@@Zach-ju5vi i know. I just love the statement.

@@Zach-ju5vi Look everyone it's this channels delusional sociopath troll, Zachoff the irrelevant.

And even if the building was a problem, just build a new building! If we can afford aircraft carriers, we can afford a new House of Representatives. (I would suggest modeling it after a sport stadium)

Keep pit simple

@@pmsteamrailroading Like the assembly in the Star Wars movie!

Is it though? I feel like that was always on the back burner, just waiting until they felt like the people had too much power.

Yup

Yea it was capped at a 100 because historically any more than that leads to in fighting and corruption. Basic history.

@@Alamyst2011 it's capped at 535.

@@TheHonestPeanut try 435

Hahaha. Sadly this is hilariously true.

Basically, they could care less that people are actually represented. Look how many vote against what their constituents want or need.

Because in their logic, diversity means going woke and that’s bad for their bottom line.

Then don't give them a choice, and convince your state to ratify the Congressional Apportionment Amendment, which would set the size of Congress based on a mathematical formula. As population increases, so too does the size of Congress automatically. Using it, today we would have 1723 Representatives.

@@Zach-ju5vi No. It would be an appropriate amount

@@Zach-ju5vi Same delusional logic we all laugh at from this channels sociopath troll Zachoff the irrelevant. You constantly get put in your place but continue to come back expecting different results. That's called insanity you poor sick boy.

@@Zach-ju5vi Kind of hard to get ~600 people to vote to make themselves fat if it was paired with a term limit. Definitely harder than getting ~250 people like now.

@@Zach-ju5vi Don't be Debbie Downer. Just raise taxes on rich people. Oh, and cut off their life time full pay pensions. Even 1 term qualifies.

@@Zach-ju5vi 931* 200k = 186.2 million. Negligible for a government whose budget is in the trillions.

@@Zach-ju5vi penny wise, pound foolish. The wages of the extra representatives is chump change compared to what we would save if we actually got a functional government.

Yes, but they might also get away with doing less work since they'd have fewer constituents to serve.

​@@Zach-ju5viso less representation is the answer?

They are ineffective

@@Zach-ju5vi but they arent becoming less accountable...they become more accountable their power is diminished... so they have less ability to ignore their constituents like... who do you think is easier to hold accountable - a king that has absolute power... or a representative that represents a couple thousand people... or to make it even more clear... if someone represents 2 people and screws them over... what do you think how fast those 2 people will be in that guys face to tear em a new one? it is much easier for the constituents to remove a bad representative, the fewer people they have to motivate to take action PS: it also becomes much more expensive to bribe enough representatives to push through legislation for your interests, the more representatives there are

@@Zach-ju5vi Right, loss of accountability is the problem, which is what's happened by limiting representation. That's why allowing the house to expand again so they can more accurately represent the population would be a good thing. More representatives representing the increased population. Fewer representatives causes a greater divide between the reps and their districts. He outlines that in the video.

We could also break up some of the more populous states to increase the number of Senators, while also adding Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico to the list. California, Texas, and New York should all become multiple states.

@@arthurwintersight7868 dc is the capital and can’t be added, why don’t people get the whole point was making sure no state had too much power hosting the capital?? You want the people there to be “represented” give most of the land people live on back to Maryland/Virginia. It’s that simple

@@xShadowChrisx - ...and what about Puerto Rico or Guam?

@@arthurwintersight7868 They've literally consistently voted against statehood. You want to ignore the will of the people there??? For what?

@@xShadowChrisx Currently, there is no part of DC that belonged to Virginia, all associated lands (Alexandria and Arlington) were reclaimed at the start of the Civil War. The possibility of returning the residential part of DC to Maryland has been discussed and rejected by both parties involved. Additionally, there is nothing specifying the size or shape of the Federal district that is to be independent of the states. DC has repeatedly petitioned for statehood, but (currently) the threat of a Senate filibuster has held up the latest bills.

Robert doesn't do anything but support the Status Quo. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

How unreasonable you do want them to look? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Logic tells you more Government is better? Bwahahahahahaha

@@timorean320 Your statement indicates you have confidence you are not one of the unrepresented.

@@CrazyLife2112 it wasnt a statement, it was a question. Reading Comp 101.

Did you send those letters registered, return receipt? At least you would know they made it past the front door ✌🏼😅

Something like this would go a long way toward addressing my biggest counter-argument: more reps means more possible MTGs. If, as in your plan, the only reps getting the National stage are put through a filter of their regional peers after being elected by the people, maybe we’d hear less of the kind of nonsense we get from those full of prideful ignorance.

I would follow up with "there's no need to have the current legislative process." People can write bills, and if enough people co-sponsor it to pass it into law, it should become law.

@@Zach-ju5vi Poor little Zachoff triggered again by the many people who agree with and admire the great Professor Reich. You really are pathetic.

It's not something corporations would like.

I've already done so! kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bbZmlLyTutWVaYk.html

@@Zach-ju5vi Can you explain what makes rank choice voting a scam? Here's a simple example. If 3 friends get together to watch a movie and can't agree on what to watch, then rank-choice voting is a good solution. Assuming each person votes for their own movie first, then there is no winner. But if 2 of them choose the same movie as their second choice, then that one would win because it had the most support. Explain what makes that a scam.

​@@Boris80b If it's something corporations don't like then it's probably the right thing to do.

Actually, more than *6,000* representatives. Namely, it would have mandated 1 representative for every 30,000 people until America's population reached a certain level (now long since passed), then 1 representative for every 40,000 people until her population reached another level (now also long since passed), then-ultimately-one representative for every 50,000 people. One representative for every 760,000 people? Come on!

@@grantorino2325a UK parliamentary constituency typically represents about 76000 people so on that basis the US house ought to grow 10 fold. However those are constituencies not polling districts so have to be at least arguably real communities so the largest and smallest vary a lot (110K for the Isle of Wight, 30K for the outer Hebrides, as Islands are obviously fixed communities with strong local identity).

Actually we would have 1723 seats in the House (based on 2020 Census population of ~331.5M) as the Madison Apportionment Amendment outlined a square root formula of the form: House size = √(10,000 + CensusPopulation/100) - 100

Actually it was passed in 1929 because the Congress of the period was still arguing about the census of 1920 and the 1930 census was looming. It was about the shift in power and influence from rural areas to urban areas. It was enacted just before the depression started.

It would make the house ideologically diverse which isn't great when you want a nation divided. I think its terrific

LMAO starts out with saying "And this isn't some radical leftist idea," ends up with saying "The cube root proposal was endorsed by the NYT editorial board in 2018"

Of course it isn't. A radical leftist idea would be adding democracy to the economy. Which for some reason is seen as controversial. That's what every Communist and Socialist wants to do. That's what the hammer and sickle flag means. A country is ONLY a Socialist country if the citizens can vote to decide what they want to be produced. That is one of it's main defining traits. If they don't have that right to vote, then it's not Socialism. Simple. Which is also why it's nonsense to talk as if Socialism/Communism is an "option on a spectrum". Socialism isn't a party you vote for to get seats on a parlament. Socialism is, metaphorically, the addition of more parlements. One for the economy in general and another one inside each business. It isn't a matter of "Let's let people vote for which economic system they want". That is nonsense. Socialism IS the economic system where people vote to decide what they want to be produced. On the other systems, it's one person or group that has completely power over a piece of land. Socialism is the nationalization of all private companies and the addition of economic voting rights. In other words, REAL democracy. ECONOMIC democracy. Class conscience. That is the defining characteristic of the radical left. It's what separates Socialists from the rest.

Democracy is great. WHY don't we use it for the economy and the workplace? Oh, yes. Because in SOME people's mind that somehow equates to "gulags" and "forced labor camps" or "starvation" or "100 million dead". Despite the fact that Private Property that does all these things and MUCH worse and yet people still defend it. You can't possibly pull the libertarian excuse of blaming the government. The US uses private prisons, so slave labor in prisons is 100% caused by private property.

@@MrMeticulousOneOnce again it needs to be explained that what is considered "left wing" in the US isn't actually all that left wing.

Don’t forget Puerto Rico

Representation not Republicans WE THE PEOPLE need effective and responsible elected officials.

@@theresebortzfield188 Keyword, “elected”, which in itself, has its own can of worms but, nevertheless, I’ve been sayin’ for decades now that maybe, just maybe, of the many very obvious issues of our governance, anyone holding any public job with the power to “appoint” another individual into any level of power, WITHOUT A FKN VOTE by “the people” ‘should be’ 100% ILLEGAL, throughout any U.S. Territories, regardless of political allegiance

I'm sure he has a video on statehood for DC.

@@seanbatiz6620 I'm sure you don't realize but you're proposing that literally every government employee be elected. Some polities in the US do actually hold elections for fairly low-level bureaucrats. Whenever you hear a story about blatantly bigoted and civil-rights abusing sheriffs, county clerks, or school boards they're usually elected.

You're not very bright are you?

Right on! He's a good guy. ❤

That's actually a fundamental misunderstanding most historians and modern political pundits have about the Madison Apportionment Amendment. Rather than setting a fixed maxiumum size for districts, it actually outlined an iterative process for growing district sizes over time(and therefore how to steadily grow the House over time) that follows a "square root rule." Based on the 2020 Census of ~331.5M this would set the House at 1723 seats (and therefore the Electoral College at 1826 votes). I personally prefer the Cube Root Rule that would set House = 692 and EC = 795, but that's another topic.

He's on the money alright.... The money he gets to shill his lies.

@@yourdaddy-mq4km Still trying to pass yourself off as You daddy huh Zachoff you sociopath. Nobody is buying it,

@@Zach-ju5vi so you think Republicans have NO chance of convincing people to vote for them? That's why conservatives are making it harder for certain people to vote. Some Republicans have even admitted that large voter turnout hurts their chances of being elected.

Education does, indoctrination does the opposite.

@@yourdaddy-mq4km Once again everyone, Your daddy is this channels sociopath troll, Zach. He has Reich derangement syndrome so bad he has taken on another user name. Poor little guy is very disturbed.

Now we have to make sure that the new districts are not gerrymandered!

@Freya the Wanderer Interestingly enough, if you have a multi-member district with at least 5 members some form of proportional represention, gerrymandering becomes nearly impossible.

Even if it did, it would still be a needless beurocracy. Let people vote directly.

The framers specifically designed the government and the Electoral College to avoid exactly what Bob is espousing, a tyranny of a few states with oversized populations making all of the decisions for the many states with smaller populations.

Germany's system provides for an equal number of directly elected deputies and deputies chosen by PR. To ensure that there is pure proportionality occasionally "overhang" seats are added if a party wins direct mandates far in excess of its share of the popular vote. But at no time do the direct mandates ever exceed half the total, often far less depending on the number of overhang.

Or just make it like Canada, where you vote for parties instead of individuals, and seats are awarded proportional to the votes each party gets. This would make smaller parties a hell of a lot more functional, and allow groups currently lacking any representation in the government, whatsoever, to have an actual voice in the affairs of the state.

@@arthurwintersight7868 Canada does not have PR, it uses the same system as in the USA. Candidates from various parties compete in "ridings" ie electoral districts and whoever wins a plurality wins that riding.

@@arthurwintersight7868 the big difference with Canada is that party discipline is much stronger and if you get elected on a party label you are expected to tow the "party line" or get expelled. Unlike here in the USA where every congressperson is a one man show and can flout party discipline with few consequences, especially if they have the ability to raise funds independent of their party.

@@arthurwintersight7868 We actually don't do it that way in Canada. (But we SHOULD!)

@@Zach-ju5vi Typical projection from this channels right wing fascist troll. You all know him. It's Zachoff the sociopath.

@@Zach-ju5vi I bet you're fun at parties, dingus

@@Zach-ju5vi Wasn't seeking it was fortuitous, Inshallah.

@@Zach-ju5vi As always this channels irrelevant troll Zachoff is triggered by the great Professor Reich. GOOD !

🤣👍🏼

End Gerrymandering end ELECTORAL COLLEGE end filibuster stack SCOTUS13 Restore women's bodily autonomy and Gun reform and restore LGBTQ rights

Help clarify this for me, please. Do you mean "jury-rigging", or "gerrymandering"?

Maybe. I was asking for clarification of the term. What type of "jury-rigging" are we talking about?

@@Zach-ju5vi Nothing you say has any credibility you Zachoff. Go home and get your shine box.

It will only get worse

I don't know about 21 justices, but 13 would make sense because there are 13 circuit courts. One SCOTUS justice for each circuit court makes a bunch of sense!

@Freya the Wanderer Each circuit court has over 20 judges, only 3 of which hear any case at one time. It would be interesting if the SCOTUS worked in a similar fashion.

The electoral college is there to balance the mob nature of democracy for the security of the republic. Only get rid of it in case you are a power hungry politician in case you arent dont

Literally not how it works

No... Senators have always been 2 per state.

@@cteal2018 That is now a problem.

​@@donsoards3356It's viewed as a problem now because the House is no longer representative. Likewise the Reapportionment Act of 1929 also ruined the Electoral College math prescribed in the Constitution that is supposed to be dominated by the House (i.e. House size that grows over time + Senate size that is supposed to stay fixed + additional EC votes granted to Washington DC by the 23rd Amendment = Electoral College size). Essentially the House is supposed to be dominated by the direct interests of the most populous states. Then the Office of the President via the Electoral College is supposed to be similarly heavily weighted towards the people (again, essentially House size that is supposed to be tied to population + Senate size that won't change without additional states, so as total population increases the Electoral College is supposed to basically look like the House with a rounding error to ensure small states are just a tiny bit relevant, not current situation the artificial cap on the size of the House is breaking everything). And then the Senate is supposed to acknowledge the needs of states equally. But right now we don't have this balanced approach (i.e. a lower legislative body that reflects the direct will of the people, an executive branch that is mostly tied to the people but influenced by states' needs, and an upper legislative body that is only concerned with states' needs).

ok, but that's looking back. More reps would make the maga farce less likely to begin with. I think thats the real point here

I would argue that the current democratic party is far more fascist than the GOP.

@@Alamyst2011 I don't think you could.

@@TheHonestPeanut Obama's drone program. Lol

@@Alamyst2011 thanks for proving my point for me.

No. He is wrong. As usual. His opinions are old and tired

Or democrats would pack it

@@eddiekulp1241 Honestly, I rather doubt it with how badly democrats have been loosing control lately. But that's just my own outlook on the situation.

January 6th was as big of a deal as what happened with those portland riots not that big of a deal. Realistically it is good people are holding their politicians accountable a Jan 6th scenario is constructive for the people.

How would a bunch of cops letting protestors into the building be less feasible? Jan 6 only happened because they let it happen. And now they get morons still thinking it was somehow worse than the 2020 riots that caused billions in damages for nothing

@@Zach-ju5vi It's been done many times before you Zachoff. Take it on the arches, clown

@@Zach-ju5vi Your opinion means nothing here you Zachoff.

Every two years.

@@Zach-ju5vi Same old sociopath logic from our boy Zachoff the irrelevant troll.

@@Zach-ju5vi Zachoff I don't hate you. I feel sorry for you. Now go home and get your shine box.

@@Zach-ju5vi YAWN....ZZZZzzzz....

He is a fraud. Has been sense the 70s.

OMG

The video explains the mistakes you made here.

@@TheHonestPeanut No. It doesn't. He provides opinions. Not facts and literally no proof. Take his word bro lol

@@Alamyst2011 yes. It does. I mean, I get that you don't understand that but it does. You're overestimating your ability to comprehend this subject. Every comment you've made on this video shows this.

@@TheHonestPeanut Your taking the opinion of a known fraud an party shill. The increase in elected delegates has the opposite effect. Look at evert parliament or senate in history that has increased membership. You are the one who is apparently lacking in knowledge of the subject

​@@TheHonestPeanut he's not the one who isn't understanding here. It's unreal people could be ignorant enough to think making more politicians would result with less corruption SMH.