We Need to Enlarge the House

[liberalpragmatist]

It's ridiculous that we're still stuck with just 435 members - a number that hasn't changed even as the US population has tripled. We have a ratio of over 600,000 people to one district and it's only going to increase.

One formula that is suggested for many legislatures is the cube root of the voting-age population. I can't find the article where I read this, but if we stuck with that, we'd have a House with 588 members. I think a 600-member House would work well, and there could be limits on staff size.

Couple this with redistricting reform and possibly some form of proportional representation or cumulative voting in 3-to-5 member districts and we'd have a much more competitive House.

[Rowdyboy]

1. Its a great idea....one that I've never seen seriously posed before...

However, since the Republicans appear to have a lock on the house and senate for the next few years, I doubt we'll see any movement in that direction. Why screw around with a system that keeps you in office?

[Obviousman]

2. It is sorely needed

Or else we should just move to a party list vote. Everyone votes for a party in the congressional elections, not a candidate. If we are to lose representatives to population ratios, we should at least give 3rd parties an edge.
William Donohue

[unblock]

3. 435 is a fairly unwieldy number already

and "more politicians" is not usually the most popular solution to our problems.

[liberalpragmatist]

10. Most Western European Countries have chambers with 650 or so

It's perfectly manageable if you make decent rules and limit staff sizes. While we're at it, why don't we cut congressional pay too? :)

[blackangrydem]

4. I thought the era of Big Government

was over?

[fujiyama]

5. Very interesting idea

and it's one that never crossed my mind.

We see a lot of discussion on changing the electoral college, but in fact, by changing the number of House districts, we automatically change the number of electoral votes.

I like the idea but as Rowdyboy said, reps would be unlikely to go along with any changes that would diminish their own power.

[BeFree]

6. It is ridiculous

I'd like to see at least twice as many members, but I'd settle for the 600.

We'd get much better representation and induce a whole lot of new blood to congress.

[tridim]

7. Senator numbers should be based on population too

Then Montana wouldn't have the same strength of representation as California and New York.

[Hippo_Tron]

8. That would defeat the point of the Senate

The Senate was created the way it was for two reasons. One as a compromise, to prevent big states from having all of the power. Two, it was created as a way to slow down legislation so that nothing too radical would happen too quickly. This is why there are only two senators from each state, why they have 6 year terms, and why they are a smaller body.

Of course, the reality is that Senators are more vulnerable for re-election than Congressmen are, which is exactly the opposite of how it was intended to be.

[liberalpragmatist]

9. Also, it's unconstitutional to amend for that reason

It's one of two items that are specifically exempt from amending. Now, I suppose one might be able to amend that provision first to say it IS possible to amend the number of senators then amend the number of senators, but it's very iffy.

[unblock]

15. it can be done with consent of each state

in other words, it would have to be ratified unanimously, or at least, the only non-ratifying states would have to wind up with a greater representation in the senate.

oh, and the other item exempt from amendment is now obsolete.

[liberalpragmatist]

16. Yeah. Provision on Slavery, right?

Something like no ban on the slave trade before a certain year in the early 1800s?

[unblock]

18. well done, 1808.

[Hippo_Tron]

21. Where does it say that, that section can't be ammended?

I don't remember that at all from government or US history classes.

[RafterMan]

11. And the third reason

was to give the state governments a place to negotiate with each other at the Federal level -- but our most direct representatives, our state legislators, have been cut out of that loop.

Alan Keyes, where are you!

[Clarkie1]

12. How was the 435 number decided? I thought population determined

the number of congressional districts each state gets, and that number would increase with increasing population.

[unblock]

13. originally, the number of representatives grew every 10 years

the constitution establishes the range: each state can have no more than 1 representative per 30,000 people, except that each state must have at least 1 representative.

within that range, congress is free to determine the number, which is then apportioned among the states based on population, as determined by the census every 10 years.

the house grew along with the population until the 1910's when an argument surfaced about the fairness of the counting and the apportionment. this was resolved by passing a law that froze the house at the number determined by the 1920 census, which turned out to be 435.

it has remained there ever since, but could be changed by an act of congress at any time.

[unblock]

14. to clarify,

population determines how the representatives are apportioned among the states, not the total number of representatives.

prior to 1920, the total number did indeed grow with the population, so that each representative had roughly the same number of constituents over time. starting with the 1920 census, the total was frozen, so each representative has an ever increasing number of constituents over time.

[Yupster]

17. What problem are we trying to solve

by increasing the size of the House?

What difference would it make besides costing more money.

[Fiona]

19. the problem

is that representatives now represent too many people to be effective.

[liberalpragmatist]

20. It also wouldn't punish states (at least as much) for not growing fast

There are too few house seats available and every redistricting, states lose seats even though they gain population. It actually becomes quite policized.

Also, some advocates believe that more representatives would make urban representation greater and provide for more minority members of Congress.