Congress is ... too small?

[zsdersw]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/09/opinion/flynn-expand-congress/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

In this age of bitter partisanship, it is not surprising that congressional approval ratings are at an all-time low. But how did our national legislature get to the point where only 10% of Americans approve of its actions?

The answer: Congress no longer represents the will of the people, and it hasn't for a very long time. The House of Representatives has become another U.S. Senate where a rarefied few supposedly represent the needs of the many. And that's the main reason that hyper-partisanship and special interests seem to control the legislative agenda. We have all been disenfranchised.

A quick trip back to fifth grade history class reminds us that the House of Representatives was established as the lower house, intended to be "of the people," according to James Madison. It was to ensure that individual citizens had a voice in federal legislation while the Senate was meant to be more deliberative and represent the interest of the states.

But population growth has cut the ties between representatives and those they represent. A seat in the House of Representatives has gone from representing 33,000 people to more than 700,000 today. America basically has two upper houses of Congress with less and less representation of the people.

The reason is as cynical as you might imagine: Self-interest and power. It is in the interest of individual members of Congress and the two political parties to maintain this status quo.
With each member of Congress representing a very large number of people, representatives receive tremendous attention from special interests. It is relatively easy for these groups to buy the support of the 218 members it takes to pass a bill, and congressional seats have increased in value as the economy and government have grown. It's not surprising that running for Congress has become a multimillion-dollar fundraising challenge in many districts around the country. And, it is also not surprising that many members become millionaires once they leave Congress -- if they are the rare ones who weren't rich to begin with.

The real resistance to congressional reform is Congress itself. The Democratic and Republican parties enjoy a duopoly: No third party, or even a faction within the parties, can disrupt their stranglehold, especially when redistricting and gerrymandering have created solidly Democratic and Republican seats.

The result is that members and even candidates continue to reflect the more partisan positions of the party, regardless of the will of the people. Although roughly 40% of Americans describe themselves as independent, Washington continues to be driven by the right- and left-wing believers who form the base of each of the parties, resulting in acrimony and stalemate.

The solution is relatively simple. For the first 140 years of the republic, the House increased in size with the population in varying degrees, going from 65 members originally to 435. A Republican Congress and president enacted the Reapportionment Act of 1929, which arbitrarily capped the number at 435 members. Although the U.S. population has more than doubled since 1929, the individual's voice in the federal government has diminished. Now is the time to re-establish that voice with a Congress that is closer to the level of representation envisioned by the founders.

If we use the original ratio (1 member per 33,000), we would have a House with nearly 10,000 members, which seems extreme and more like direct, as opposed to representative, democracy. However, staying at 435 also seems arbitrary and extreme.
The founders envisioned population growth and proposed a maximum ratio of 1 per 50,000, which today would produce a Congress of slightly more than 6,000 members.

Let's assume they were off by 100%, and we might envision a Congress with 1 member per 100,000 people or 3,000 members. As points of comparison, a constituency in the U.K. House of Commons is roughly 90,000 people, and the Iraqi government that the U.S. helped establish is at 100,000 people per representative. Yes, that's right: today Iraq's legislature is seven times more representative than our federal government.

The idea of 3,000 or more members of Congress, constituting a Washington-based power elite, would scare people if we continue to apply the 1780s approach to governing. But our government needs to evolve to reflect the world we live in. What if members of Congress went to Washington quarterly for two week conventions? The rest of the time they could live in their districts, using widely adopted technologies to collaborate and vote online. It is ridiculous that a member must be "present" to cast a vote in Congress in 2012.

The role of a member of a much larger Congress should be part-time, making it more attractive for people of varying backgrounds to run. Most importantly, in most districts it would no longer require millions of dollars to get elected, so members would be less likely to be corrupted.

Many might argue that such a large number would lead to gridlock based on sheer numbers. Really? More unproductive than where we are today? Properly used technology can enable large numbers of people to collaborate effectively, as they do in some leading corporations. For example, Amazon.com operates a disparate group of businesses around the world with very few physical meetings in headquarters.

Most Americans are not ideologues. They want government to work efficiently, represent them well, provide some collective services and solve problems.

Congressional reform is gathering some momentum. But those in power will cling to the status quo. We need to fight for the right of representation envisioned by the founding fathers.

It's time for: "House 3000: The Congressional Reformation Act of 2012". Who's in?

Interesting proposal. What do you think?

 

[micrometers]

terrible idea.

It would be impossible to get stuff done in such a large body. If anything, those bodies should be smaller in size. We don't need another 2000 people up in Washington arguing about abortion.

 

[nonlnear]

Size is the least significant of the many structural problems that make Congress unrepresentative.

 

[micrometers]

The thing is though that if you count the number of state and local bodies, I think that the American people have an abundance of democracy. National issues IMO don't call for the maximum democracy. I'd actually prefer democracy for local issues and an oligopoly for national issues.

 

[monovillage]

The devil is always in the details. I'd also want something like this to have a sunset provision that would kill it unless it got a super majority of 60% or so approval by the citizens after 5 or 6 years.

 

[BoberFett]

The thing is though that if you count the number of state and local bodies, I think that the American people have an abundance of democracy. National issues IMO don't call for the maximum democracy. I'd actually prefer democracy for local issues and an oligopoly for national issues.

I'd agree, except that Washington simply ignores constitutional limits to their power and now legislates on anything their little hearts desire. If power is going to continue to shift towards DC, maybe we do need far more seats?

Ideally, congress would legislate on those things which can only be done at a national level and leave the rest to states, counties or cities. General welfare and commerce clauses have sadly destroyed those hopes. Under the ridiculous interpretation of commerce we have now, the manner in which you wipe your ass can be legislated by DC. Anything is fair game.

 

[PokerGuy]

As worthless as I think those in DC are, I like the idea of expanding both the house and senate in number of reps. One thing that would immediately happen is that the price of admission (the cost to actually win one of those seats) would drop dramatically, to the point where a "normal" person who is not a multimillionaire could actually run. It also means lobbyists would have a much harder time buying influence, because money wouldn't play into the election as much as it does today. Today, if you don't have a multimillion dollar organization working for you to get votes, you're going nowhere, and you need the deep pockets to pay for that. Lobbyists would be less likely to pay a lot of money to "buy" a seat with very little direct power.

If you have a much smaller ratio of rep to voter, the voter has a better chance of actually knowing their reps and being able to talk to them or voice their concerns.

I'm sure plenty of elitists will shortly enter the tread to help us commoners understand why maintaining a smaller number of powerful elite is better for us all though.

I also think the number of justices on the SCOTUS should be increased to 11 or 13, that reduces the disproportionate influence on the court from the political side. Bush was able to disproportionately impact the court (though he used it to put good people on the bench), and obummer potentially will be able to disproportionately impact the legal system with his appointment of idiots.

 

[piasabird]

I disagree.

Congress is too large as far as I am concerned. 1 per state and a maximum of 4 reps per state should be more than enough. What do over 400 people actually get paid to do? How come they dont have term limits? Maybe the governor should just appoint them. What kind of stupid Idea of giving a Representative a 2 year term and a Senator a 6 year term? Give them all a 4 year term and allow us to vote all of them out at once. The people should have the right to vote people out of office also. Just like a parlimentary vote. Just have a vote every year with a chance to vote people out of office. We should also have a chance to vote all federal judges out of office.

 

[PokerGuy]

a 2 year term and a Senator a 6 year term? Give them all a 4 year term and allow us to vote all of them out at once.

Actually, that staggered approach is an absolutely brilliant construct. You don't want an entire country or society just yanked one direction or another over knee-jerk reactions or zealotry. This way, some level of stability is built into the system, major changes can only happen over time.

 

[rudder]

I say expand and make room for more parties or enable candidates who would be otherwise unable to run due to other candidates being able to buy you out.

However, total cost of paying salaries, health benefits, mileage, perks etc, should not increase.

 

[Jaskalas]

Congress is ... too small?

That's the ENTIRE reason we have states. The federal government is supposed to be nothing more than a Union of individual states, not a state in and of itself.

Return stolen power to the local level and this country can be a functioning Democracy once more.

 

[Lithium381]

so another lets see
170,000 salary * 3000 = 510,000,000 annually?

not to mention pension / health / benefits etc
who's going to pay for this?

 

[momeNt]

so another lets see
170,000 salary * 3000 = 510,000,000 annually?

not to mention pension / health / benefits etc
who's going to pay for this?

Nobody has to pay for it, it's called the inflation tax. We don't even have to tax anybody when we just print our money. It's really sad that we do. Everybody could just pay the inflation tax, it's the best tax because you don't really know its there, and you can't evade it either.

 

[Lithium381]

poker makes good points in this thread, espcially about political influence and being bought. that and yes, the staggered terms are a big positive! I wouldn't mind having more reps. double both houses.

but like i said, it's EXPENSIVE to have these guys. 175k annually, plus bennies, then they all have their own staff, transportation allowance, and you pay them for life. . . i'd like to see congressional salaries be somehow tied to the economic state of the union. a rising tide lifts all boats

 

[nonlnear]

Nobody has to pay for it, it's called the inflation tax. We don't even have to tax anybody when we just print our money. It's really sad that we do. Everybody could just pay the inflation tax, it's the best tax because you don't really know its there, and you can't evade it either.

It can be evaded.

 

[woolfe9999]

I don't know about going to 6,000 but I like the idea in general. The reasons prevented for it are sound and I'm not seeing any great counter-arguments. There may be worse structural problems than size, but that doesn't make it a bad idea.

 

[sactoking]

poker makes good points in this thread, espcially about political influence and being bought. that and yes, the staggered terms are a big positive! I wouldn't mind having more reps. double both houses.

but like i said, it's EXPENSIVE to have these guys. 175k annually, plus bennies, then they all have their own staff, transportation allowance, and you pay them for life. . . i'd like to see congressional salaries be somehow tied to the economic state of the union. a rising tide lifts all boats

If the House did expand per the article and it implemented the other change, remote legislation, the pay and benefits could be drastically slashed as Reps would not need to be full-time legislators with two residences.

 

[nonlnear]

If the House did expand per the article and it implemented the other change, remote legislation, the pay and benefits could be drastically slashed as Reps would not need to be full-time legislators with two residences.

I'm not so sure they wouldn't have to be full time residents. The votes are what matters. The important ones, at least. It would be nice if we brought Congress into the twentieth century and allowed for votes to be registered at a remote location. However if voting is all in person, the result of a 6000 seat HR with reduced pay is not all that unappealing either: A Congressional ghetto.

 

[bfdd]

We need to repeal the 17th and expand the House. I could back both of those things.

 

[Fern]

Interesting article.

Some very good points made about increasing the number of Reps.

If we had 3,000 or 6,000 I wonder if that would open the door to third parties who might gain through coalitions necessary to reach a majority.

I can't help but think a group that large would break down into many sub groups who more closely share each other's positions and policy. We might end up with something more similar to a parliamentary system than our current one..

I also wonder about the impact on lobbying. If you're a powerful lobbyist, just how many people can you effectively influence? Will the lobbying industry explode? Or will it become less effective through dilution?

I certainly disagree with those who say we need fewer people. Limiting the number concentrates the power and influence. I prefer it be diluted.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

Interesting article indeed. Coupled with term limits, abolition of retirement benefits, repealing the 17th Amendment, and placement of assets into a blind trust, I'd support it. Though I even better like the idea of devolving most government back to the states.

 

[sactoking]

Of course as a counterpoint I offer this:

The article is reliant upon the premise that "representation" is measured is the ratio of constituents to representatives. As they mention, the current 1 rep to 700,000 constituents is less representative than the original 1 rep to 30,000 constituents. This means that any individual is that much less likely to be heard.

However the counter is that by increasing the number of representatives you also dilute the effectiveness of representation. If every 100,000 constituents gets a rep but the number of reps increases from 435 to 3000 then the effectiveness of each rep is reduced by approximately 700%.

In other words the changes proposed would make it easier for an individual to command the attention of a rep but more difficult for a rep to do anything so the individual is not effectively represented any better.

 

[Matthiasa]

so another lets see
170,000 salary * 3000 = 510,000,000 annually?

not to mention pension / health / benefits etc
who's going to pay for this?

You could take it from say the military and they wouldn't even notice such a small cut.

 

[FoBoT]

there was a thread about this a few weeks ago

i support more representatives in the House. it should be increased after every census

The framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights intended that the total population of Congressional districts never exceed 50 to 60 thousand. Currently, the average population size of the districts is nearly 700,000 and, consequently, the principle of proportionally equitable representation has been abandoned.
The historical trend relative to our federal Representation is illustrated in the charts below. The vertical bar chart illustrates that the total number of congressional districts was increased every ten years from 1790 to 1910 (with a single exception). These increases were a direct result of the growth in total population as was intended by the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

you think the end of the expansion in 1910 was a coincidence? i don't

http://www.thirty-thousand.org/

 

[Anarchist420]

I don't think it makes any difference if the number of U.S. House reps is increased. Keep in mind that legislation can pass with less than 25% consent of the governed in a representative system. That won't change by increasing the number of house representatives. Much less painful is to require unanimous consent of the U.S. House and States via their legislatures for proposals to become law. Painless is to abolish government.