Build a Bigger House - Increasing the size of the House of Representatives

[groovedaddy]

WITH the Senate preparing to debate filibuster reform, now is a good time to consider a similarly daunting challenge to democratic representation in the House: its size. It’s been far too long since the House expanded to keep up with population growth and, as a result, it has lost touch with the public and been overtaken by special interests.

Indeed, the lower chamber of Congress has had the same number of members for so long that many Americans assume that its 435 seats are constitutionally mandated.

But that’s wrong: while the founders wanted to limit the size of the Senate, they intended the House to expand based on population growth. Instead of setting an absolute number, the Constitution merely limits the ratio of members to population. “The number of representatives shall not exceed one for every 30,000,” the founders wrote. They were concerned, in other words, about having too many representatives, not too few.

When the House met in 1787 it had 65 members, one for every 60,000 inhabitants (including slaves as three-fifths of a person). For well over a century, after each census Congress would pass a law increasing the size of the House.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/opinion/24conley.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212

[tnlurker]

1. I have been saying this for years

From the article:

The result is that Americans today are numerically the worst-represented group of citizens in the country’s history. The average House member speaks for about 700,000 Americans. In contrast, in 1913 he represented roughly 200,000, a ratio that today would mean a House with 1,500 members — or 5,000 if we match the ratio the founders awarded themselves.

[DCKit]

2. Geez, we can't afford that many hands in the cookie jar. nt

[LexLuthor1]

3. Or get rid of the Senate.

It's undemocratic and broken.

[Petrushka]

4. Oh, my! Just imagine the scent of all those cookies baking in all of those office closets!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=260766


:9

[SheilaT]

5. On one hand I do think this is a good idea,

on the other I think about how much it would cost and I don't think we can afford it.

[elleng]

9. Understand that financiallyexpensive, but maybe we can't afford NOT to do it,

and actually be represented.

[catnhatnh]

6. Excellent Post

A short and worthwhile read....

[unblock]

7. of course, this only magnifies the problem of gerrymandering....

our federal/electoral system is broken in many ways. under-representation purely as a result of the number of seats in congress is very low on the list. under-representation due to a deeply corrupt campaign finance system, now that's another story.

[yurbud]

8. when does the new session start? I thought they had to do filibuster reform day one.

[elleng]

10. Started Jan. 5; did a parliamentary 'trick, haven't recessed, so still OK.

Allegedly working on the issue. ? ? ?

[yurbud]

12. weird.

[jeff47]

11. The first "day" happens whenever the Senate says it happens.

They've suspended business, so the clock on when the first day ends is not running.

It also means they can't get anything else done at the moment.

[FBaggins]

13. The problem with this is that it can't get big enough to make a difference.

Even doubling the size of the House wouldn't substantially impact most of the issues that the author raises (representing 350,000 people doesn't exactly make the district cozy, KWIM?).

And given the republican dominance in the states right now... the gerrymandering would kills us.