I think if Republicans are opposed to giving DC and PR statehood on the grounds of “We don’t need more states,” I’m more than happy to compromise by combining the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. Make ‘em two states, if you want.
But don’t tell me those five empty states full of buffalo and potato farms deserve more representation than Puerto Rico, which is our 29th most populous state territory.
Unfortunately the state legislators of all states have to agree, it’s in article 4 of the constitution.
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress
For this reason the current SCOTUS nominee thinks West Virginia might be illegal. Nevermind that the state in question was in open rebellion at the time.
Since when does a SCOTUS nominee pay any attention to details?
Also Harrison raised an absurd 57 million dollars in the third quarter. At least some of which he's spending to "attack" the libertarian candidate as "too conservative" highlighting his 100% pro-Trump, pro-gun, pro-life record. And by attack we win convince Republicans who hate Graham to vote for him.
Also Harrison raised an absurd 57 million dollars in the third quarter. At least some of which he's spending to "attack" the libertarian candidate as "too conservative" highlighting his 100% pro-Trump, pro-gun, pro-life record. And by attack we win convince Republicans who hate Graham to vote for him.
Waaaaiiitttttt
$57million for a senate candidate
A dem, in South Carolina
In one quarter??
ActBlue makes it very easy for people anywhere in America to donate to politicians. This means that people in Blue states are strategically donating to Red state Democrats, figuring that their own nearby politicians don't need the help.
Also Harrison raised an absurd 57 million dollars in the third quarter. At least some of which he's spending to "attack" the libertarian candidate as "too conservative" highlighting his 100% pro-Trump, pro-gun, pro-life record. And by attack we win convince Republicans who hate Graham to vote for him.
Waaaaiiitttttt
$57million for a senate candidate
A dem, in South Carolina
In one quarter??
Harrison seems like the real deal too so besides getting rid of Graham we'd be moving our caucus to the left because he's not another Joe Manchin or even Doug Jones
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Also Harrison raised an absurd 57 million dollars in the third quarter. At least some of which he's spending to "attack" the libertarian candidate as "too conservative" highlighting his 100% pro-Trump, pro-gun, pro-life record. And by attack we win convince Republicans who hate Graham to vote for him.
Waaaaiiitttttt
$57million for a senate candidate
A dem, in South Carolina
In one quarter??
Harrison seems like the real deal too so besides getting rid of Graham we'd be moving our caucus to the left because he's not another Joe Manchin or even Doug Jones
It's something I haven't thought of before. You have a big chunk of the country pissed off and desperate to do something. Then you have these craven GOP politicians wanting to get on Trump's good side, but they're also raising their national profile. How many Americans learned who Graham was over the last four years? And now those Americans have some instant gratification they can buy. It's not a good combination for these politicians that were only thinking about Trump and his cult.
Any time a news org has big news they rarely hype it. All sorts of outfits hyped their upcoming big news about Trump’s tax returns and provided little to nothing. NYT actually had them and just published the information and their analysis.
Any time a news org has big news they rarely hype it. All sorts of outfits hyped their upcoming big news about Trump’s tax returns and provided little to nothing. NYT actually had them and just published the information and their analysis.
Anything pre-hyped is something you don’t care about being beaten to the scoop on
Also Harrison raised an absurd 57 million dollars in the third quarter. At least some of which he's spending to "attack" the libertarian candidate as "too conservative" highlighting his 100% pro-Trump, pro-gun, pro-life record. And by attack we win convince Republicans who hate Graham to vote for him.
Waaaaiiitttttt
$57million for a senate candidate
A dem, in South Carolina
In one quarter??
ActBlue makes it very easy for people anywhere in America to donate to politicians. This means that people in Blue states are strategically donating to Red state Democrats, figuring that their own nearby politicians don't need the help.
It's also a case of crowdfunding figuring out what businesses have always known; rural and semi-rural Senators are cheap. SC isn't the smallest state in the country, it's not as cheap as, say, ME. But it's a far sight cheaper than CA. A Senator from SC carries the same value as a Senator from CA and at a fraction of the price. It's why outside interests constantly target Senate races in smaller states, this is just the average Joe getting in on the game. It's like a Kickstarter for corruption (only I wouldn't quite call it "corruption," obviously...not all outside influence is bad).
Also Harrison raised an absurd 57 million dollars in the third quarter. At least some of which he's spending to "attack" the libertarian candidate as "too conservative" highlighting his 100% pro-Trump, pro-gun, pro-life record. And by attack we win convince Republicans who hate Graham to vote for him.
Waaaaiiitttttt
$57million for a senate candidate
A dem, in South Carolina
In one quarter??
ActBlue makes it very easy for people anywhere in America to donate to politicians. This means that people in Blue states are strategically donating to Red state Democrats, figuring that their own nearby politicians don't need the help.
It's also a case of crowdfunding figuring out what businesses have always known; rural and semi-rural Senators are cheap. SC isn't the smallest state in the country, it's not as cheap as, say, ME. But it's a far sight cheaper than CA. A Senator from SC carries the same value as a Senator from CA and at a fraction of the price. It's why outside interests constantly target Senate races in smaller states, this is just the average Joe getting in on the game. It's like a Kickstarter for corruption (only I wouldn't quite call it "corruption," obviously...not all outside influence is bad).
please, when it's sanitized and institutionalized, we call it lobbying. :P
Democrats are attempting to flip the court packing question around by pointing ot that the Republicans have been openly bragging about court packing for the last three and a half years, just with different words.
It looks like this is going to be the stock response. Good.
Schrodinger on
+93
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
2016 broke me, because I refuse to believe that these polls will have any bearing on how the election will actually turn out.
Without getting too into verboten stuff, the polls were largely pretty close, and again in 2018. Definitely good to take polling with a grain of salt because it's not a crystal ball or an exact science, and of course get out there and actually vote no matter what the polls say. But I think you can feel pretty confident that if the polling average is >+10 Biden nationally the day before the election it's all but impossible for Trump to win without truly massive fuckery on a wildly unprecedented scale.
I think the best result for us as a nation might be for the GOP to use unprecedented electoral fuckery, but for Biden's margin to be so great that he still wins handily. We need the GOP to be trounced, but we also need something to point to and be like "See? SEE? THEY KEEP DOING THIS." We need the corruption and disregard for democracy laid bare so the public demands it be addressed.
Moreover, fixing this stuff needs to be universally understood as our number one priority. Before health care, before climate change, before all that shit. Because those things are all long term issues that will take multiple cycles to fix, and it's impossible to do that if the GOP just usurps control of the government every other election and undoes all our work.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Democrats are attempting to flip the court packing question around by pointing ot that the Republicans have been openly bragging about court packing for the last three and a half years, just with different words.
It looks like this is going to be the stock response. Good.
This is such an obvious way to respond that I don't know why it hasn't been the answer to the question every time it's asked since the beginning. You don't even have to give a straight answer to the court packing question itself, you can just say "we will consider all of our options" and then go on to blame the GOP for already doing it.
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
Right. Refusing to seat democratic nominations to leave them open for you to fill is just as shadey and bending the rules (if not more so...because it only takes a majority and in the past 40 minority senators) as expanding the courts
Which would take at the very least a majority house and senate and the presidency
2016 broke me, because I refuse to believe that these polls will have any bearing on how the election will actually turn out.
Without getting too into verboten stuff, the polls were largely pretty close, and again in 2018. Definitely good to take polling with a grain of salt because it's not a crystal ball or an exact science, and of course get out there and actually vote no matter what the polls say. But I think you can feel pretty confident that if the polling average is >+10 Biden nationally the day before the election it's all but impossible for Trump to win without truly massive fuckery on a wildly unprecedented scale.
I think the best result for us as a nation might be for the GOP to use unprecedented electoral fuckery, but for Biden's margin to be so great that he still wins handily. We need the GOP to be trounced, but we also need something to point to and be like "See? SEE? THEY KEEP DOING THIS." We need the corruption and disregard for democracy laid bare so the public demands it be addressed.
Moreover, fixing this stuff needs to be universally understood as our number one priority. Before health care, before climate change, before all that shit. Because those things are all long term issues that will take multiple cycles to fix, and it's impossible to do that if the GOP just usurps control of the government every other election and undoes all our work.
If the last 4 - 6 years have taught me anything, it's that no amount of fuckery will sway GOP voters to care about eroding the system. If Trump straight up said he was disbanding elections because reasons, ~40% of the country would be cheering him on. To them, since it's their team doing the fucking, that's just "winning".
I really hope there's enough people in the middle who can be swayed to demand action, but it's depressing to think about. FFS we have a sitting senator literally saying democracy isn't the goal, enacting the Republican agenda is the goal.
Actually, that requirement to hold the house is a strong counterweight to the GOP trying to do this back - they don't have a ridiculous advantage from asinine state lines in the House. Though we should really fix apportionment while we're at it too. Though actually that seems like it's dragging the GOP down more than the democrats possibly? Texas has a worse ratio of representatives per capita than NY or CA currently it seems (due to rates of population increase). Montana has the worst numbers there (excluding Puerto Rico, which should have 4-5 for its population).
A more reasonable house would be like, 1 rep per 100k people or something (also, this balloons the house by an order of magnitude, but the ratio has been way too high for ages). I'd much rather have house districts the size of a couple suburban cities (or for every 5 mi^2 in NYC).
Democrats are attempting to flip the court packing question around by pointing ot that the Republicans have been openly bragging about court packing for the last three and a half years, just with different words.
It looks like this is going to be the stock response. Good.
This is such an obvious way to respond that I don't know why it hasn't been the answer to the question every time it's asked since the beginning. You don't even have to give a straight answer to the court packing question itself, you can just say "we will consider all of our options" and then go on to blame the GOP for already doing it.
Because it can come across as "whining" because it's based on how the rules work. This is part of what makes what the GOP did so fucking insidious - they technically worked within the letter of the rules, if completely oblivating their spirit. This issue is also why white collar crime comes across as not as bad as violent crime on first glance, even though it's vastly more harmful.
Democrats are attempting to flip the court packing question around by pointing ot that the Republicans have been openly bragging about court packing for the last three and a half years, just with different words.
It looks like this is going to be the stock response. Good.
This is such an obvious way to respond that I don't know why it hasn't been the answer to the question every time it's asked since the beginning. You don't even have to give a straight answer to the court packing question itself, you can just say "we will consider all of our options" and then go on to blame the GOP for already doing it.
Because it can come across as "whining" because it's based on how the rules work. This is part of what makes what the GOP did so fucking insidious - they technically worked within the letter of the rules, if completely oblivating their spirit. This issue is also why white collar crime comes across as not as bad as violent crime on first glance, even though it's vastly more harmful.
Increasing the size of the court is also acting entirely within the rules.
Democrats are attempting to flip the court packing question around by pointing ot that the Republicans have been openly bragging about court packing for the last three and a half years, just with different words.
It looks like this is going to be the stock response. Good.
Durbin has always been my favourite Senator. And I've been spoiled for choice.
It's honestly why Going forward Democrats need to stop chasing "the norms"; All that that has done is allow the republicans to consolidate more and more power at varying speeds and it's only because of trump's stunning incompetence that their is the possibility of this trend being stopped.
So pack the courts. Make the territories states with relevent representation. Gerrymander the shit out of the states. Do whatever it takes to make this shit as much of an up hill climb as possible for the republican party to ever get within a lightyear of the halls of power.
Actually, that requirement to hold the house is a strong counterweight to the GOP trying to do this back - they don't have a ridiculous advantage from asinine state lines in the House. Though we should really fix apportionment while we're at it too. Though actually that seems like it's dragging the GOP down more than the democrats possibly? Texas has a worse ratio of representatives per capita than NY or CA currently it seems (due to rates of population increase). Montana has the worst numbers there (excluding Puerto Rico, which should have 4-5 for its population).
A more reasonable house would be like, 1 rep per 100k people or something (also, this balloons the house by an order of magnitude, but the ratio has been way too high for ages). I'd much rather have house districts the size of a couple suburban cities (or for every 5 mi^2 in NYC).
Or perhaps some reasonable baseline formulae that avoids having hundreds of reps for the most populous states, but with a minimum that avoids the smallest existing or future states lacking representation. A min of 1 or 2 even if the population is below that number, which would give disproportionate representation, but on a smaller scale than currently exists (and offset substantially by having senators with maaaaassively disproportionate power, but that’s a whole other thing).
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
It's not gotten as much press recently as other methods, but I also think it's uncontroversial and correct to expand the size of the House. It's been 435 for what like a hundred years? There are a lot more folks alive in the US, it's time to get representation that actually reflects that.
Actually, that requirement to hold the house is a strong counterweight to the GOP trying to do this back - they don't have a ridiculous advantage from asinine state lines in the House. Though we should really fix apportionment while we're at it too. Though actually that seems like it's dragging the GOP down more than the democrats possibly? Texas has a worse ratio of representatives per capita than NY or CA currently it seems (due to rates of population increase). Montana has the worst numbers there (excluding Puerto Rico, which should have 4-5 for its population).
A more reasonable house would be like, 1 rep per 100k people or something (also, this balloons the house by an order of magnitude, but the ratio has been way too high for ages). I'd much rather have house districts the size of a couple suburban cities (or for every 5 mi^2 in NYC).
Or perhaps some reasonable baseline formulae that avoids having hundreds of reps for the most populous states, but with a minimum that avoids the smallest existing or future states lacking representation. A min of 1 or 2 even if the population is below that number, which would give disproportionate representation, but on a smaller scale than currently exists (and offset substantially by having senators with maaaaassively disproportionate power, but that’s a whole other thing).
I'm pretty sure that's the point of the senate; to ensure states recieve equal representation in washington.
It's not gotten as much press recently as other methods, but I also think it's uncontroversial and correct to expand the size of the House. It's been 435 for what like a hundred years? There are a lot more folks alive in the US, it's time to get representation that actually reflects that.
Be prepared to receive pushback of the form, "well the room isn't large enough to fit them all, so we can't expand the House of Representatives." It's a stupid argument, but you'll run into it pretty often since it isn't instantly recognizable as being a stupid argument.
Democrats are attempting to flip the court packing question around by pointing ot that the Republicans have been openly bragging about court packing for the last three and a half years, just with different words.
It looks like this is going to be the stock response. Good.
This is such an obvious way to respond that I don't know why it hasn't been the answer to the question every time it's asked since the beginning. You don't even have to give a straight answer to the court packing question itself, you can just say "we will consider all of our options" and then go on to blame the GOP for already doing it.
Because it can come across as "whining" because it's based on how the rules work. This is part of what makes what the GOP did so fucking insidious - they technically worked within the letter of the rules, if completely oblivating their spirit. This issue is also why white collar crime comes across as not as bad as violent crime on first glance, even though it's vastly more harmful.
Increasing the size of the court is also acting entirely within the rules.
Yes and no. It's "acting entirely within the rules" by rewriting the rules, whereas what the GOP is doing is manipulating the rules as they stand. Yes, this is an important difference, and I've been seeing ads (upon ads upon ads) focused on this difference and demonizing "changing the rules".
Actually, that requirement to hold the house is a strong counterweight to the GOP trying to do this back - they don't have a ridiculous advantage from asinine state lines in the House. Though we should really fix apportionment while we're at it too. Though actually that seems like it's dragging the GOP down more than the democrats possibly? Texas has a worse ratio of representatives per capita than NY or CA currently it seems (due to rates of population increase). Montana has the worst numbers there (excluding Puerto Rico, which should have 4-5 for its population).
A more reasonable house would be like, 1 rep per 100k people or something (also, this balloons the house by an order of magnitude, but the ratio has been way too high for ages). I'd much rather have house districts the size of a couple suburban cities (or for every 5 mi^2 in NYC).
Or perhaps some reasonable baseline formulae that avoids having hundreds of reps for the most populous states, but with a minimum that avoids the smallest existing or future states lacking representation. A min of 1 or 2 even if the population is below that number, which would give disproportionate representation, but on a smaller scale than currently exists (and offset substantially by having senators with maaaaassively disproportionate power, but that’s a whole other thing).
Smallest State gets two Reps. Which would mean ~1/300k for Wyoming. Which would be a bit more than double the current House of ~1/700k and eliminate the oddity of a State having more representation in the non-representative Chamber.
Democrats are attempting to flip the court packing question around by pointing ot that the Republicans have been openly bragging about court packing for the last three and a half years, just with different words.
It looks like this is going to be the stock response. Good.
This is such an obvious way to respond that I don't know why it hasn't been the answer to the question every time it's asked since the beginning. You don't even have to give a straight answer to the court packing question itself, you can just say "we will consider all of our options" and then go on to blame the GOP for already doing it.
Because it can come across as "whining" because it's based on how the rules work. This is part of what makes what the GOP did so fucking insidious - they technically worked within the letter of the rules, if completely oblivating their spirit. This issue is also why white collar crime comes across as not as bad as violent crime on first glance, even though it's vastly more harmful.
Increasing the size of the court is also acting entirely within the rules.
Yes and no. It's "acting entirely within the rules" by rewriting the rules, whereas what the GOP is doing is manipulating the rules as they stand. Yes, this is an important difference, and I've been seeing ads (upon ads upon ads) focused on this difference and demonizing "changing the rules".
Which rules does it rewrite?
There aren't any actual hard-and-fast rules about what size SCOTUS needs to be as far as I'm aware. Which meant it was possible for the GOP to try to shrink it by never confirming anyone, but it's equally possibly to expand it.
Like we'd definitely have a 6-7 person court right now if Trump hadn't won.
It's not gotten as much press recently as other methods, but I also think it's uncontroversial and correct to expand the size of the House. It's been 435 for what like a hundred years? There are a lot more folks alive in the US, it's time to get representation that actually reflects that.
Be prepared to receive pushback of the form, "well the room isn't large enough to fit them all, so we can't expand the House of Representatives." It's a stupid argument, but you'll run into it pretty often since it isn't instantly recognizable as being a stupid argument.
The interesting idea has been floated of limiting the per-state attendance at any given time and uncapping size entirely, so each state has delegations from each party but not all members are in simultaneous attendance. So while this might create a house with 2500 members it's still limited to 500 in the room at a time.
Many states would honestly need to ditch the current districting system entirely in most expansion plans.
What problem does increasing the size of the house actually solve?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Posts
And yet we're going to be disappointed because that almost certainly is the "incredible news".
Since when does a SCOTUS nominee pay any attention to details?
I'm incredibly disappointed in the news
Waaaaiiitttttt
$57million for a senate candidate
A dem, in South Carolina
In one quarter??
ha ha ha. ha.
you think you're "done"? you think any of us are?
ActBlue makes it very easy for people anywhere in America to donate to politicians. This means that people in Blue states are strategically donating to Red state Democrats, figuring that their own nearby politicians don't need the help.
Harrison seems like the real deal too so besides getting rid of Graham we'd be moving our caucus to the left because he's not another Joe Manchin or even Doug Jones
Come Overwatch with meeeee
It's something I haven't thought of before. You have a big chunk of the country pissed off and desperate to do something. Then you have these craven GOP politicians wanting to get on Trump's good side, but they're also raising their national profile. How many Americans learned who Graham was over the last four years? And now those Americans have some instant gratification they can buy. It's not a good combination for these politicians that were only thinking about Trump and his cult.
Any time a news org has big news they rarely hype it. All sorts of outfits hyped their upcoming big news about Trump’s tax returns and provided little to nothing. NYT actually had them and just published the information and their analysis.
Texas plus 4 or graham losing outside of Moe would be worth talking about
We’re seeing national polls plus 14 on the reg right now. Hyped would have to be plus 18 nationally to stand out
Anything pre-hyped is something you don’t care about being beaten to the scoop on
It's also a case of crowdfunding figuring out what businesses have always known; rural and semi-rural Senators are cheap. SC isn't the smallest state in the country, it's not as cheap as, say, ME. But it's a far sight cheaper than CA. A Senator from SC carries the same value as a Senator from CA and at a fraction of the price. It's why outside interests constantly target Senate races in smaller states, this is just the average Joe getting in on the game. It's like a Kickstarter for corruption (only I wouldn't quite call it "corruption," obviously...not all outside influence is bad).
please, when it's sanitized and institutionalized, we call it lobbying. :P
Yeah apparently the Republicans are incensed over it
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Maybe it's hype for the republicans?
Democrats are attempting to flip the court packing question around by pointing ot that the Republicans have been openly bragging about court packing for the last three and a half years, just with different words.
It looks like this is going to be the stock response. Good.
I think the best result for us as a nation might be for the GOP to use unprecedented electoral fuckery, but for Biden's margin to be so great that he still wins handily. We need the GOP to be trounced, but we also need something to point to and be like "See? SEE? THEY KEEP DOING THIS." We need the corruption and disregard for democracy laid bare so the public demands it be addressed.
Moreover, fixing this stuff needs to be universally understood as our number one priority. Before health care, before climate change, before all that shit. Because those things are all long term issues that will take multiple cycles to fix, and it's impossible to do that if the GOP just usurps control of the government every other election and undoes all our work.
According to polls, people hate it.
This is such an obvious way to respond that I don't know why it hasn't been the answer to the question every time it's asked since the beginning. You don't even have to give a straight answer to the court packing question itself, you can just say "we will consider all of our options" and then go on to blame the GOP for already doing it.
Which would take at the very least a majority house and senate and the presidency
If the last 4 - 6 years have taught me anything, it's that no amount of fuckery will sway GOP voters to care about eroding the system. If Trump straight up said he was disbanding elections because reasons, ~40% of the country would be cheering him on. To them, since it's their team doing the fucking, that's just "winning".
I really hope there's enough people in the middle who can be swayed to demand action, but it's depressing to think about. FFS we have a sitting senator literally saying democracy isn't the goal, enacting the Republican agenda is the goal.
A more reasonable house would be like, 1 rep per 100k people or something (also, this balloons the house by an order of magnitude, but the ratio has been way too high for ages). I'd much rather have house districts the size of a couple suburban cities (or for every 5 mi^2 in NYC).
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Because it can come across as "whining" because it's based on how the rules work. This is part of what makes what the GOP did so fucking insidious - they technically worked within the letter of the rules, if completely oblivating their spirit. This issue is also why white collar crime comes across as not as bad as violent crime on first glance, even though it's vastly more harmful.
Increasing the size of the court is also acting entirely within the rules.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Durbin has always been my favourite Senator. And I've been spoiled for choice.
So pack the courts. Make the territories states with relevent representation. Gerrymander the shit out of the states. Do whatever it takes to make this shit as much of an up hill climb as possible for the republican party to ever get within a lightyear of the halls of power.
Or perhaps some reasonable baseline formulae that avoids having hundreds of reps for the most populous states, but with a minimum that avoids the smallest existing or future states lacking representation. A min of 1 or 2 even if the population is below that number, which would give disproportionate representation, but on a smaller scale than currently exists (and offset substantially by having senators with maaaaassively disproportionate power, but that’s a whole other thing).
I'm pretty sure that's the point of the senate; to ensure states recieve equal representation in washington.
Be prepared to receive pushback of the form, "well the room isn't large enough to fit them all, so we can't expand the House of Representatives." It's a stupid argument, but you'll run into it pretty often since it isn't instantly recognizable as being a stupid argument.
Yes and no. It's "acting entirely within the rules" by rewriting the rules, whereas what the GOP is doing is manipulating the rules as they stand. Yes, this is an important difference, and I've been seeing ads (upon ads upon ads) focused on this difference and demonizing "changing the rules".
Smallest State gets two Reps. Which would mean ~1/300k for Wyoming. Which would be a bit more than double the current House of ~1/700k and eliminate the oddity of a State having more representation in the non-representative Chamber.
Which rules does it rewrite?
There aren't any actual hard-and-fast rules about what size SCOTUS needs to be as far as I'm aware. Which meant it was possible for the GOP to try to shrink it by never confirming anyone, but it's equally possibly to expand it.
Like we'd definitely have a 6-7 person court right now if Trump hadn't won.
The interesting idea has been floated of limiting the per-state attendance at any given time and uncapping size entirely, so each state has delegations from each party but not all members are in simultaneous attendance. So while this might create a house with 2500 members it's still limited to 500 in the room at a time.
Many states would honestly need to ditch the current districting system entirely in most expansion plans.
I don't know why we need an amendment? The cap at 435 is from the (permanent) apportionment of 1929, it's just a law
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.