Civics 101. We do not need one House of Representatives member from each state but we do need election reform.

Well Chuck Norris, I usually agree with you and I see the problem but your solution is not at all logical and it would not bring good government. We already have two separate branches in the legislator branch of government to deal with the representation problem. What you are proposing would effectively do away with the role of the House of Representatives. The Senate has two representatives from each state because that government body is meant to give equal representation to each state in the Union. However the House of Representatives is supposed to represent the population of the nation. The point of this is not to have a bunch of low population states dictating law to high population states at the national level. If you reduced the House to one member from each state as you suggest you would just have a second Senate. So the states would be doubly represented but the people of this nation would not have equal representation at the nation level.

If we were to do what you suggest we might as well become 50 independent nations or go under a unified treaty like what the EU is proposing and let unelected bureaucrats be appointed by the Senate to dictate federal governance over all the states (of course if we did that we would soon be under tyranny)

The problem is not the number of representatives in the House of Representatives the 9 percent approval rate reflects that these people are not representing the people or more likely that the nation is so divided that they can accomplish nothing.

We need to start electing representatives to the House that represent the common people. That means the make up of the House should not all be professional politicians and lawyers. That would take care of part of the problem but like I said, much of the reason the House and Senate can do nothing is because the people in this nation are deeply divided. That problem cannot be resolved in a Republican without a majority vision or compromise.

One thing we can do is to have major election reform. Incumbents have a huge fund raising advantage and media coverage advantage. Money should not be a factor in national elections but it is now the major factor. If it were not, the make up of the House would change overnight.

Mad as h— and not going to take it anymore!

I don’t only think there are too many cooks in Congress’ kitchen nowadays, but the numbers are stacked in discriminatory ways. For example, if California represents a larger liberal voice with its 53 representatives, what chance or how fair is it for smaller more conservative states who have between one and five representatives and votes in the House? The U.S. doesn’t need a new reapportionment act to raise the number of representatives, but a return to the Constitution to reduce the number of representatives in pursuit of creating more equitable regions or districts. Personally, I believe, just as we have one governor per state, we should consider reducing Congress to one representative and two senators per state (the minimal by constitutional requirements). If one representative works for Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming, why can’t it work for all the rest of the states? Here’s a movie we all can star in: “Honey, I shrunk the Congress!”