Answer to redistricting: Enlarge Congress

Townhall.com ^ | 12-19-03 | Jonah Goldberg

[Looking for Diogenes]

So if my math and understanding of their formula is correct, the Founding Fathers would have wanted us today to have 1,558 Congressional representatives, each representing 180,000 people.

Aside from the relatively small extra cost of Congress itself, that may not be a bad thing. Presumably staffs could be much smaller.

It would certainly change the relationship of the House and the Senate.

[bvw]

George Washington would have agreed, for the reasons as Goldberg pointed out. The House should be in THOUSANDS of Representatives. That would lessen the number of poffies and table sharks both in it, and make it a better mix for producing Senators and Governors too. Massive enlargment would reduce the shackles the elite throw on it.

[dvwjr]

There was a good argument made that the United States House of Representatives was closely tracking a "cube-root" representative model of the total voting-age population to total Representatives from the time of the First Congress in 1789 to the 61st in 1910. That is when we got locked in to the "magic" number of 435 representatives. (See the below graph)

Source: Growth in U.S. Population Calls for Larger House of Representatives by Margo Anderson.

Bottom line, if we follow the 'cube-root' model, we would now have 588 Representatives based on the 2000 census, instead of the current number of 435 dating from 1910. Sounds about right to me...

dvwjr

[goldstategop]

A House of 1,500 to 2,000 Members would be unwieldy and not evcry one could show up for work in Washington but it would be a lot more representative = fewer people being represented means better services for constituents and you gotta love gridlock. The House if anything, is way too small to effectively serve a country as large and populated as ours is today. Make it bigger and make it part-time. That will cure the syndrome of politicians with too much time on their hands lording it over our lives.

[RightWhale]

A Congress of 10,000! It's probably not statistically necessary to have so many, but it would bring Congress back to a more representative level. Logistics for 10,000 would be interesting.

[inquest]

Thanks for that post. This idea needs to be talked about more. People might object that a 3000-member H.R. might be too "unwieldy", but upon analysis that argument breaks down. Certainly if all 3000 are talking at once it would get unwieldy. But of course, 5 people talking at once can get plenty cacophonous. Not everybody would have to be speaking, or even necessarily be on a committee. The House doesn't need to think as an collective body at all. It's enough that there are a number (however large) of individuals, whose individual job is to keep himself as educated as possible about the various issues facing the country, and about the various proposals on the table, to talk them over with his associates and with his constituents, and to cast an informed vote on them. Just like they do now, only with better accountability. What sane person could be opposed to that?

[djreece]

I was just going off your post on the original First Amendment. It looked to me that they were increasing the number represented by 10,000 for every increase of 100 in the number of representatives.

Either way, I would be happy and believe we would be better off.

[breakem]

I was hoping for fewer states and a smaller senate.

[inquest]

We could always pass an amendment to reduce the number of Senators to one per state rather than two.

[breakem]

and then part-time

[metesky]

Either way, I would be happy and believe we would be better off.

Amen, brudda! We are no more represented today than we were by George III's parliament.

[Xthe17th]

RE: Multi-Member House districts

BAD IDEA. We have that here in West Virginia with our delegate districts to the State House and it stinks. In such districts, we end up with deadbeat ('Rat) delegates who ride on the coat-tails of the other delegate(s) who either do all the work or don't and then point a finger instead. As such, there's mass confusion, nothing gets done, and our state is a mess (and you thought California's was bad?). Of course, the 'Rats love this.

This is why there is a statewide drive now (by Republicans) for SINGLE Delegate districts where the delegate can and will be held individually responsible to his/her constituents. When politicians are held accountable, more good things than bad things tend to get done.

RE your suggestion for 3 senators - I think there was some discussion of this during the constitutional convention...will look it up. Of course, the real problem with the senate is that they're elected in the first place. The proper solution is to repeal the 17th amendment and go back to having the respective state legislatures choose their senators. Thus, citizen election of their state legislators becomes MORE important thus transfers more responsibility downstream... makes politics more local. Senators can then spend all their time actually working rather than campaigning/fundraising/sucking-up to lobbyists & special interests.

[Xthe17th]

RE: Thousands of representatives: BE CAREFUL!! Heed the words of James Madison in his Federalist Letter 10:

"In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.

In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.

It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures."

[inquest]

As much as I like James Madison and love to read his highly insightful writings, this is just one area where I disagree with him. He talks a good talk here, but can't really back up his contention. But even all that aside, his principal comment is not about the size of the house of representatives, but about the size of the district which is to elect each representative. His argument is that larger districts stand a better chance of finding someone among them who's well qualified for the job. But let's keep things in perspective: He was writing to defend districts of 30,000, which many people at the time thought was already too large. But today's districts are 20 times that size, so I'm pretty sure that such concerns as he expressed would be quite unfounded under even the most extreme proposals for congressional expansion.

[ForOurFuture]

Bottom line, if we follow the 'cube-root' model, we would now have 588 Representatives based on the 2000 census, instead of the current number of 435 dating from 1910.

The article you linked says the number 588 is based off of the 1990 census, when it says the population was about 203 million (This census document says the 1990 population was 249 million, so who knows). According to the linked document, the 2000 census counted 281 million Americans, which by the method in question would produce a 655 member house.

To me it seems a matter of common sense that the size of the House should increase to keep up with the rising population. The closer the representatives are to the people, the better representative democracy works. It's simple. Once you pass 1000 things begin to get unwieldy and impractical, but adding 2 or 3 hundred couldn't hurt.

I'm not convinced by the arguments presented here against it.

[wildandcrazyrussian]

AS I have mentioned on previous occasions, I live one block from the officlal "residence" of our US Congressman, and I have not seen him in person for about 10 years now. He will however get re-elected to Congress until the end of his life (as was his father before him) because he is a) of the majority Democratic party and b) he "brings money" in from the federal appropriations process (ie our own personal tax money being blessed by the feds and returned to our "community"). Nobody seems to mind having their political voice bought out.

The basic problem of course is that any subtitute proposals will never make it through Congress to be sent to the states.

[inquest]

The basic problem of course is that any subtitute proposals will never make it through Congress

Unless, of course, they start to feel the heat.

[bvw]

I'll put an upper limit on it! The size of General Washington's force what crossed the Delaware and marched to Trenton to defeat the forward British garrison there.

That's no more than 3,000, and more like 2,700.

[metesky]

Well, wee Jamie was a smarter man than I, but I have to agree with inquest that Madison was defending districts of 30,000.

And you shouldn't forget that Madison was writing in order to get the Constitution ratified, before Aaron Burr founded Tammany Hall and taught the Rats how to steal elections.