Is it time to change the size of the House of Representatives?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Ive been wondering . According to law the number of congreemen is limited isfixed by law at 435. Is this in the constitution? Now that we are so much larger shouldnt we increase the number of representatives? Isnt this a reason for a sort of dissconect between the people and their elected representatives? Two many people with too few represenatives?

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

yes it means they are increasingly less connected to their electorate.
If you increase the number of representatives the whole system may become unwieldy.
I say they push it to as big as they can before the size becomes more of a problem than the disconnection.

Unless it's in the constitution which means ammendment fun.

[Marcellus]

Yes, 435 representatives for almost 300 million people does seem awfully low. In comparison, the UK has 646 MPs to represent a population one-fifth the size (about 60 million).

[Vykke]

If my memory serves, the size of Congress is not fixed in the Constitution. It specifies that there will be two Senators per state, and that the number of Representatives each state gets is based proportionately on population, but not absolute numbers. I didn't know there was a limit; it must be from an act of Congress.

Actually, though, I'm not sure increasing the number of Congressmen is such a good idea. At least, not increasing them by a lot. First of all, I can't see this doing anything but making the legislature's web of committees and subcommittees even more complicated, and second, it would decrease the relative voice of each Congressman. I have the feeling that this would wind up homogenizing things along party lines even more than they've been already.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It would either do that, or it would force people to split up into even more politically unique camps, since there would be more like-minded people around.

Hmmm I didnt think of that. This to me would be a very good thing and possibly break the back of the two party system.

[Geoffrey S]

I'd have thought increasing the number of representatives would end up antagonizing the two major parties even more; it would lead to less distinct individual opinions, and probably even more politicians clustering around their party's views. It wouldn't create more diverse politics, but rather Democrats would be firmly against Republican proposals despite the content and vice versa.

[CBR]

A two party system is only one party away from a one party system ~;)

I dont know where the upper limit is but if UK can handle more than 600 MP's then USA should be able to manage too. But changing the overall system so more parties have a chance would give voters more options too, but I guess that would be a drastic change for some people.


CBR

[Red Harvest]

While I favor more granularity, there is going to be a maximum practical size somewhere. And there will be limits to what the buildings can handle.

I'm not sure what the full "upkeep" cost to a house member is on an annual basis (including long term health/pension type expenses.) Counting all the overhead etc. I imagine it at about half a million annually at minimum. So adding 500 members were add at least 250 million per year in cost to the operation. Of course the cost of additional campaigns and staff footed by backers would likely be that much larger and then some. This moves away from smaller government unfortunately.

On the "granularity" side of things, it would most likely weaken the GOP disproportinately, since having more districts would tend to carve off more that would vote contrary to the caucasian majority in the presently larger districts. That's a demographic issue, and it would most likely favor minority groups, since they would likely be larger pluralities, or majorities in more districts than before.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

While I favor more granularity, there is going to be a maximum practical size somewhere. And there will be limits to what the buildings can handle.

So we should have an inferior government because we dont the buildings to small?

A little checking with the constituion . Article I section 2 clause 3, states that each state will have one representative for every thirty thousand citizens.

[Xiahou]

So, what is that- about 10,000 Representatives? ~D

I think it just says that a state can't have more than 1 Rep for every 30,000 people though.

[Steppe Merc]

Hmmm I didnt think of that. This to me would be a very good thing and possibly break the back of the two party system.
Yes! That would be awesome! Finally! Yes, I agree with you. :bow:

[Red Harvest]

So we should have an inferior government because we dont the buildings to small?
Is it inferior because of its present size? Why not amend the constitution to 1 for 1 representation? Skip the elected representative bit... Oh, wait a minute, that's because there is some practical limit to the size of a government.

Again, I'm not sure what the best size is, but at some point there are so many representatives that the individual constituencies become truly meaningless again. At the maximum size, it also means that other aspects are likely to grow in size. Committees might become 10 or 20 times larger. (If you've worked on committees and teams much before, you will recognize that once a team exceeds a certain scale it becomes largely dysfunctional.) Also, most would never get ANY time to comment on legislation. Imagine ~10,000 representatives. The individual costs alone would be 20 times greater than today--easily an extra 5 billion dollars a year.



A little checking with the constituion . Article I section 2 clause 3, states that each state will have one representative for every thirty thousand citizens.
You might want to read that again, that is the maximum level of representation. ~:rolleyes: "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative"

At any rate, I wouldn't mind seeing some expansion in the number of representatives for better representation, but I also recognize it would come at substantial cost. New buildings and offices would be required both in D.C. and in the home districts.

It is ironic listening to "smaller Federal government" proponents in favor of this. It also means more individuals trying to "bring home the bacon" with pork projects. Afterall, they each need to show they did *something* for their constituency.

As for the 3rd party issue. I would like to see a moderate 3rd party myself (or separate parties for the extremists, take your pick.) However, the problem is in the way the representation system is structured, not the number. If anything, I suspect having far more representatives will do nothing to increase the chances of a 3rd party...or have a negative impact because it will make the cost hurdle of getting on far more ballots higher. It could become an increased barrier to entry.

Anyway, I wouldn't mind seeing some review of the practicalities and costs of enlarging the representation. It does mean drawing up new districts everywhere...so the gerrymandering aspects would keep the courts tied up for quite awhile.

[Red Harvest]

Yes! That would be awesome! Finally! Yes, I agree with you. :bow:

I really question if it would have that effect (increasing the chances of a 3rd party.) If it would then I would be all for it. However, most of what I recall of the multiparty systems is that they are a different form of representation. The rules differ.

With the way our system is set up, I suspect it might have the exact opposite effect. The cost of running a national party would become far more expensive. One would need a lot more traction to get some meaningful representation.

The problem a 3rd party will have is in developing an identity. You need a charismatic character to get it rolling. It will need some coat tails. If there is a move to the center, then both other parties will likely try to move the same way for a time to weaken the newcomer (or be able to form a coalition.) A 3rd party therefore needs something of a separate distinct identity to prevent poaching of its support base. Just being in the center won't do it.

[Divinus Arma]

Who poened this discussion? Gawain? Great thread! I agree completely. And the idea that it could foster greater political reform in our party system is terrific!

Unfortunately, our power-hungry leadership will continue on its path to American self-destruction and aristocracy or autocracy. :furious3:

[Divinus Arma]

Since I can't edit:


How about a Tri-cameral legistlation? Leave the house the way it is, leave the senate the way it is, but have a third lower house with a simple majority passage of laws, no commitees, and little pay. They could be organized by state, and based in their state's capital as opposed to living and operating in D.C. The votes should be tallied similar to the electoral college, which avoids the concentration of power in the largest of cities (If we did away with the Electoral college, then New York and Los Angeles would decide every Election- yay for you dems, eh?)

In this way, we would have a little more representation, close to home. It would be an extremely short, no-reelection stint. Three or four years terms max, with no reelection. That way these fools could focus on the agenda instead of their reelection warchest!


Anybody know of a country that has something like this?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

How about a Tri-cameral legistlation? Leave the house the way it is, leave the senate the way it is, but have a third lower house with a simple majority passage of laws, no commitees, and little pay. They could be organized by state, and based in their state's capital as opposed to living and operating in D.C. The votes should be tallied similar to the electoral college, which avoids the concentration of power in the largest of cities (If we did away with the Electoral college, then New York and Los Angeles would decide every Election- yay for you dems, eh?)

In this way, we would have a little more representation, close to home. It would be an extremely short, no-reelection stint. Three or four years terms max, with no reelection. That way these fools could focus on the agenda instead of their reelection warchest!

Anybody know of a country that has something like this?

Or you could just repeal the 17th ammendment and have the state legislatures mean a bit more in the national scale of power. Takes away from the power of incumbency a bit too, since state officials are easier to get voted out of office and greater changes are usually possible.

Seamus

[Papewaio]

I'd have thought increasing the number of representatives would end up antagonizing the two major parties even more; it would lead to less distinct individual opinions, and probably even more politicians clustering around their party's views. It wouldn't create more diverse politics, but rather Democrats would be firmly against Republican proposals despite the content and vice versa.

It would create more diverse politics if the people of USA are more diverse then the House.

If you made everyone a rep... would they all be Republicans or Democrats?

[Divinus Arma]

It would create more diverse politics if the people of USA are more diverse then the House.

If you made everyone a rep... would they all be Republicans or Democrats?


I used to agree with having a protected form of direct democracy. Direct democracy + representative republic.

Direct Democracy is good because it is exactly that. The problem is that the people are sometimes too stupid to rule themselves. That said, they should still have the right to their say in government. Direct democracy also used to be impossible because of logistics.

SOLUTION: Civilian/Citizen rights. The Civilian has no rights to direct democracy votes, while Citizens do. Any civilian can become a citizen after meeting certain criteria. This criteria could range from temporary to permanent. For example: An annual test would qualify you for one year. Or it could be a bi-decadal test. The test would be based on an individual's knowledge of basic government, politics, and issues. They meet the pre-req, then they get to vote.

This could be done on a national scale as the "third house". Electoral college rules, using information and communication technology to facilitate the system. There would just have to be badd-ass encryption to make it work.

Anybody know of a government that practices anything like this?

[Xiahou]

Or you could just repeal the 17th ammendment and have the state legislatures mean a bit more in the national scale of power. Takes away from the power of incumbency a bit too, since state officials are easier to get voted out of office and greater changes are usually possible.

Seamus
More power to the states? What a novel idea. ~D

[BDC]

Anybody know of a government that practices anything like this?

That's from Starship Troopers...

Sounds a great way to disenfranchise a huge swath of the population due to poor education or whatever. Just like Britain in the 19th century!