Political Memes

1231 readers

910 users here now

Non political memes: !memes@sopuli.xyz

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Kokomheart@lemmy.ca

QuentinCallaghan@sopuli.xyz

844

Smaller (ponder.cat)

submitted 23 hours ago by Cat@ponder.cat to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.ca

18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 77 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

The constitution originally said that we’d have one representative for every 30,000 people.

Which means the House should have about 11,000 members.

[–] WhiteRabbit_33@lemmy.world 43 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

I looked this up to find a source because I'd never heard it. From what I can find, it's one of a few unratified amendments, but this one was proposed in 1789. Sure would've been great if they'd have ratified something like this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Amendment

[–] MNByChoice@midwest.social 34 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

As Congress did not set a time limit for its ratification, the Congressional Apportionment Amendment is still pending before the states. As of 2025, it is one of six unratified amendments.

Still an option.

[–] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

By the end of 1791, the amendment was only one state short of adoption. However, when Kentucky attained statehood on June 1, 1792, the number of necessary ratifications climbed to twelve, and, even though Kentucky ratified the amendment that summer (along with the other eleven amendments), the measure was still one state short. No additional states ratified this amendment.

ONE FUCKING STATE SHORT

🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬

[–] MNByChoice@midwest.social 8 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

Interesting, how close are we today?

No additional states ratified this amendment. With 50 states today, 27 additional ratifications are necessary to reach the required threshold of 38 ratifications needed for this amendment to become part of the Constitution.

Every state west the East Coast, except Kentucky, has yet to approve it.

Edit: Some East Coast states have also not ratified it.

[–] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 13 hours ago

This amendment aint happening

We have a better chance of just uncaping the house as a law.

[–] Infynis@midwest.social 9 points 19 hours ago

Important details from that link

The U.S. House of Representatives' maximum number of seats has been limited to 435, capped at that number by the Reapportionment Act of 1929—except for a temporary (1959–1962) increase to 437 when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted into the Union

So, as long as the population hasn't increased since 1929, everyone is getting appropriate representation lol

[–] Pilferjinx@lemmy.world 14 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

We have the tech to no longer need representative government. Fuck those corporate sell outs, let me represent myself directly.

[–] AlligatorBlizzard@sh.itjust.works 5 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Maybe you're willing to, but we can't even get a majority of Americans to vote once every four years.

(I've served in student government a few times, and while not directly applicable it was still eye opening - a lot of stuff will not affect you personally but you need to give a shit as an "elected" official because everything effects someone. I put elected in quotes because the first time I got talked into it and the second time happened because nobody else was willing - it's deeply boring work most of the time.)

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 6 points 5 hours ago

It doesn't have to be one or the other. You can have representatives by default while allowing anyone to override that vote for themselves.