The longer your compound capital, the less you need luck and the more you need Shrewdness.
- Manlobbi
Stocks A to Z / Stocks B / Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A)
No. of Recommendations: 5
Canada has 10 provinces. Each one could be a US state. That’s 20 new senators and an appropriate number of new congress-persons. Yeah, sounds good. That’s probably what Trump has in mind…
No. of Recommendations: 2
With the House membership capped at 435, every state would loose reps except for the ones that already only have one. Think about the Electoral College ramifications too.
No. of Recommendations: 3
I can live with that. Alberta will give us some conservatives, but most new representatives (even from Alberta) will be further left than the conservatives we have here.
And 435 isn't necessarily fixed. The Constitution just says you can't have more than 1 per 30K people. It doesn't give an upper limit on the size of the House. So we could add another hundred or so representatives if we wanted to. I've often though we should do that anyway, even without absorbing Canada. Our population is 300M+, but we have the same number of representatives we had when the population <100M (in 1912, when AZ and NM were admitted).
No. of Recommendations: 3
Whose interests are served by keeping the House at 435 members?
How would increasing the number of Representatives influence the Electoral College?
When you address those 2 questions it is easy to see why we are stuck at 435.
No. of Recommendations: 1
When you address those 2 questions it is easy to see why we are stuck at 435.
Since 1912? Even the admission of AK and HI didn't increase the number, and that was 70 years ago. In all that time, control of Congress has switched between both parties numerous times (both before the Southern Dems left to become Reps, and after). So I don't think any one party is trying to control the EC by keeping it at 435. At least not for the entirety of the past 113 years. That wouldn't make sense because the parties have shifted so much in that time.
So I'm not sure what you're getting at.
I actually thought it might be a function of the size of the chamber; that they couldn't fit more desks inside that fixed space. Just a guess, but it makes more sense than trying to swing the EC for the past 113 years.
No. of Recommendations: 1
I actually thought it might be a function of the size of the chamber; that they couldn't fit more desks inside that fixed space.
They make room for 100 Senators and 9 Justices for every State of the Union address. So there's room for more desks.
No. of Recommendations: 1
They make room for 100 Senators and 9 Justices for every State of the Union address. So there's room for more desks.
They do pack them in, though. But your point is taken.
So why limit it to 435 across multiple swings in partisan ownership of Congress for 113 years? They could expand it anytime they wanted.
No. of Recommendations: 4
I actually thought it might be a function of the size of the chamber; that they couldn't fit more desks inside that fixed space. Just a guess, but it makes more sense than trying to swing the EC for the past 113 years.
Give the job of fitting them in to the CEO of American Airlines. I bet he can figure it out.
No. of Recommendations: 4
why limit it to 435 across multiple swings in partisan ownership of Congress for 113 years?Not to get all history-nerdy on you, but yes: chamber size, plus politics, plus about the biggest group before being too unwieldy, plus politics:
"From 1800 through 1840, the number of representatives was determined by the ratio of the number of persons each was to represent ("fixed ratio"), although the way to handle fractional remainders changed. Therefore, the number of representatives changed with that ratio, as well as with population growth and the admission of new states.
For the 1850 census and later apportionments, the number of seats was determined prior to the final apportionment ("fixed house size"); and thus, the ratio of persons each was to represent was the result of the calculations. In 1911, the House size was fixed at 433 with provision for the addition of one seat each for Arizona and New Mexico when they became states (U.S. Statutes at Large, 37 Stat 13, 14 (1911)). The House size, 435 members, has been unchanged since, except for a temporary increase to 437 at the time of admission of Alaska and Hawaii as states (following the 1950 census)."
https://www.census.gov/topics/public-sector/congre...-- sutton
storehouse of useless minutiae since at least LBJ
No. of Recommendations: 2
I can live with that.
Not me. I like Canada just the way it is and think Trump is out there for raising the question. But we know he's out there. About the only thing I wouldn't be upset if it became American is a hockey team. But I'd want to keep them in Canada.
Every talk we've had in the past about making new states brings up the balancing act between the parties. I'd love to say Canada is too far left, but I had a friend whose Canadian unit was disbanded because it was cesspool of racism. He was half Chinese, half Slav and considered both of those as superior races. It was disheartening to see him lose partial custody of his kids due to their own testimony. He went off an a racist Filipino rant in his Philippines lawyer's office and the police took him home.
But how far we've gone to the right makes me shake my head.
No. of Recommendations: 1
storehouse of useless minutiae since at least LBJ
But that did partially answer the question, so not really useless. :-)
Still don't know why they settled on 433, allowing for two more for AZ and NM. And why did they not allow for two more with AK and HI? They did temporarily, but then cut it back again.
If we hypothetically absorbed Canada, you would think you would need at least a few new representatives. But we'd have to reapportion back to 435, which seems to arbitrary.
No. of Recommendations: 5
Not me. I like Canada just the way it is and think Trump is out there for raising the question.
Sure. I was just pointing out (perhaps unclearly) that we'd be adding a lot more "libs" to our nation if that happened. Just what MAGA wants!! </sarcasm>
But how far we've gone to the right makes me shake my head.
Agreed. It seems to correlate to the rise of right-wing propaganda posing as "news outlets". One study I'm aware of strongly implied it was causational, wherein they determined that people that watched no news at all were better informed than people who watched FOX News. This was several years ago, but I doubt that has changed.
