124
We need to add 6,000 seats to Congress. I'm serious. | Opinion
(www.usatoday.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 May 2026
124 points (98.4% liked)
politics
29951 readers
667 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm not necessarily sold on the idea that reps of a given state should only be responsible for a very small subsection of people who are likely poorly informed. Just thinking of my own representative, who won against a progressive based entirely on name recognition rather than policy, it seems abundantly clear that money can easily touch all races whereas educated voters and advocacy may not exist in enough districts to be meaningful. Money can, and in quantities above the median income with ease.
After reading the article, I think there's a inherent assumption that more means harder to gerrymander, but every republican gerrymandering recently released is computer generated. What would prevent them from arguing the districts of densely black areas thinly sliced from urban areas and then expanded out to suburbs is legal? When computer modeling and accurate voter information is supplied the possibilities of gerrymandering are not remotely hampered by increased resolution of the electoral maps. The districting will come to head with the notion that the same district even be contiguous. Do you trust SCOTUS to affirm it needs to be?
I'd argue that it is a lot easier to inform the public when the campaign doesn't have to cover as much area and that it becomes more difficult to buy every race when there are more of them.
Sorry for the edit after your post. I think buying races isn't harder when there's more of them, but organizing for them might be. I'd be open to change on that opinion, but eventually wouldn't you hit a point of diminishing budget for a small candidate that they can't afford a single commercial whereas the corporate candidate could afford multiple?
Edit: Eventually the resolution of targeted ads starts to fail too relative to the district borders.
What would shape your opinion more: being bombarded by ads or the candidate showing up at your school to do a town hall and answer questions?
If we make things small enough, where in a typical campaign a candidate can meet their constituents at least once, does being outspent on ads matter as much? Doesn't it at least make break-through candidates more likely if only because national parties have to spread out their spend?
The entire electoral system that is based on a popularity contest is just really broken. It's a testament to how perfectly "broken" the American electoral system is that we are still using an electoral system created for a 13 colony slave based society made to favor rich land owners.
I say "broken" because it's really not. It's actually very well written to ensure the system favors the power of the ruling class over the masses. What we are seeing now is the confidence of that class raising to such a high degree that they are no longer pretending that they have maintain that illusion.