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

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 09-17-2005, 18:29

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** · 09-17-2005, 18:34

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** · 09-18-2005, 03:09

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** · 09-18-2005, 07:10

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** · 09-18-2005, 07:23

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** · 09-18-2005, 12:23

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** · 09-18-2005, 12:27

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