House Members Propose Longer Office Terms

[Khephra]

By JIM ABRAMS
Associated Press Writer

August 21, 2003, 8:52 AM EDT


WASHINGTON -- Two House lawmakers, frustrated by a system in which their colleagues go directly from election victories to raising cash for a new campaign, are proposing that terms of office in the House be doubled to four years.

Such a change would require a constitutional amendment, which Reps. Charles Stenholm, D-Texas, and Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., acknowledge would be difficult. Two-year terms were intrinsic to the Founding Fathers' concept of a House responsive to the will of the people.

James Madison and the other writers of the Constitution "would be appalled if they knew we never shut down our campaigns," Bartlett said.

more.......

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-house-terms,0,6923053.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

[Caution]

1. I tend to agree

But I think that in order to make this workable term-limits should also be imposed.

[patdem]

2. Screw that....now that the repukes are in charge they want to change

ALL the rules....NO....make them beg to be re hired after what they have done to America! :bounce:

[rook1]

16. Did I read the article wrong?

...or is one of the people pushing this a democrat?

Just asking....

[NewJerseyDem]

24. Stenholm is a Dem

Then again calling him a Democrat is a bit of a stretch but at least he isn't Ralph Hall. I don't think that this has anything to do with the republicans trying to hold onto power. It is a reasonable concern considering congressmen have about 3 months between their election to the time they are actively campaigning for reelection. It does take away time from getting things done.

[neverforget]

3. I always thought they should have 4 year terms while half the House

should be up for election every 2 years. just a thought.......

[rabid_nerd]

4. Fark that... Public Funding should be the answer...

Right?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

5. Yes.

And free TV ads.

[pansypoo53219]

6. definately

free TV.
But 4 years seems fair. having to whore every 2 years is awfully alot. Just so they cover it more.

[happyslug]

7. Why not another solution???

Congressmen have said they have had to much work for over 20 years simply because they represent to many people. The way to have smaller district is to increase the numbers of members in the house. The Russian republic have over 2000 representatives why must the US House be limited to 435? It has been that number since WWI, our population has tripped since than, yet we have the same number of reps.

The advantages of increasing the number of reps is first the districts would be smaller and therefore easier to campaign independent of TV. Grass roots movements could take over various seats. You can campaign door to door instead of by TV Commercial. Yes the cost of having that many reps will increase, but you will have more reps representing their districts NOT the people who paid for their campaign fund.

The main advantage of increasing the number of reps is that it does NOT require a constitutional amendment. The number of reps is set by statute which congress can by simple majorities in both the House and the Senate and the signature of the President. Simple, easy can be done quickly and is a better solution than increasing the term to four years. In my opinion the change to four years will only permit MORE time to raise funds to campaign with instead of work on passing laws and overseeing the Executive Branch. A change to Four year terms preserves the power of the people in control of Congress today without solving the problem, and the problem is the rep’s districts are to large to run any type of Campaign other than by TV, and TV is expensive.

[Caution]

8. I retract my previous position and endorse this one

Much better idea. See look at that people...it's ok to change your mind when someone convinces you otherwise. So cut Kucinich some slack on his abortion stance and kerry some slack on his war vote.

[tomp]

12. pardon me, has kerry admitted his war vote was wrong?

haven't heard about that. i MIGHT forgive him when he does, but certainly not before that.

[sham]

9. excellent idea

This sounds like the smartest solution, but I don't think the Pugs will ever do it because they know that more districts=more Dems/Greens/Indies. Densely populated urban areas tend to be more liberal-leaning, and increasing the number of Reps from those areas means more liberals in Congress. The Pugs will argue that this is not fair to rural Americans. but the fact of the matter is that most Americans now live in urban areas. According to the US Census, in 1920, 51.2% of the population lived in urban areas, while 48.8% lived in rural areas. In 1990 it was 75.2% urban to 24.8% rural. (Couldn't find the data for 2000, but I'm sure it's grown even more.) With such a massive shift in the way Americans live, I think it would be wise to re-evaluate our number of Reps.

[demnan]

11. HappySlug that's a very bright idea

Thanks, the most perfect solution.

[tomp]

14. sounds llike an excellent idea.

i can't see any drawbacks, except having to redesign the seating plan.

[Code_Name_D]

38. Here here, very good sigjestion.

i can't see any drawbacks, except having to redesign the seating plan.

But I can see one big advantage. It would create more districts, making it harder for them to gerymander the libiral cities into the conservative contry side.

[ProfessorGAC]

18. Good Suggestion

I think you're right. Time for the districts to get smaller and more of them. Then the reps would have more of a local connection to their constituency and would reduce the need to raise money since it would be easier for the citizens to KNOW their rep.

It may not be the whole answer, but it's a good start. Anything intended to put the gov't back in the hands of the citizens is a good thing.
The Professor

[NewJerseyDem]

25. I don't know

First of all they couldn't fit anymore congressmen in the House of Representatives. Where would they all sit? Where will their offices be? There would have to be a lot of construction done if the number of congressmen were increased.

Also, they would still have television commercials. The districts will still be large. The candidates wouldn't be able to go door to door across their still sizeable districts. They would still have to campaign a lot. The problem is that it takes about 2 years to run a campaign even it isn't just money. Congressman have to worry every day about the political consequences of their vote while senators get to spend several years where they can be independent and can't be threatened by party leaders as easily.

If the size of the House was increased party leaders would become even more powerful. Each congressmen would become less significant and would matter less and all that would matter would be a few leaders. There would be no Dennis Kucinich, no Barbara Lee, no Sheila Jackson-Lee, no Pete DeFazio, no Bernie Sanders. They would have less time to go to the floor and make speeches and less prominence. There would be many more representatives and only a select few would get any attention.

I just think that expanding the size of the House of Representatives wouldn't solve much of the problem.

[kainah]

28. Great to see someone else promoting this idea

I've been saying this since the 2000 election. I think it's the only possible solution. The House should be doubled, at least. And then cut salaries in 1/2.

I also think we should then create regional congresses and keep them at home to do their work -- using the existing & mostly empty most of the time various statehouse facilities. That would give a better regional expression to issues. I'm not entirely sure how you bring the regional congresses together to finalize the House version of legislation but it probably requires some "super-House" structure.

But, without question, we should expand the House. I wonder if Charlie Stenholm -- who is a conservative Dem but a very thoughtful guy who is very concerned about the state of our political system -- would embrace the idea of expanding the House. Imagine if we had 435 brand new districts!!! The end of the repug domination..........

[NewJerseyDem]

31. Salaries should not be cut!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't know why anyone would support that. Then there would only be the wealthly in the Congress. A lot of the current congressmen don't need the high salaries, but there are some that do and cutting the salaries would only prevent anyone who isn't rich from serving in congress. I don't want to have a government that is dominated by rich people any more than it currently is. If you cut salaries many of the best members of Congress couldn't be in there including people like Russ Feingold who is already in debt even with his 6 figure salary.

[TahitiNut]

30. Which would increase the number of ELECTORAL votes ...

... and decrease the small-pop state advantage. Let's face it, the small-pop state representational advantage, once obtained only in the Senate, is now also seen in the House. I'd be in favor of an increase in the House to 1,776 representatives.

That'd require building a new House chamber. I'd suggest building it right on top of the toxic nuclear waste that pervades the Hanford site in Eastern Washington. After all, ordinary human beings can't ever live there -- and the state already has the eponym. We'd have two "Washington D.C.'s" -- one of which would mean "Deadly Contamination."

[NewJerseyDem]

32. How does it affect small states?

Only a few states wouldn't have congressmen if they didn't have to hav at least one. I think it might only be Wyoming actually. California has 53 times the representation as Wyoming and I think that it has about 53 times the population. This wouldn't change that.

[TahitiNut]

34. This has been discussed on DU several times.

In short, right now the 495,304 people in Wyoming have three electoral votes, due to the fact that they have two Senators and one Representative. That's one electoral vote for 165,101 people.

The 33,930,798 people in California have 54 electoral votes. That's one electoral vote for 616,924 people.

That means a voter in Wyoming has 3.74 times the Presidential voting power of a voter in California.

In actuality, that disproportionate voting power goes far beyond just Presidential elections due to the manner in which Congress proposes and passes legislation.

Today, the average number of people represented by one member of the House is 646,947. In 1790, it was 37,068. In 1910, when the House grew to 435 seats, it was 212,020.

Here's a table of Electoral Voting Power in relation to the 'average':
01 3.19 Wyoming
02 2.59 Vermont
03 2.51 Alaska
04 2.45 North Dakota
05 2.08 South Dakota
06 2.01 Delaware
07 2.00 Rhode Island
08 1.74 Montana
09 1.73 Hawaii
10 1.70 New Hampshire
11 1.65 Maine
12 1.62 Idaho
13 1.53 Nebraska
14 1.45 West Virginia
15 1.44 New Mexico
16 1.31 Nevada
17 1.26 Iowa
18 1.18 Arkansas
19 1.18 Utah
20 1.17 Kansas
21 1.11 Mississippi
22 1.10 Colorado
23 1.08 Connecticut
24 1.07 Oregon
25 1.07 Minnesota
26 1.06 Oklahoma
27 1.06 Alabama
28 1.06 Louisiana
29 1.05 South Carolina
30 1.04 Kentucky
31 1.03 Missouri
32 1.02 Arizona
33 1.02 Tennessee
34 0.99 Massachusetts
35 0.99 Maryland
36 0.98 Wisconsin
37 0.98 Washington
38 0.98 North Carolina
39 0.96 Virginia
40 0.96 Georgia
41 0.95 Indiana
42 0.94 New Jersey
43 0.92 Ohio
44 0.90 Michigan
45 0.90 Pennsylvania
46 0.89 Illinois
47 0.89 Florida
48 0.86 New York
49 0.86 Texas
50 0.85 California

[TahitiNut]

36. (Part 2) Now, if there were 1,776 members of the House ...

Then there'd be 1,876 Electoral votes, apportioned as follows:
5 1.51 Wyoming
6 1.48 Vermont
6 1.43 Alaska
6 1.40 North Dakota
7 1.39 South Dakota
7 1.34 Delaware
8 1.33 Montana
9 1.29 Rhode Island
10 1.23 Hawaii
10 1.21 New Hampshire
10 1.17 Maine
10 1.16 Idaho
14 1.15 New Mexico
13 1.14 Nebraska
15 1.12 Nevada
13 1.08 West Virginia
16 1.07 Utah
19 1.06 Arkansas
19 1.06 Kansas
24 1.06 Connecticut
20 1.05 Mississippi
24 1.05 Oregon
24 1.04 Oklahoma
28 1.04 Kentucky
20 1.02 Iowa
29 1.01 Colorado
30 1.01 Alabama
27 1.01 South Carolina
36 1.01 Wisconsin
33 1.01 Minnesota
30 1.00 Louisiana
38 1.00 Tennessee
47 0.99 Virginia
34 0.99 Arizona
42 0.99 Massachusetts
39 0.99 Washington
37 0.99 Missouri
35 0.99 Maryland
54 0.99 Georgia
53 0.99 North Carolina
40 0.99 Indiana
65 0.98 Michigan
55 0.98 New Jersey
74 0.98 Ohio
80 0.98 Pennsylvania
80 0.96 Illinois
103 0.96 Florida
122 0.96 New York
134 0.96 Texas
216 0.95 California

(The second number is the population ratio.) Thus, with 1,776 mbers of the House and the resulting 1,876 electoral votes, Wyoming's individual voter power would be reduced to about 1.6 times that of California. The legislative power of the Senate, however, would probably be enhanced.

[mndemocrat_29]

35. Having 1776 representatives would make sense

I've never thought of this idea of increasing the amount of representatives, but it does make some sense. I don't thinkt that representatives should necessarily receive pay cuts, so this would be an expensive venture, but it would cut down on the enormous districts that seem to be out there (i. e. MN-7 or MT-AL). If it were 1776, even Wyoming would have more than one representative.

Though I think we should do it because it's the right thing to do, this would be a tough sell for Repukes, because Democrats would benefit this by a great deal. Even states like Nebraska or Idaho may sneak a Democrat into Congress if the number were as large as 1776.

[AlabamaYankee]

10. There are a number of alternatives

Several of which have been mentioned here
1. Public funding and a time limit on campaigning. British political campaigns have historically been much briefer. Granted their system is much diferent and requires a quick turnaround, but it can be done.

2. Increase the size of the House. Smaller districts means less money is needed to get the message across. This ties in with funding limits.

Proportional representation. The Constitution does not mandate One Person-One District representation.

All of these, of course, are anathema to the entrenched political leadership of both parties, particularly the Republicans since they're currently in power.

The Founding Fathers were right in requiring the House to face the voters every two years. If we had a healthy democracy it would greatly improve the quality of political discourse and of our representatives.

[denverbill]

13. Here's a better idea assholes.

Incumbents already have a use advantage just by virtue of their names and franking privilege. Since you hate having to raise money all the time, why not ban incumbents from raising money?

Problem solved.

[pansypoo53219]

23. could almost work

but just see a flood of $ from the parties.

[TahitiNut]

33. That's an idea I've been voicing for three years.

We need a Federal Law that prohibits any elected or appointed Federal official from engaging in any kind of "fund raising" whatsoever while in the employ of "We the People".

None. Nada. Nichts. Zilch. Zippo.

That'd take care of two 'problems' -- campaign fund raising and (to some extent) term limits. Campaign funding would be "blind" for incumbants, conducted in trust, highly regulated, by a campaign trust officer. The politician would have access to only that information that was released to the general public and no more, and no sooner.

[Democat]

15. No constitutional amendments while Bush is in charge

As long as the right wingers are in charge no Democrat should allow changes to the constitution.

[rook1]

17. Do you know how hard it is?

....to amend the Constitution? it ain't gonna happen so forget about it.

[kainah]

29. Do you know how hard it is to change the world?

I'm sure not going to give up on that so why should I give up on amending the Constitution. Although I do agree with Democat that changing the Constitution under bushco is not a good idea. However, the process is so long and hard that I think we can start now with confidence bushco will be out by the time it passes.

[The Sushi Bandit]

19. How bout 3 years??

[rook1]

20. Good one

Sushi Bandit....I like that name.

Three years? The issue is how to amend the constitution. A very difficult proposition...not impossible, but difficult.

[JackSwift]

21. And their election cycle

would be four years if they did this.

[NewJerseyDem]

26. Not really

The senate has its election cycle last mostly two years. Even though they obviously do some fundraising and consider the election most of the campaigning is done the two years before the election. The House would have the same thing.

[aquart]

22. No.

They don't need to be less responsive to the voters.

They need to be less responsive to donors.

In which case they need to alter campaign rules so they don't need so much money.

Sorry, boys. To me, this is just more redistricting.

[The Zanti Regent]

27. A larger House is the answer

I do NOT want 4 year terms for the House. 2 is fine the way it is.

However, the better answer would be to expand the House from 435 to 651.

The way Technology is now, a 651-member body would not be unruly, it would be MORE democratic and closer to the masses!

[Art_from_Ark]

37. The Founding Fathers chose two years

precisely because they didn't want the members of the House to become too comfortable. The idea was that they would be MORE representative if they had an election looming every two years.

[Lexingtonian]

39. No, screw them

The job of the House is to split up the money. Its role otherwise is to represent the neurotic/hysterical aspect of the electorate and to be the place where political initiatives are nurtured and raised for the Senate to cull. The point of House Reps is that they are supposed to reflect their constituency and its interests closely- whims, stupidity, inspiredness, biases, crookedness and all. If not so much as individuals, as a group. (The job of being or pretending to be wise is the Senate's.) So there has to be a way for their constituents to keep them on a short leish, and that is relatively frequent elections.

James Madison would see the near-perpetual campaigning of House Reps as what they should be doing, as the intent of the rules rather than the exception.

There are practical problems with expanding the size of the House to more than 500 or 600: party leaders would probably have real trouble with establishing or keeping up a personal level of contact or understanding with significant numbers of 'their' individual Reps once the number exceeds the mid-200s.

So, I think It Ain't Gonna Happen.