• toast@retrolemmy.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    9 days ago

    Expanding the house is what I’ve long wanted. People like to argue for ridding us of first past the post voting and, yes, that would be awesome, but this is comparatively easy. This is within our grasp. This would change both how the legislature works and how the president is chosen.

    Not only would it make the government more responsive to the people, it would, I would argue, dilute the power of individual legislators (in the house anyway) to the extent that lobbying (bribery) would be either less impactful or more expensive.

    • Eldritch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 days ago

      Yep there’s literally no downside. Unless of course you’re one of those people who believes that you have captured the government to do your bidding against that of their voters/constituents.

  • ExtantHuman@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 days ago

    Uncap the house.

    The same Congress that dragged us into the Great Depression also forced this idiotic decision that has played us for a century just to consolidate their individual power.

    We’d get more fair distribution of representation across the country. We’d have more local politicians, as was the intent. Congressmembers don’t care what you think when you’re just one of 750,000 constituents.

    And it helps alleviate the stupidity that is the electoral college