Post #40730 by onepoorguy on the US Policy board

Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy ❤

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (12)

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

No. of Recommendations: 3

I can live with that. Alberta will give us some conservatives, but most new representatives (even from Alberta) will be further left than the conservatives we have here.

And 435 isn't necessarily fixed. The Constitution just says you can't have more than 1 per 30K people. It doesn't give an upper limit on the size of the House. So we could add another hundred or so representatives if we wanted to. I've often though we should do that anyway, even without absorbing Canada. Our population is 300M+, but we have the same number of representatives we had when the population <100M (in 1912, when AZ and NM were admitted).

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

Print the post

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (12)

Prev | Next

Announcements

US Policy FAQ

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

A community forum supporting civilized, and highly helpful, self-educating investors that come together for Shrewdness and merry spirits. These message boards closely follow the look and feel of the old message boards at boards.fool.com prior to the boards redirected to discussion.fool.com. Shrewd'm is not affiliated with the comprehensive and excellent investment website, The Motley Fool (TMF), in any way. The Shrewd commmunity here has owed, and continues to owe, gratitude to The Motley Fool for nurturing a culture of jovial irreverence towards Wall St, and that tradition will continue here.