Post #40781 by onepoorguy on the US Policy board

Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy ❤

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (12)

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

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.

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

Print the post

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (12)

Prev | Next

Announcements

US Policy FAQ

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

A community forum supporting civilized, and highly helpful, self-educating investors that come together for Shrewdness and merry spirits. These message boards closely follow the look and feel of the old message boards at boards.fool.com prior to the boards redirected to discussion.fool.com. Shrewd'm is not affiliated with the comprehensive and excellent investment website, The Motley Fool (TMF), in any way. The Shrewd commmunity here has owed, and continues to owe, gratitude to The Motley Fool for nurturing a culture of jovial irreverence towards Wall St, and that tradition will continue here.