House of Representatives Should Have 10,000 Members

The United States Constitution does not require states to be sliced up into congressional districts, which are by their very nature undemocratic.  Consequently, most states are divided into gerrymandered districts every ten years, following each census.

Fat chance, though, of getting rid of gerrymandering!  Both parties benefit from gerrymandering and are afraid to abolish congressional districts because the "ins" benefit from gerrymandering and the "outs" know that they will benefit when they take power.

Nor does the Constitution mandate 435 members of the House--that is also unconstitutional.

Article I Section 2 states: "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative."  

In 1911, Congress passed Public Law 62-5, which limited the size of the House of Representatives to 435 members.  Congress can change the number of members of the House at any time.

With a 2010 population of 308 million, that comes to one Member of the House of Representatives for every 710,767 people! 

That is outrageously unconstitutional!  

I propose to abolish all congressional districts and elect all the Members of the House at large, from each state.  Furthermore, I propose returning to the Founding Fathers' formula for the House.

If we applied the constitutional formula, after the 2010 census the House of Representatives would now have around 10,000 members today. 

What's wrong with that?  

Congress could simply construct a new building for the House of Representaties the way the Chinese did.  Their Great Hall of the People [see below], opened in 1959, can simultaneously seat 10,000 representatives.  If the Chinese can do it, so can we.

Egypt's Next 30-year Military Dictator?

From the Washington Post, August 7, 2013: 

Source: Khaled Desouki/AFP/Getty Images

CAIRO — He is a savvy operator, people who have worked with him say, a career military officer who methodically campaigned a year ago to become Egypt’s defense minister under its first democratically elected president.

Now Gen. Abdel Fatah al-Sissi is faced with a society even more bitterly divided than it was a year ago, when Mohamed Morsi took office as president.

Egyptian officials say that Sissi’s commitment to returning the country to civilian-led democracy is genuine and that they do not think that he will run in elections, expected to be held next year.

But in a country where the only leader in six decades not to have a military background was just deposed in a coup, many say they would not be surprised if the charismatic Sissi decided to throw his high-brimmed officer’s hat into the ring. Some supporters are hailing him as a new Gamal Abdel Nasser, the revered general who led the 1952 coup that overthrew Egypt’s monarchy.

“I think it’s hugely tempting for anyone,” said a high-ranking Western official, referring to the possibility that Sissi might take his popularity to the polls. Full text of article.

Jagor's comment:

You see?  After a momentary interruption--the "Arab Spring," Mubarak's resignation and the 51.7% election victory of Mohamed Morsi, whose Freedom and Justice [Muslim Brotherhood] party had repeatedly stated publicly that they would never run a candidate for the president--Egypt is finally going to get back to normal, i.e. a military dictatorship, as has been the case since King Farouk was overthrown by a similar military coup d'état on July 23, 1952.

Let's see if Sissi can beat Mubarak's record of 30 years in office before he gets kicked out!

As the French say, "Plus ça change plus c'est la même chose."