Originally Posted by MuEconRedLeg
You throw out a theory with little more than hope to support it. I counter with a logical reason it would be ineffective (size dilution), a reality of outsiders in Washington (the beltway effect), and the probable downside of the theory in practice (extensive gerrymandering), and I am being vague?
And you do all that while ignoring the fact that a larger lawmaking group has usually helped to create much stronger third parties in other countries.
The point of this isn't to stengthen a party to the point that it's as big as the Democrats and Republicans. The point is to give a voice to parties that currently have none.
Would one seat in the House be better than none? Which is greater:
Which is more representative, a House with a member for every 100,000 or a House with a member for every 25,000 or 10,000?
I think you're reflexively against this because you think it's going to create more government spending, but I think it would be pretty good for the country.