Young Americans are piling the blame for their student debt balances on conservatives, according to a poll by Generation Lab provided exclusively to Axios.

  • zero
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Did a little reading on this, here’s what I found:

    The house has been “capped” or at least limited in size the whole time actually!

    The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative;

    Now that we count everyone and not just white people, that’d be a max somewhere in the range of 11000 representatives without a constitutional amendment.

    11000 is probably too many people to try and assemble in one room and come to any sort of consensus, so you’d have to artificially lower the number somehow.

    It turns out that the legislature is allowed to set it’s own size, but both the House and the Senate have to agree. The current size of 435 members comes from the Reapportionment Act of 1929, so it’s been established for a while.

    I think my favorite option is the “Wyoming Rule” and it works like this: smallest state gets one representative, and everyone else gets representatives based on how many times their population is more than that of the smallest state. Under that rule the house would have 574 members, which still feels like a relatively reasonable amount of people

    e: herp derp,you never had to own land to be counted

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      There was never a time in US history where only landowners could vote. The idea was discussed and discraded as unworkable. What did happen was states were allowed to put that restriction in place. Few states did and eventually the law was changed to ban that

      • zero
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        You know, if I had looked at the paragraph before the one I quoted I’d have gotten it right the first time. Edited to fix

      • aelwero@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        What you’re describing actually removed the limited ability for both women and blacks to vote In outlying cases. States that tied voting rights to property ownership alone were, in my opinion, the ones actually taking the high road at the time…

        “Discarded as unworkable” indeed…

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The ones that did that were concentrated in slave states. As was brought up during the Continental Congress debates New Englanders owned little to no land compared to the South.