Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Answer to redistricting: Enlarge Congress
Townhall.com ^ | 12-19-03 | Jonah Goldberg

Posted on 12/19/2003 7:26:07 AM PST by FairWitness

Last week, when everyone who understands the First Amendment was rightly having conniptions over the Supreme Court's ruling that political speech can be severely regulated under the rubric of "campaign finance reform," the court also heard arguments in a major redistricting case brought by Pennsylvania Democrats. They're upset because they have a statewide advantage of some 445,000 votes but Democrats hold only seven of the state's 19 congressional seats. Their claim: Congressional districts are being drawn unfairly.

Truth be told, I don't particularly care much about the details of this case. The Democrats complain that the Republicans redrew the map so as to eliminate three Democratic seats. The Republicans say, you guys did it to us for decades, it's your turn to suck eggs.

OK, I may not be capturing the legal subtleties as well some scholars might. But the point is, it was ever thus. Gerrymandering - drawing districts for partisan advantage - is neither unconstitutional nor new. Indeed, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the only districts that violate constitutional principles are the ones excessively and explicitly gerrymandered along racial lines - you know, like the North Carolina district that snaked along Interstate 85 looking something like an X-ray of a colonoscopy.

Yes, I think Republicans in Texas and Colorado probably went too far when they decided to redraw congressional districts after the once-a-decade window was closed. And, maybe the Pennsylvania GOP has gone too far, though it doesn't seem like it to me.

But, look: It is simply inevitable that politicians will fight to draw congressional districts in the most advantageous way possible. Expecting them not to is like expecting Yogi Bear to abstain from eating picnic baskets for the sake of improving tourism.

I have the solution: Make Congress bigger. A lot bigger.

With 435 members, the U.S. Congress is one of the smallest representative bodies in the world. By "smallest" I mean literally and relatively. The British House of Commons is much bigger (659) and so is the British House of Lords (approx. 500). The French National Assembly (577 members) is bigger, as is the Mexican Chamber of Deputies (500), the Russian Duma (450) and so on. But, it's not just in absolute terms. Due to their smaller populations, these countries have fewer citizens for each representative, making them far more democratic.

The founding fathers wanted the U.S. Congress to grow with the population - and it did until 1920 when it froze at 435, largely as a failed effort to limit immigrant political influence. The only time George Washington chimed in during the constitutional convention was to implore his colleagues to reduce the size of congressional districts to 30,000 from a proposed 40,000. In the Federalist Papers, James Madison defended the size of these districts from numerous critics who considered them too large! Such mammoth districts, the critics believed, would amount to a tyranny.

Today the average congressional district has about 600,000 people in it (single-district Montana has closer to 1 million). By comparison, in 1790, half of the 16 U.S. states didn't have a combined population of 600,000. By today's standards, the 1790 House of Representatives would have had seven members and the Senate 24.

All of the ideas for fixing congressional districting call for more and more undemocratic intrusions into the process, particularly by unelected federal judges. Liberals and sympathetic judges want more minority representation. Fine. Most of us want representatives to reflect the values of their communities. That's fine too. Lots of people want "big money" gone from congressional elections. Also fine.

Expanding Congress might solve all of these supposed problems. A bigger Congress would be far more open to blacks, Hispanics, et al, for obvious reasons. Because fewer people would be electing them, representatives would have every reason to spend more time talking to a bigger share of their communities. And as for the influence of money, money would become less important in districts where TV ad spending was less of a prerequisite. And if you're worried about pork-barrel spending, there's every reason to believe it would be harder to get pet projects through a bigger Congress.

I don't know if we should have districts of 30,000 these days. That would create a Congress of more than 8,000 representatives. But a couple thousand wouldn't be a bad way to start.

Yes, there'd be a seating problem in Congress. But those guys are never all there to begin with and the British Parliament has had a standing-room only section for years. All of the voting is computerized, so that's not an obstacle.

The only thing keeping this from happening is that Congress gets to decide. And there's no reason to expect those guys to divvy up their own picnic baskets.

Jonah Goldberg is editor of National Review Online, a Townhall.com member group.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cfr; congress; legislature; redistricting; representation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last

1 posted on 12/19/2003 7:26:08 AM PST by FairWitness
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: FairWitness
I disagree. Because we have a small legislature the government is more wieldy. Too large a legislature can become cumbersome and make it harder to observe corruption in the government. We already have trouble watching the few hundred elected crooks in power.
2 posted on 12/19/2003 7:29:04 AM PST by DeuceTraveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairWitness
I was surprised that a search did not show this article as being posted yet since Jonah's writing is generally posted here. Apologies if I missed it in my search.

I felt compelled to post this article since it coincided with a "vanity" that I posted a while ago: We are all "Disenfranchised" (Too Few Representatives)--Vanity.

3 posted on 12/19/2003 7:31:30 AM PST by FairWitness
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairWitness
Ugh, I don't know if I could stomach a LARGER congress.
4 posted on 12/19/2003 7:32:47 AM PST by ClintonBeGone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairWitness
Maybe the DUMBEST thing he's ever written....Marriage has turned his mind to mush...remember the old joke about Reagan's plan to cure poverty...50,000 teams in the NBA...
5 posted on 12/19/2003 7:32:50 AM PST by ken5050
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DeuceTraveler
Yeah, good idea! Let's find some more jobs for untalented, sticky-fingered folks that act like organized crime figures!
6 posted on 12/19/2003 7:34:03 AM PST by Wombat101 (Sanitized for YOUR protection....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FairWitness
Oh, come on, Jonah! More Congresscritters??!! You call that an answer? I think you are just blowing smoke! The idea is to get the House so big that it becomes completely unable to function, so no new laws can get passed. Then, all we have to do is let a lot of existing stupid laws sunset. Nice theory, but the current crop of Congresscritters wants to hold on to their perks and power, so will block any effort to dilute it, including increasing their number.
7 posted on 12/19/2003 7:36:05 AM PST by RebelBanker (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairWitness
Re-posting a table from my earlier post, demonstrating how we (U.S.A.) have (except for India), the highest "population per representative" ratio amongst majot countries.

Population, Number of Representatives in House (Lower Chamber) of Congress and Ratio of Population to Representatives for Major Nations of the World

Nation Population (1) Representatives (2) ("Lower" Chamber) Pop./Representative
India 1,045,845,226 545 1,918,982
United States 280,562,489 435 644,971
Indonesia 231,328,092 500 462,656
Bangladesh 133,376,684 300 444,589
Pakistan 147,663,429 342 431,764
China (PRC) 1,284,303,705 2,985 430,252
Philippines 84,525,639 220 384,207
Nigeria 129,934,911 360 360,930
Brazil 176,029,560 513 343,138
Russia 144,978,573 450 322,175
Japan 126,974,628 480 264,530
Peru 27,949,639 120 232,914
Iran 66,622,704 290 229,733
Mexico 103,400,165 500 206,800
Saudi Arabia 23,513,330 120 195,944
S. Korea 48,324,000 273 177,011
Vietnam 81,098,416 498 162,848
Egypt 70,712,345 454 155,754
Venezuela 24,287,670 165 147,198
Argentina 37,812,817 257 147,132
Kenya 31,138,735 224 139,012
Germany 83,251,851 603 138,063
Ecuador 13,183,978 100 131,840
Australia 19,357,594 150 129,051
Chile 15,328,467 120 127,737
Thailand 62,354,402 500 124,709
Ethiopia 67,673,031 550 123,042
Turkey 67,308,928 550 122,380
Guatemala 12,974,361 113 114,817
Spain 40,077,100 350 114,506
Netherlands 15,981,472 150 106,543
Canada 31,902,268 301 105,988
France 59,765,983 577 103,581
Italy 57,715,625 630 91,612
United Kingdom 59,778,002 659 90,710
Poland 38,625,478 460 83,968
Belgium 10,258,762 150 68,392
Bolivia 8,300,463 130 63,850
Czech Republic 10,264,212 200 51,321
Israel 5,938,093 120 49,484
Austria 8,150,835 183 44,540
Portugal 10,066,253 230 43,766
Switzerland 7,283,274 200 36,416
Greece 10,623,835 300 35,413
New Zealand 3,864,129 120 32,201
Denmark 5,352,815 179 29,904
Norway 4,503,440 165 27,294
Hungary 10,106,017 386 26,181
Finland 5,175,783 200 25,879
Sweden 8,875,053 349 25,430
Ireland 3,840,838 166 23,138
1) Population (nations > 20,000,000) is the 2002 estimated population from GeoHive-Global Data-Top 50, or for smaller nations (nations < 20,000,000), from GeoHive-Global Data-All. 2) The number of members (Representatives) in the "Lower House" of each national parliament is taken from the PARLINE Database of the International Organization of Parliaments of Sovereign States (IPU).
8 posted on 12/19/2003 7:36:58 AM PST by FairWitness
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Lots of reactivity here. If you feel that being one of 650,000 people represented by your representative allows your "voice to be heard", good enough.
9 posted on 12/19/2003 7:40:00 AM PST by FairWitness
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairWitness
Yeah like if 435 of them don't work, 600 would? Sounds like an awful waste of money to pay even more people to be corrupt.
10 posted on 12/19/2003 7:41:41 AM PST by thoughtomator (The Federal judiciary is a terrorist organization)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
600 more people wandering aimlessly around Capitol Hill? There's enough gridlock up there already.
11 posted on 12/19/2003 7:45:29 AM PST by cordeiro (Never bring a knife to a gunfight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: FairWitness
The size of the Congress has increased from time to time, so I see no good reason not to enlarge it somewhat --not in the thousands, as suggested, but perhaps up to, say, 500. That would surely give the "red" states more clout, and therefore be more reflective of the true political tone of the country.
12 posted on 12/19/2003 7:46:16 AM PST by Salvey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairWitness
Obviously the answer is to make the country's population much smaller. ;-)

A larger Congress is unlikely to make the country better. As long as the redistricting process makes most districts "a sure thing" for one party or the other, your voice (w/o some monetary "lubrication") is unlikely to be heard no matter the number of constituents.

13 posted on 12/19/2003 7:47:22 AM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: FairWitness
Goldberg has a point, but I'm not convinced.

The number of constituents per Rep has increased, to the point that they can't give heed to individuals. Write your congressman and chances are you get an automated reply from a PR flack (unless you are Bill Gates or General Motors). Going door to door is impossible, a congressman would never get to see even a fraction of his constituents.

OTOH, I believe in the idea of limited government, and this is definitely not it.

14 posted on 12/19/2003 7:49:57 AM PST by ZOOKER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairWitness
I can't agree more. The only way to talk to a congressperson these days is either be lucky, or have money. The congress should be like the political conventions of old. Hold sessions in a stadium. 5,000 would be good number to start. To keep costs down they all couldn't all be full time with the staffs that they have now. Perhaps only term limited chairpersons, etc.
15 posted on 12/19/2003 7:52:06 AM PST by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairWitness
From the article: All of the ideas for fixing congressional districting call for more and more undemocratic intrusions into the process, particularly by unelected federal judges. Liberals and sympathetic judges want more minority representation. Fine. Most of us want representatives to reflect the values of their communities.
16 posted on 12/19/2003 7:53:33 AM PST by FairWitness
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairWitness
But a couple thousand wouldn't be a bad way to start.


Yep, another 1565 blowhards to suck up tax dollars and divy up more pork is all that's needed..... Much more efficient and responsive I'm sure....

Heck maybe they should reduce today's number by 1/2 and limit the session days to 180 days.... let them spend some time in their districts with their constituents.....
17 posted on 12/19/2003 8:09:34 AM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: glorgau; FairWitness
One of the first posts I ever made on FR was about lack of representation. That post was pooh-poohed simular to this one.

When the BOR was submitted to Congress, the original 1st Amendment was as follows:

Article the first [Not Ratified] After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

This was one of those times when the Founders simply screwed up.

18 posted on 12/19/2003 8:11:35 AM PST by metesky (Kids, don't let this happen to you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ClintonBeGone
My immediate reaction was NO, but he makes a good case....

..

19 posted on 12/19/2003 8:12:32 AM PST by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2
A higher number of smaller districts won't bring an end to gerrymandering. They make it even easier with more normal looking districts. Even with a total population of 1,000, ten districts, and evenly split political beliefs--you can gerrymander it so that one has a clear advantage. All it takes is mostly 60/40 districts favoring one party, and a few 100% districts favoring the other party. In this instance, the party that controls redistricting would have an 8-2 advantage.
20 posted on 12/19/2003 8:17:36 AM PST by mongrel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson