a given degree of power than six or seven. But it does not follow that six or seven hundred would be proportionably a better depositary. And if we carry on the supposition to six or seven thousand, the whole reasoning ought to be reversed. The truth is, that in all cases a certain number at least seems to be necessary to secure the benefits of free consultation and discussion, and to guard against too easy a combination for improper purposes; as, on the other hand, the number ought at most to be kept within a certain limit, in order to avoid the confusion and intemperance of a multitude. In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever character composed, passion never fails to wrest the sceptre from reason. “Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.”

[@User31129]

The UK is approximately the size of Oregon and yet has more representatives than we have. Their average district population is 75,000 people.

[@Xsetsu]

200+ years??? That always amazes me, and I think it speaks volumes about the current state of government we have. We are perpetually stuck in a state of stagnation at this point.

[@user-ts4yf3fe9u]

Stability is what it is called.

[@jonochristian2256]

i love your work it gives me hope for the U.S.A.

[@orangeofmars2835]

I live in Wisconsin. Even though racial gerrymandering in the Wisconsin State Senate and Assembly has been corrected there still is partisan gerrymandering in the House of Representative 8 Districts creating a 6-2 Republican to Democratic majority. Since the Supreme Court has decided that partisan gerrymandering is not unconstitutional a solution could be to increase the House seats to a number that allows for sufficient representation for all. Right now being Center-Left in a far right district I am not represented. There are Democratic pockets in the far right areas of Wisconsin where larger Cities exist like Wausau. A greater number of Representatives could allow for those area to be represented. Given 1:30,000 Wisconsin could have 197 House Representatives which could help a lot. It would be expensive since I guess those people want to get paid. Probably worth it if we can get equal representation under the law. Something we in WI now don't have.

[@night6724]

@@orangeofmars2835 you don’t understand democracy

[@ThunderTheBlackShadowKitty]

@@orangeofmars2835 If your state had proper representation with no gerrymander, you'd see a 5-3 Democratic majority in those districts. That's how Wisconsin leans politically.

[@sea8475]

Loveee your videos. At the 12min you make a great comparison to countries .. but was there a reason not to mention Canada? I mean we are your neighbors annnd have a very interesting representation system. 😉