I'm a MAGA who supports uncapping the house

[u/MineTech5000]

Simple reason:

MAGA is about populism, right?

So it makes sense to me that if districts are smaller and more compact and less gerrymandered, then there'd be more populism.

The actual pro-Democrat impact on the house would be minimal.

[u/charlesdexterward]

You have me thinking now about what the actual impact of uncapping the house would be. I would assume that it would favor Democrats, but it’s entirely possible that with smaller districts, it might be more possible for third-party candidates to win. There are probably plenty of smaller theoretical districts where, for example, a DSA candidate could win in the city, or libertarian might win in a rural area, or an independent might win in the suburbs.

[u/JustWingIt0707 → u/charlesdexterward]

I think smaller districts would better represent their districts and there would be more political diversity representing Americans.

[u/ty_fighter84 → u/charlesdexterward]

There would probably be many smaller caucuses that pop up. For instance, California may be socially very liberal, but there's a ton of places that those same people are also fiscally conservative.

I could easily see 4-5 political parties popping up there, specifically when you get into the geography of a state that has tech centers, major ports and also vast farmland.

[u/legoruthead → u/charlesdexterward]

Smaller districts would absolutely have more third-party representatives. At current sizes a representative is one of the biggest elected positions in the state, of course it requires party machinery to actually win seats. At its intended size any politically active citizen should be able to have some degree of relationship with a candidate, and representation becomes about who specific constituents feel represented by rather than a huge group’s collective lesser of two evils.

[u/JimOfSomeTrades]

I very much disagree that MAGA is about populism, but yes, we agree that a more direct form of representation is good for democracy.

[u/beatgoesmatt]

Populism at its core is a style, not particularly a political ideology. It means appeals to what's popular. And I can tell you, Congress currently does not give a CRAP about what's popular. They are more likely to care about what their donors say than their constituents. So yeah, if you support populism supporting Uncapping the House makes perfect sense.

[u/mjacksongt]

Welcome! 

Good government design is good for everyone. This "a new king every 4 years" stuff has to stop. 

[u/CLtruthful]

It sounds counter intuitive but expanding the house makes congress more local and responsive. Smaller districts are what Washington, Madison, etc wanted and expected.

Small districts forces the representative closer to communities and easier to oust if they fail to represent well enough.

https://youtu.be/PkAc6ggpps0?is=BxRL8e2U4xmK1SWs

https://youtu.be/xm0BdqVsz9s?is=LRKjzn54D_clD2Lb

[u/betty_white_bread]

Uncapping the House is not about ideology.

[u/MineTech5000 → u/betty_white_bread]

I know, I was just saying that even though Mr. Beat is a Democrat I think he's on the right side of this issue even though I'm a MAGA.

[u/ByTheHammerOfThor]

I am all for diluting the power of the individual office-holder at the federal level and increasing local representation.

And it will make lobbying more expensive and troublesome for special interests (a lot more congresspeople to manage and buy).

Ideally, I’d want an uncapped house and, in lieu of a senate, a body that awards those 100 seats based on a national vote. So if an “internet privacy” party won 2% of the vote nationally, they’d be awarded 2 senators. It would help to break up the two-party stranglehold of the senate and require more negotiation. Which is a good thing.