We are all "Disenfranchised" (Too Few Representatives)--Vanity

9-26-03 | FairWitness

[Phantom Lord]

I think 435 is a fine number.

[Phantom Lord]

Gridlock is Good! That is a theory I most defintily agree with.

[FairWitness]

I think 435 is a fine number.

Tradition!

[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

[FairWitness]

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.

To an analytical scientist, "happiness is a straight line correlation". Thanks for the graph. 588 would be an improvement

[Grit]

I think 435 is a fine number. 79 is also a fine number and makes as much sense as 435. In other words - totally arbitrary. I agree that the number (not just distribution) of reps should be based on population.

[Publius]

The constitutional requirement of 1 representative for 30,000 people would work if Congress met not in one building, but on the Internet. A virtual Congress, if you will.

Congresscritters would never have to leave their districts, but could stay home listening and interacting with their 29,999 other constituents. Then they could participate in Congress via PC.

Congressional committees and subcommittees could meet in different cities to do business, rather than in DC.

One benefit to a "distributed" Congress of thousands of members would be that it would make the job of the K Street lobbyists impossible. Buying influence and passing out "campaign contributions" would be prohibitive due to the cost of servicing so many congresscritters. And the ever-present voice of the constituents next door and down the block would drown out the influence of the lobbyists.

This would also solve the problem of a terrorist taking out the Capitol building. There would be too many targets distributed all over the country.

Food for thought.

[Night Hides Not]

I recommend a 53.1% increase in the number of representatives.

That's right sports fans, that would put the number of representatives at 666!!! Finally, you'd have a bunch of folks really disturbed at what's coming out of DC!

[FairWitness]

The constitutional requirement of 1 representative for 30,000 people would work if Congress met not in one building, but on the Internet. A virtual Congress, if you will.

Remember, the Constitution does not require 1 rep/30,000 - it requires that there be at least 30,000 people per rep. I'm not advocating a 10,000 person legislature, but something greater than 435 would be good. A virtual congress (with a lot less speecifying) would be interesting to try, though I think congress-critter ego and the lust for "facetime" make it highly unlikely.

[dogbyte12]

The reps are protected by the fact that they represent so many.

The fewer people in the district, the more important you are.

I think we should personally set it to the smallest state size. Whatever that number is in the census, that should be the size of the district. It also helps larger states in a sense. If a state has 100,000 or 600,000, they still get the same pull in the house. The senate is supposed to accomplish that task of equal representation by each state.

I know Wyoming was 493,000 in the 2000 census, so use that as a baseline. Divide the national population by 493,000, and apportion accordingly. 567 or so seats would work.

[Guillermo]

I'm thinking about 1,500 is a fine number.

It seems to work well in New Hampshire.

The more people one represents, the further away they are from them.