435 representatives for a nation of 342,000,000

That means 1 representative per 786,000 people.

Does it look like a workable system to anyone?

For comparison, consider the ratio in other major western democracies:

- Germany: 131,000 to 1
- England: 107,000 to 1 (House of Commons)
- France: 119,000 to 1
- Spain: 137,000 to 1
- Italy: 147,000 to 1
- Sweden: 30,000 to 1
- Canada: 120,000 to 1
- Australia: 190,000 to 1

Contrast with:

- Russia: 320,000 to 1
- China: 470,000 to 1
- India: 270,000 to 1
- Iran: 390,000 to 1

Etc etc., while we're at 786,000 to 1!

Out problems go far deeper and wider than whether minorities are being elbowed out of representation through redistricting. We have an entire system that buckets 3 quarters of a million people to the same representative, which means, by definition, there isn't enough representation going on in the first place.

We are long overdue for a serious overhaul of the whole system.

Follow Ups:

• Moron thinks there should be reps for land, not people DSCBruin 13:32:00 05/04/26 (6)
  • There’s a reason he’s known as the World’s Dumbest Sh!tbag Dr.J 14:49:10 05/04/26 (0)
  • Fly over Montana and say, wow look at all the red amadbruin 14:17:41 05/04/26 (3)
    • Red is the color of the empty land* blindness 15:56:33 05/04/26 (2)
      • In fairness, if land could vote, it would be overwhelmingly blue DSCBruin 00:06:53 05/05/26 (0)
      • MAGA-hatted farmers driven into bankruptcy by Trump trade wars* Dr.J 16:55:38 05/04/26 (0)
  • He's an idiot* blindness 14:06:57 05/04/26 (0)
• Great point. We should triple the flyover state reps wwood2 06:40:18 05/04/26 (1)
  • It was a great point that you missed again Village Idiot Dr.J 07:06:25 05/04/26 (0)
• If we had the same ratio of reps to citizens today that azbruin 20:04:24 05/03/26 (2)
  • It would be hard to govern with that. mh 08:15:25 05/04/26 (1)
    • How do you define too many? blindness 08:50:03 05/04/26 (0)

Post a Followup