The House should have more seats anyway. We only have 435 because of the Apportionment Act; the Constitution allows for no more than one Rep per 30,000 people.
Which would mean we should have up to something like 11,000 representatives given our current population. Clearly something is wrong when the average representative:constituent ratio is 1:700,000! It was originally 1:34,000.
11K is perhaps far too many to be manageable, but 435 is clearly far too few.
Edit: the 14th amendment may have changed this math before the 1911 Apportionment bill fixed it at 435, but 1:700K is still far too high.
If each state sends representatives according to proportional voting, we would quickly see other parties gaining some seats.
Those other parties will probably grow and even gain seats in the senate. At some point you won't need the support of all parties to break a fillibuster.
I agree, and re-reading my post, I don't see where I implied otherwise. In fact, I actually specifically said it would apply to the legislative houses. Just posting this as confirmation in case anyone else got the impression you did.
My comment was because of what the article is about: "mayor, public advocate, comptroller, borough president and members of the City Council, starting in 2021"
Maybe you could do PR for City Council, but the other positions are single person positions. I thought your comment was related to the article, which is why I replied like I did.
Also, however... PR has its flaws... it makes the party the unit you are voting for, not the person. Maybe you like one party member but not another; with PR, you can't make that choice, the party does.
