A guest post arguing that ratifying the Congressional Apportionment Amendment from the original Bill of Rights would expand the House to 6,641 members and fix Congress by reducing gerrymandering, diluting donor influence, and increasing constituent accountability. Longer summary

This guest post by David Speiser argues for ratifying the Congressional Apportionment Amendment, the only unratified amendment from the original Bill of Rights, which would expand the House of Representatives from 435 to about 6,641 members by setting one representative per 50,000 citizens. The post explains how Congress's current dysfunction stems from gerrymandering, money in politics, and polarization, and argues that a much larger House would ameliorate these problems by making districts smaller and harder to gerrymander, diluting the influence of big donors, and forcing representatives to be more accountable to local constituents. The amendment has already been ratified by 11 states and needs 27 more, avoiding the problem that most Congressional reforms require Congressional approval. The post acknowledges a typo in the amendment's wording that could force an interesting legal battle between textualism and originalism, and ends with a pitch to state legislators explaining why both parties should support ratification. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explores 'bicameral reasoning', comparing how we often weigh issues equally (like the US Senate) instead of proportionally to their importance (like the House), leading to potentially skewed decision-making. Longer summary

This post discusses the concept of 'bicameral reasoning', drawing parallels between the US House and Senate representation systems and how people make decisions or judgments. Scott Alexander argues that often we give equal weight to issues of vastly different importance, much like how the Senate gives equal representation to states regardless of population. He illustrates this with examples from political issues, animal welfare considerations, and environmental concerns. The post suggests that this 'Senate-like' thinking can lead to poor decision-making by equating minor issues with major ones. While acknowledging some potential benefits to this way of thinking in extreme cases, the author ultimately argues for a more proportional 'House-like' approach to evaluating issues based on their actual impact or importance. Shorter summary