House to eliminate the DC vote

[Kevin]

MC, the problem is, that unless they add a new seat, someone will lose a seat. Most likely that'd come out of the midwest, but who knows? Could be anyone in the House. Would you voluntarily do anything which created a 1:436 chance of you losing your job even if it had some marginal benefit for your coworkers?

And aside from that, the cynic in me says that in the House, the people really don't have meaningful representation anyhow, (unless those people are CEOs of Fortune 500 companies) nor would 1:436 be meaningful either.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Kevin

MC, the problem is, that unless they add a new seat, someone will lose a seat. Most likely that'd come out of the midwest, but who knows? Could be anyone in the House. Would you voluntarily do anything which created a 1:436 chance of you losing your job even if it had some marginal benefit for your coworkers?

And aside from that, the cynic in me says that in the House, the people really don't have meaningful representation anyhow, (unless those people are CEOs of Fortune 500 companies) nor would 1:436 be meaningful either.

If one doesn't matter, why do the small states even bother?

Oh.. wait.. one matters?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

MC, the problem is, that unless they add a new seat, someone will lose a seat. Most likely that'd come out of the midwest, but who knows? Could be anyone in the House. Would you voluntarily do anything which created a 1:436 chance of you losing your job even if it had some marginal benefit for your coworkers?

Then add a seat. The number of representatives is set by statute, not by the Constitution, so Congress can deal with that without anyone losing a seat. I don't see that as a problem at all.