Thirty-Thousand.org Forum

Michael Warnken (CaliforniaCommonwealth.com) recently pointed this out to me.

Taiwan (a.k.a. the "Republic of China") establishes a maximum ratio of representation of one delegate per 500,000 for their National Assembly according to their constitution. This language can be found in Article 26 (in Section III) which states:

One delegate shall be elected from each hsien, municipality, or area of equivalent status. In case its population exceeds 500,000, one additional delegate shall be elected for each additional 500,000.

Of course, a maximum district size of 500,000 is huge, but it is smaller than 434 of 435 Congressional districts in the U.S. Only Wyoming's single congressional district is smaller with a total of 495,304 residents as of the 2000 census. The average congressional district size in the U.S. was 646,952 (as of the 2000 census).

The problem is keeping the House productive while appropriately representing the population level. Given today's social networking capabilities, it seems like one for every 250,000 (or roughly 1,200 Representatives) would be an appropriate number. As populations grow and technology changes, perhaps the divisor of 250,000 should change.

What needs to be determined is how to fluctuate the House appropriately so as to maintain some sense of stability, then once a proper formula is set how best to move to that system without sending the House into growth shock.

I've been trying to work out the math all morning, but it may be over my head.

Pseudolus wrote:I've been trying to work out the math all morning, but it may be over my head.

Pseudolus, I would be grateful if you would carefully read "Taking Back Our Republic" which can be downloaded from this page.

JEQuidam wrote:Pseudolus, I would be grateful if you would carefully read "Taking Back Our Republic" which can be downloaded from this page.

I did read it. It doesn't persuade me to increase membership as high as 6000, at least not without several steps between. This is why I've been begging you to start a thread where we debate the language of such an amendment, as implementing the original language now would break our entire system by sending it into shell shock.

Pseudolus wrote: I did read it. It doesn't persuade me to increase membership as high as 6000, at least not without several steps between.

Please see my reply here: http://forum.thirty-thousand.org/viewto ... ?f=16&t=64