Four-hundred Thirty-Five Representatives Can Not Represent 300M Americans

Re:Four-hundred Thirty-Five Representatives Can Not Represen... by roenxi on Monday November 25, 2019 @06:21PM (#21633974)

Why is 6,300 unamanagable? >500 and 6,300 both cross over the Dunbar number threshold. (interestingly, the per-party size in the US House of Reps is about the upper limit of the Dunbar number, 2 x 250 ~= 500)

6,300 is manageable with modern technology; the capabilities are there to organise and make transparent large public voting system for thousands of politicians that would have been impractical even as recently as the 60s.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Four-hundred Thirty-Five Representatives Can Not Represen... by iguy on Monday November 25, 2019 @06:32PM (#21634072)

It's not the voting (which has been possible for millions of people, for ages). It's the horse-trading to figure out what to put to a vote, or ideally to find the right compromises. Surely that's the point of having few enough people that many can know each other.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Four-hundred Thirty-Five Representatives Can Not Represen... by beatgammit on Monday November 25, 2019 @10:01PM (#21635312)

Just think of the filibusters with thousands of representatives...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Four-hundred Thirty-Five Representatives Can Not Represen... by masonic on Tuesday November 26, 2019 @05:40AM (#21637100)

There is no filibuster rule in the House.

[ Parent | on HN ]