A "People's House" or an oligarchy?
 

Many people do not realize that our total number of Representatives in the U.S. House has been limited to 435 ever since 1913 (except for a four-year period when it was temporarily increased to 437).

In 1929, this number (435) was made permanent by an act of Congress. During the debates preceding that act, Missouri Representative Ralph Lozier stated:
"I am unalterably opposed to limiting the membership of the House to the arbitrary number of 435. Why 435? Why not 400? Why not 300? Why not 250, 450, 535, or 600? Why is this number 435 sacred? What merit is there in having a membership of 435 that we would not have if the membership were 335 or 535? There is no sanctity in the number 435 ... There is absolutely no reason, philosophy, or common sense in arbitrarily fixing the membership of the House at 435 or at any other number."

The challenge posed by Representative Lozier in 1928 is still valid: is 435 a sacrosanct number or should it be subject to debate?

Many of those who framed and ratified the Constitution & Bill of Rights expected that the population of congressional districts would never exceed 50,000. Today their average size is 700,000; by 2100 their average size will be 1.3 million. As a result, it is no longer possible for federal Representatives to faithfully and honorably represent the diverse interests of their constituents. This could be the root cause of why our government has become "broken" and, in any case, violates the principle "That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed" (from the Declaration of Independence).

Related to this matter is the fact that the very first amendment proposed in our Bill of Rights was never ratified. As proposed by the House, "Article the first" was intended to ensure that the district size never exceeded 50,000 people. While this amendment was in the Joint Committee, a subtle error was somehow introduced into it that rendered it inexecutable. It is not known when this error was eventually detected, but the amendment was ultimately ratified by all but one state. This very interesting and important story can be found at:
TownHall.com: Enlarge the federal House

Did things improve when the number was changed by 2? If not, then why would you think things would change so dramatically if the number were changed?

Will, that's not really a valid argument here. Increasing the number by 2 is not much different than not increasing it at all. If the districts were actually limited to 50,000 people each, then the House would be 5,000+ members. Increasing by 2 and increasing by 4,500 are very different things ;)

4,500 more members would be a joke. It's already too big. How about we do 100,000 people each, meaning we have 300? Yes, 300 brave warriors determining legislation. THIS IS CONGRESS!

Um, 100,000 people each would be ~3,000, not 300. You're right, though, a 5,000 member House would be insane.

I'd be ok with 500,000 each though, bringing the number of House members to 600 (though the House should have an odd number, so 601 or 599).

Nothing sacred about 435, but it works for me.

And after every census, seats in the House continue to shift.....with rust belt states losing seats (as they lose population) and sun belt states gaining seats.

There are probably better ways than dramatically increasing the size of the body in order to provide for greater accountability to,or interaction with, "the people" they represent.

I would start with something simple like a C-SPAN 4. The House could adopt and enforce rules that each member would be required to appear live for Q&A with constituents at designated times, once a week (or month). Screeners could check incoming call to verifty area code of callers to ensure that its constituents only. If the member of Congress does not show up for his/her alloted time, put a life size dummy in his place for an hour..and it wont happen twice

Technology can bring people together today in ways that the framers or the Congress of 1914 (that set the 435 number) ever envisioned.

edit...am I the only one getting a "white out" in the OP?

Absolutely...tons of options available for transparency and accountability. The trick is, we need the people who will be held accountable to create these mandates :/

In the words of James Madison:

"Sixty or seventy men [in the legislature] may be more properly trusted with a given degree of power than six or seven. But it does not follow that six or seven hundred would be proportionably a better depositary. And if we carry on the supposition to six or seven thousand, the whole reasoning ought to be reversed."

Ah Madison, how I love thee. (Well, you know, for the most part.)

What about 1mil each (as I initially intended to write)? That'd be about 301.

I'm happy so long as California has a lot more than anyone else. If you want to put 6,000 in there, go ahead. It's just going to be a bigger mess.

1 million each is unnecessary since the average right now is 700,000 anyway.

It should also be noted that I never said 6,000 was a good idea, I just pointed out that whether or not adding 2 made a difference is irrelevent to the OP's point.

Like I said in one of my earlier posts, a House with thousands of members would be insane.

Why?
 

Why?

And before you answer, consider this: no Representatative, even an honorable and well-intended one, can possibly represent the diverse interests and views of 700,000+ people. Instead, the Reprsentative becomes a compromising politician so instead of everyone being represented, nobody is (except for the special interests).

Maybe you can pick up the phone and communicate with your Representative, but the rest of us can't. In a district of 50,000 people, I am certain that we would be communicating with our Representative.

I believe we can replace 435 politicians with 6,000 citizen Representatives

I'm glad you brought up James Madison. He later reversed his position on this matter in a most conspicuous way. First, as one of his amendments to the Bill of Rights, he proposed changing the maximum population size of congressional districts to 30,000 (rather than that being the minimum). In defending his proposal, he stated the following on on August 14, 1789:
"I do not consider it necessary, on this occasion, to go into a lengthy discussion of the advantages of a less or greater representation. I agree that after going beyond a certain point, the number may become inconvenient; … but it is necessary to go to a certain number, in order to secure the great objects of representation. Numerous bodies are undoubtedly liable to some objections, but they have their advantages also; if they are more exposed to passion and fermentation, they are less subject to venality and corruption; and in a Government like this, where the House of Representatives is connected with a smaller body [the Senate], it might be good policy to guard them in a particular manner against such abuse."
Note he says that a large House "may become inconvenient". That's the sort of inconvenience that I believe would be good for the country. Anyway, he made several more such statements, but too many for a posting. Anyone interested in seeing those quotes (and their citations) should download the 70-page report (PDF) from this webpage:
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/QHA-04.htm

It is also worth noting that in Madison's Federalist 55, he predicted there would be 400 Representatives by 1840. We now have only 35 more than that number. Believe me, Madison's ultimate position was quite different than is commonly known.

You make interesting points, JEQuidam, and I welcome you to TFP and Tilted Politics.

I'm not sure where I come down on this issue, but I'm thinking about it and will post a real reply shortly. In the meantime I do want to point out that it's generally accepted convention around here to post in the standard size, font, and color.

Is there anyway you drop the enlarged font? It comes across as commanding.

A quick read...
 

Before you post your reply, please read the 15 Questions & Answers on the home page of the TTO web pamphlet (at Thirty-Thousand.org).

In the meantime, I would be happy to answer any additional questions you may have.

Peer pressure! OK, but I find this difficult to read due to poor contrast. (It's probably just me.)

The two greatest problems I see with the position of the ThirtyThousand.org cited by JEQuidam:

* at some point, a legislative body that is far greater in number than the present is likely to be far less productive (perhaps thats a good thing to some), far more argumentative and devisive, and with no guarantee (or even likelihood) that it would be more responsive to "the people".

* The larger the number of representatives, the greater the disparity between states - large v small, sunbelt v rustbelt, etc.

IMO, as I stated earlier, a better solution is a greater use of technology to connect legislators with the people.

For more on Madison (and Federalists 55-58), I would encourage folks to read the original.

And, I too, welcome JEQuidam to TFP politics!

It's interesting to me that you assume that, if the house became impossibly large, somehow "politicians" would magically become "citizen representatives". You don't think that someone representing 6,000 people can be corrupt? I wouldn't have suspected that a majority of over 400 representatives would be corrupt, but alas here we are. And wouldn't it be easier to control someone with less power? I myself could possibly buy a representative or two if they were representing 6,000 people.

I will just observe this, JEQuidam: You've been a busy boy lately.

Also, it would probably be wise, in the interest of full disclosure, to point out that you run the websites you're linking to (thirty-thousand.org and enlargethehouse.blogtownhall.com).

The proposal is worthy of discussion on its merits, for sure. I'm just a little concerned about the trollishness of the OP's methods, though.

Actually I don't think its a bad idea. It would keep things like Gerimandering to a minimum and unlike in the past, with current technology its not like we would need all 6000 present at a location in order to vote etc.

There are some negatives, perhaps the most being that the smaller the election the more disinterested people are. I'd guess fully 3/4ths of the public couldn't name their congressman as it is.

Please stop changing your color and size - if contrast is an issue, there are other forum color schemes - check the bottom left corner. Your choice to continually do it is preventing me from seeing anything you write as anything but REALLY IMPORTANT SPAM.

We all post on this forum as equals, and no one's opinion is the authority. Changing your size and color makes it appear that you think your opinion deserves to stand out and is more important than everyone else's opinion. I think you might even believe it.

If you want to discuss the idea of a bigger House, that's what this forum is for. If you want to tell us in bold and bright colors how it should be, then that's not what this forum is for.

2 ÷ 6,000 = .000333
 

First, I don't assume that any of the Representatives are really looking out for my best interests. There are decades of proof in the voting, pork projects, etc.

Second, I think term limits (or lack thereof) is a much bigger problem than the membership #'s of the House

Thanks for clearing it up, JEQuidam. Again, I think this is worthy of discussion, but given that you're using the same approach spammers use, it made my spidey-senses tingle.

I think that's very generous. I'll bet it's more like 1/8th who could.

I don't know that smaller elections would mean less turnout, though--I think an intensely local process might engage people in a way that a broader one might not.

I live in a small city of about a quarter million. That means 250k / 30k = 8 and change representatives just for my CITY. So basically, there'd be somebody from my neighborhood elected to represent me on the federal level. Pretty appealing idea, frankly.

My state's population (est) of 8.8 million would result in 293 representatives.

I can see why it couldn't have worked prior to the last say five years or so. There'd just be no way to manage a body that size. Robert's Rules just don't scale well into the thousands. But these days elected representatives can collaborate electronically. If it can be done securely and well in the corporate world (and it can!) there's no reason government couldn't use it.

I think I'm provisionally for this idea. That said, I can't say that I see it happening--it would require radical action on the part of people with vested interests in the status quo, and look how much change that system has produced in the last hundred years or so.

I think I can improve the idea by taking money out of the equation. US Representatives' salary is $165200, according to Wikipedia. So the salary budget for the HR is $71,862,000. Let's take that and divide it among the 6000 "new" reps: $11,977. About the same as, say, a part-time job. Which, let's be honest, it sort of is, especially if they're working from the couch on their laptops while watching daytime dramas.

Next, term limits. Let's say nobody can be re-elected more than twice, just to throw a number out there. So, three full 4-year terms, and keep them staggered for continuity's sake. 12 years ought to be PLENTY long enough for a citizen representative to participate in the process, especially if their salary ensures it's not a career position for them.

Thoughts?

I just changed the scheme to "BasicsDark" and now I have contast! My apologies to those of you who felt typographically disadvantaged. I am just a humble fellow citizen with some OCD tendencies!

If you think about it more, you'll realize that it will virtually eliminate gerrymandering! In a 50,000-person district, how much gerrymandering can you do (other than trying to push the house painted green into the next district)?

YES!! Read:
Q10: How do all those Representatives fit into one building?

All the available evidence points to the contrary. I will eventually provide more of that information in the web pamphlet when I have time. But "search your feelings"... think about how much more connected most people would feel by knowing who their Representative is, especially after he/she calls you in person, or knocks on your door to ask for your vote. This is a major paradigm shift.

The point I was making? If one guy who makes $80k a year can buy a representative or two, how many do you suppose Pfiser can buy? How about ExxonMobil? GM? Maybe thousands. The idea that by increasing the number of representatives drastically will make corruption less likely is not supported by any evidence whatsoever.
So you have faith in people who would be politicians instead of people who are politicians. The reason you can provide me no proof is that your ascertain is supported by belief instead of fact. Because of this, it's not reasonable to think your plan would succeed.

It'd be like me saying: let's just vote on everything. Why not have several votes a day where citizens are welcome to represent themselves in the legislative branch?

I agree. And the reason this is a problem is that most Representatives are slaves to those who can finance their multi-million dollar re-election campaigns! (It is ironic that the least corruptable Representatives may be those who are already very wealthy.)

I am strongly opposed to term limits because I want to be able to re-elect my Represenative if he/she is doing an excellent and honorable job and they bring valuable experience to the Congress. I will insist on the right to re-elect that person. But I also want to de-elect that person if necessary, and the supersized congressional districts ensure 90%+ re-election rates.

That's increasingly possible. It's the reductio ad absurdum argument against JEQuidam's thesis, but... it's not all that absurdum. I'd like to see a nationwide body politic, conducting quality debate on issues and voting from among the masses. Anybody read the Ender's Game series? Like that, but with fewer genius children gaming the system and becoming Hegemon. ;)

(Incidentally, Orson Scott Card and I would likely share an elected representative under this proposal. Although I guarantee that he and I would vote for different people.)

It's a matter of collusion. Even given your cynical view of people, it is nearly impossbile to achieve collusion among more than a few people.

This is one of the points made by James Madison when defended one of his proposed amendments to the Bill of Rights in which he proposed changing the maximum population size of congressional districts to 30,000 (rather than that being the minimum). He said: "I do not consider it necessary, on this occasion, to go into a lengthy discussion of the advantages of a less or greater representation. I agree that after going beyond a certain point, the number may become inconvenient; … but it is necessary to go to a certain number, in order to secure the great objects of representation. Numerous bodies are undoubtedly liable to some objections, but they have their advantages also; if they are more exposed to passion and fermentation, they are less subject to venality and corruption; and in a Government like this, where the House of Representatives is connected with a smaller body [the Senate], it might be good policy to guard them in a particular manner against such abuse." (August 14, 1789)

Note he says that a large House "may become inconvenient". That's the sort of inconvenience that I believe would be good for the country.

How many politicians supported the Iraq War? Well most of the senior leadership of the executive, that's maybe 30, most of the house, most of the senate, many people in military and military intelligence, numerous members of the media.... am I missing anyone? Very little collusion was necessary to easily rope most of the government under the control of a few corrupt individuals.

Odds are we would have bombed France in 2003 then.

A direct democracy does have some issues.

Well, if you think that 300,000,000 people can deliberate and vote on legislation, then you should be quite comfortable with the prospect of 6,000 doing so.

As for myself, I am dedicated to maintaining and defending the republican form of government, albeit with a much larger federal House.

Please read the 15 Questions and Answers posted on TTO's home page:
http://www.thirty-thousand.org
(No ads or pop-ups.)

Please, let's not confuse collusion with what arguably could be called group think. Speaking of which, there is a very good book (not affiliated with TTO) entitled "Wisdom of Crowds".

There's another option when it comes to the issue of having smaller numbers of constituents per representatives: negative population growth. Why not push for 1 baby per family for 2 generations instead of what would soon be ten thousand men and women in the House?

I hope that will be discussed in a different thread. (Be sure to reference China's birth control policies in that thread.)

Sorry, I was under the impression that this thread was about fixing a theoretical problem: the oligarchy in the House of Representatives.

If we're going to channel The Founders here, why don't we do it all the way: I agree that we should reduce the constituents, but I don't agree, will, that we should reduce the population. We should disenfranchise those who don't own property. The disenfranchised are the uneducated anyway, and property ownership is one of the basic foundations of the Constitution anyway. If you own your own home, whether it be a condo, house or houseboat, you can cast your ballot. That eliminates many of the elderly, the youth and the poor. It could potentially also elminate the "nerd" vote since they stereotypically live in parental basements, but that's also a sector of the population that could forge identification easily.

Make voting matter again. People generally don't vote because they don't think that their ballot makes a difference. Making the Capitol an obsolete building won't change the apathy.

I'm leaving my population issues elsewhere. This was more to try and illustrate to other people what I read in JEQuidam's theory.

JEQuidam:

If I support your system of 6,000 Representatives in the House....does that mean I get voting representation in Washington, D.C.

...or will I still be disenfranchised?

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...censeplate.jpg

DC Vote!

the House is not just about voting; it is also about debating. It's difficult enough for our 435 member House to debate the issues adequately. It would be nearly impossible in a 6,000 member House. Will had the right idea in bringing up direct democracy, because I see no reason why a 6,000 member House that is incapable of adequately debating the issues is any better than just having a direct democracy where each citizen gets a vote on the issue. And there's a reason we don't have a direct democracy.

Representing constituents is a significant part of the job, but the representatives exist as people who (theoretically) can take the time to research the issues when the average citizen cannot. This is why being a politician has become a career these days, as our world and the issues in it become increasingly complex. I don't want a House where the members just meet and vote and don't listen to each other. I want a House where the members debate with each other and learn from each other - even if those other people don't represent the same constituents - and are swayed by arguments. With 435 members, it's bad enough that debates rarely have enough time to get into the real meat of issues, and representatives just talk at each other rather than debate with each other. With 6,000 representatives - especially if they're literally "phoning in" their votes - the idea of debating issues in the House would become entirely unreasonable.

There's another thing that's being forgotten here: state governments. It's much more reasonable to fight for returning power to state governments - bodies which are necessarily closer to and more accountable to their constituents - than to drastically change the federal government to more closely represent citizens. The discussion here is going on as if the House is the part of government closest to the people, and that it is therefore unacceptable for House members to represent such large constituencies. But there are so many other governmental bodies which are closer to the people and more easily held accountable. You don't need a 6,000 member House when the state government has a more important role in the lives of its citizens.

Move to Maryland! (Just kidding.)
 

Thirty-Thousand.org is a single-issue organization, so we don't get into the D.C. question. There are others who already do anyway, and there are probably threads in this forum devoted to that topic.

Well, no, I'm not convinced they can. But I like the idea very much.

Heh, yeah, I'll side with ratbastid on that one. The idea of one representative per 50,000 citizens is a great one. I just don't think it's practical at all.

The notion that there is debate and deliberation in the House chamber is myth, at least relative to modern times. If you'll visit the House when it's "in session" it usually is about as populated as a museum at 3am.

Most of the real work gets done in committees, and that will remain so in a 6,000 member House.

I say more about this at:
Q9: How would that many Representatives get anything done?


Two comments. First, though this is outside TTO's mission, most state legislature's district are too large. There is someone in CA (who has kept in touch with me) who is leading an effort to reduce the size of California's massive state legislative districts.

Second, repeal the 17th Amendment (again this is unrelated to TTO, so that would be a better subject for a separate thread).

Oh, I agree that not much debating gets done in the House. I'm just saying there should be debating, and we should be making it more likely, not less likely, that it takes place.

Reducing the size of state legislative districts sounds like a more reasonable proposal, though I'd have to say I'm not nearly as familiar with the specifics of those when it comes to size, etc.

I go back and forth on the 17th amendment, but I definitely think it's something worthy of debate.

One interesting argument a friend of mine had in a recent debate I had with him over the 17th is that the best way to ensure states fight for and maintain their rights (because, we must recognize that states have less rights now because, for the most part, they've willingly allowed them to be taken or given away) is the make sure that states do not feel they have a significant voice in the federal government. Repealing the 17th could (and, likely, would) increase the illusion that states have significant influence in federal government, and should therefore not be too worried when federal government has power that the states do not.

(I should note, since I'm bringing this up, that I do think federal government needs to be larger than it was originally set up in the constitution, because our nation and world is increasingly interconnected, and our problems increasingly require the careful collaboration of those interconnected parts and the implementation of large scale solutions, but that is not to say that I don't also think there are plenty of things the federal government does that it does not need to do.)

I have no doubt that as the size of the House increases so will the amount of debate and, moreover, more citizens will be involved in the debate as the various Representatives have townhall meetings (in their small district) to publicly discuss critical issues and also educate their constituency. I believe that this would result in a considerable increase in civic involvement.

Well, since neither of our assertions here are based on evidence, but rather based on gut feeling, I'll just say I disagree with that.

I find your take on this matter to be somewhat more religious than reasonable. I'm curious: why do you so strongly support something for which there's no data to support?

Shining path forward!
 

Democracy itself is an extremely impractical idea. I would argue that there is no form of government more "practical" than a totalitarian state.

You don't believe that more represenatives will increase debate? Really?

You forget anarchy, the ultimate in slacker utilitarianism.

I maintain that this will neither increase nor decrease voter apathy once the newness of it all wears off. This, if anything, requires MORE participation and attention than the current system, and the vox populi is too busy trying to catch glimpses of Britney's cooter to follow politics. If they weren't Bush would have been gone months ago.

Okay, JEQuidam--having thought about it some more, I'm less and less convinced that this can ever be accomplished, given the system we're starting with. So I'm curious about what approach you're taking. Obviously you're hitting the webroots rather hard. I'm curious: how many conversations are you having parallel to this one right now on other boards?

But then what's next? Do you have a legislative proposal drafted? Are you contacting congresscritters to sponsor it? Have you brought this before any legislators at any level? If not, who do you plan to start with?

Let me rephrase for (possibly) more accuracy: I don't believe that more representatives will increase intelligent and productive debate. Certainly not with 5,500 more. The_Jazz touched on just one of many reasons.

Only trying to start the debate...
 

Religious? I don't understand the comparison.

Well, you need to be more specific about exactly what thing I have no data for. Yes, some of my assertions are based on my convictions about people and my fellow American. I do not mind holding up these convictions for ridicule, especially among my more cynical fellow citizens. However, on many points I have no shortage of data. There is a half a gig of information on the Thirty-Thousand.org website, and it is all wall cited. It would take one many weeks to read through all that info.

But at this point I am happy to get people to debate whether or not 435 is a sacrosanct number (as per Lozier's quote in my initial post).

I don't think anyone here would say 435 is sacrosanct. The question is more accurately whether or not 435 needs to be significantly changed. I haven't seen anyone imply that even if there's evidence changing it would be good, that we shouldn't.

Actually, you can call me "Jeff"

These are great questions.

Your pessimism is well warranted.

Yes. That is the crux of my strategy now. Because, if the people don't care, this will certainly never happen. It's entirely up to us. I'm only trying to start the debate. In a society that questions everything, how did 435 become the unquestionable? Why not some different number? On what basis should that number be determined?

Actually. I don't know. I have some ideas, but they are not fully developed.

I have to sign off for now. Got to catch a plane, and do other things. I will come back in a day or two to see if this debate is still going.

Faith is the devotion to an idea without evidence being necessary. You seem to have faith in this idea.
Sorry, I'll try to be as specific as possible. Can you provide evidence or data that supports the idea that changing the number of representatives will be a boon in any way to the process of representation of the people?

this is as baffling a proposal as i've seen anywhere...so the "insidious degradation of american "democracy"" can be rectified by expanding the size of the house of representatives how exactly?

and oligarchy is being used as a counter example in what sense?

i have looked around at the townhall (tm) blog space and assume that this proposal is somehow linked to a nostalgia for decentralized forms of american democratic practice, the sort of range that grew out of local necessity and a lack of centralizing or co-ordinating mechanisms and media...

but how one would get from there to an enormous house of representatives to a claim that making the house enormous would in itself do anything at all...i don't follow.

well, it's clear that it would make for a more convincing theater of representation in the context of which carl schmitt probably would appear to be correct about the interminable blah blah blah of democracy, which required the Intervention of a Decider in the Context of a State of Exception--so a pseudo-republic behind which an authoritarian state would operate--so a form of authoritarian state amongst the leading characteristics of which would be a tick for referring to itself as a republic and maintaining self-paralyzing rituals to go along with it....that is, if you were to imagine this strange idea as wedged onto the existing order.

no particular attention to procedural questions--no particular attention to implications--just a question (why 435?) and a counter (why not 300,000)---well, why not pay attention to procedural matters and move toward direct democracy--or don't pay attention and move toward an new and improved version of the american style of soft totalitarian government.

I don't think that increasing the representatives increases my "voice" better, especially since I live in an extremely dense city. The concerns that 1657 different apartments have in my cooperative apartment building vary depending on single, married, or family, but the major concerns of quality of life are met at a crossroads. How would additional people swing more influence where and when it mattered?

It gives much more representation to densely populated areas and less to areas with less population. Isn't that the other reason why there are 2 Sentators from each state to help even and balance it out?

Based on demopraphia.com Manhattan is 69,873 pop/sq mi., so NYC would generally always have a leg up on all legislation. As would LA, SF, Houston, and Seattle. The people in Utah, Nevada, or Alaska would be sorely under represented since they would barely be able to be vocal compared to other states.

The trends for all things has been to do the same or better job with less resources. I don't see how increasing the seats of congress makes it for a more balanced act.

Also, I don't want to pay more for anything. I pay what I feel is enough, and frankly will fight tooth and nail for any increased spending and expenditures. More congress means more offices in Washington DC. Most congressional people have a pie d'tierre to stay when they are in town. Taxpayers foot some of that bill.

We also foot the bill for their normal day to day vehicles.

Do they have credit ratings of 350? Do they just walk in and sign without negotiating? Are there contracts that allow this kind of gouging? I have a state job, and the "discounts" we get for our contracts have left us paying $13000 for installation of 4 lighting tracks with 8 lights. When we wanted to have the switches changed over to dimmers, it cost us another $1500. I assume this kind of shit is going on at the federal level, too, and it pisses me off that I'm paying for price gouging.

On a lighter note,
Ladies and Gentlemen of Congress, it's time to make a decision on this year's defense spending appropriations bill!

If you're a member of the house, Text "Yay" to HOUSE(46873) if you approve of the bill
-or-
you can Text "Nay" to HOUSE(46873) to vote no!

And we didn't forget you, Senators -- you can Text "Yay" to SENAT(73628) if you agree with this year's proposed budget of "Nay" if you don't!

Don't wait, Vote Now! The first 10 members of congress to vote get a free Lil' Wayne ringtone and wallpaper, sized for US Government Blackberries.

Standard text messaging rates apply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...Party_of_China

It sounds like a communist idea to me. :b

I think you could have a system where you pick certain issues and have 50,000 randomly selected people from the US work on it before it gets to the House or Senate. Things like immigration and healthcare may benefit from a large number of people working on coming up with ideas that would work.

Yes, I have total conviction that we should signficantly reduce the size of our Congressional districts. However, I respect your criticism.

Regarding "evidence", if you're really interested in considering this subject (rather than simply defending the status quo) then please read the 15 Questions & Answers on TTO's home page at
http://www.thirty-thousand.org.

Numerous arguments are provided that support my contention. Some you will accept, so let's focus specifically on those that you don't accept. There is a half a gig of well cited information on the TTO website, so there's a good chance that I can provide some level of substantiation for any point you want to challenge.

I dont see where Madison reversed his position just because he proposed setting a population limit/district that was reasonable for the times.

I'm sticking with Madison, further expounded in Federalist #58:

One observation, however, I must be permitted to add on this subject as claiming, in my judgment, a very serious attention. It is, that in all legislative assemblies the greater the number composing them may be, the fewer will be the men who will in fact direct their proceedings. In the first place, the more numerous an assembly may be, of whatever characters composed, the greater is known to be the ascendency of passion over reason. In the next place, the larger the number, the greater will be the proportion of members of limited information and of weak capacities. Now, it is precisely on characters of this description that the eloquence and address of the few are known to act with all their force. In the ancient republics, where the whole body of the people assembled in person, a single orator, or an artful statesman, was generally seen to rule with as complete a sway as if a sceptre had been placed in his single hand. On the same principle, the more multitudinous a representative assembly may be rendered, the more it will partake of the infirmities incident to collective meetings of the people. Ignorance will be the dupe of cunning, and passion the slave of sophistry and declamation. The people can never err more than in supposing that by multiplying their representatives beyond a certain limit, they strengthen the barrier against the government of a few. Experience will forever admonish them that, on the contrary, AFTER SECURING A SUFFICIENT NUMBER FOR THE PURPOSES OF SAFETY, OF LOCAL INFORMATION, AND OF DIFFUSIVE SYMPATHY WITH THE WHOLE SOCIETY, they will counteract their own views by every addition to their representatives. The countenance of the government may become more democratic, but the soul that animates it will be more oligarchic. The machine will be enlarged, but the fewer, and often the more secret, will be the springs by which its motions are directed.

I read through your page over the last few days and ,IMO, you havent made a very good case for significantly increasing the size of the House...other than an ideological justification.

What that "sufficient number" is should be a matter of debate...
 

Well, let's skip over the fact that you're disregardng many of Madison't other quotes on this subject which produce a different conclusion, and we'll focus on your point: "...AFTER SECURING A SUFFICIENT NUMBER..." (If you want to debate that point, let's start a new thread so as to not bore everyone else.)

I assume you'll then agree that the people of this country should discuss and debate what that "sufficient number" is. I realize that "435" has now become a holy number for many, and that it is sacrilegious to challenge said number. But can the rest of us debate how large our districts should be? In which case, you should argue that reducing the size of the House would be best for the Republic.

Here is my fundamental argument: the total population of our country has tripled since the size of the House was first set at 435. Our average congressional district now consists of 700,000++ people, that will grow to approximately 1,300,000 people per Representative by 2100. I believe that it is NOT possible for a Representative to faithfully represent the diverse views and interests of 700,000++ people. You believe that they can properly represent 700,000++ people. So, we disagree on that fundamental point, which is a matter of belief, and neither of us can provide a certain proof that invalidates the other's view. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to debate what that number should be.

I would be happy to debate what is a reasonable number may be....My only point is that I dont believe the number set in 1790 is reasonable for 2008.

I would agree that at point in the foreseeable future, that number needs to be expanded...but never back to 1 Rep/30,000 pop.

Yes, and the rest of your commentary evidences your bafflement.

Before you reply again, I implore you to take a few minutes to read the 15 Questions and Answers on TTO's home page at
http://www.Thirty-Thousand.org (No ads or pop-ups.)
You will probababl agree with some of those arguments, so then we can focus our discussion on the ones that trouble you.

I know willravel headed you into "religious" as a way to talk about this, but I don't think this sentiment I quoted here helps your cause. I assert that for most Americans (certainly this one), "435" isn't holy, it's just unconsidered. I'm not attached to it, it's just the number it's "always" been, and I've never thought about changing it. Changing it isn't sacrilege, it's just not something that's been on the table before. In other words, don't accuse me of being unreasonable when I am merely ignorant.

Actually, the current apportionment arrangment tends to give "more representation to densely populated areas and less to areas with less population". Understanding this point requires explaining the arcane area of apportionment mathematics which, if I did, would kill this thread. Suffice it to say that as a resident of Dunwoody, Georgia, I appreciate your concern, but can assure you that all your fellow Americans would be properly represented were the House larger.

I argue that reducing the size of our congressional districts (and increasing the number of Representatives) would ultimately reduce the net cost of the federal government; please read:
Q8: Wouldn’t it be costly to add all these Representatives?

I'm hoping, for your sake, that your comment was intended to be humorous.

If not, then I should point out that China, Cuba and other totalitarian states suffer under one-party rule. We're one step away from that with the current two-party duopoly on political power.

I can elaborate on this point if necessary, but a substantial enlargement of the federal House would allow other political parties to flourish, and thereby end the two-party duopoly, which is why the two controlling parties, and their minons, will forever oppose enlarging the House.

Just to be clear: no number was set in 1790. The Constitution only specifies that the districts may be no smaller than 30,000 inhabitants. Hence, the present day problem.

Then we agree that it should be larger than 435. I believe most Americans will eventually arrive at the same conclusion, as they come to understand this matter.

yep...at some point in the future, but for now, as I stated earlier, 435 works for me.

And I dont think most Americans will ever support a House composed of 3,000+ members as is your goal.

Do you foresee a much larger House, with a multi-party system, where one or two small parties can subvert the will of the majority by alligning together or creating coalitions around single issues? If that were to occur, is that a good thing?

Many here support a multi-party legislature. I am one of those who doesnt. I dont want small, extremists or single issue parties being in the bargaining position of deciding legislative outcomes.

You are not alone!
 

Well, dc_dux, rest assured that many who live inside the DC beltway (like you) share your view.
No, but, even so, we already have a system where "where one or two" parties subvert the will of the majority of the people.
Well, that could be its own discussion thread. But all I can say is that if you like the two-party system, they you would really love the one-party system!! Cuba or China never has to deal with "small, extremists or single issue parties being in the bargaining position of deciding legislative outcomes". It's really hard to beat totalitarianism when it comes to eliminating fractious politics.

When you play the "inside the beltway card" or the "if you like the two-party system, you will love the communist system" card....you really dont strengthen your position or validate your argument.

It's called "logic". Try it!!
 

No, I'm actually playing the "being logical" card. Perhaps you could respond in kind.

The vast majority of those living or working inside the beltway are staunch defenders the political status quo and, in particular, the two-party duopoly. You are only one such example.

Moreover, any argument you can make in defense of the two-party system can be logically extended to expound the virtues of the one-party system, especially that annoying problem with "parties being in the bargaining position of deciding legislative outcomes."

The British House of Commons has over 600 members. Is the quality of the discourse better? It's sharper, sure, but better? In what sense?

The only "discourse" I'm interested in is that between me and my Representative.
 

If we wanted to improve "the quality of the discourse" then we could replace the Congress with a literary society made up of pipe-smoking professors. (And there are many who would support such a proposal.)

The only "discourse" I'm interested in is that between me and my Representative. As long as we live in super-sized congressional districts, such discourse will be rare and unsatisfying.

I have read your Q8, and find that the flaw is you aren't citing any more than regurgitating your opinion via a spam link. Please do us the courtesy and quote your information here.

I don't disagree that there are wasteful programs and pork. But YOU believe, kindly keep in mind that YOU are Thirty-thousand.org. I don't see any memberships or people who are agreeing or writing for you, so it's YOU who believe. It's you who makes the assumptions you are professing.

And what if they AREN'T judiciously stewarding the monies? You currently have 435 who currenlty aren't what makes several hundred more, that much more responsible?

Dunno, guys, with more representatives you have more hands in the trough. The amount of pork will increase exponentially and there will be fewer constraints because there will be more people looking to deal and thus more deals available.

Real change, not rhetorical change.
 

There is over a half a gig of information on the TTO web site. It is available to those who have an open mind and a desire to learn. I cannot possibly begin to include the mass of information in a little posting. You see, some arguments won't fit on a bumper sticker, and so they require a little effort to understand.

For example, related to the question you are raising, here is 10 page article (PDF):
CONSTITUENCY SIZE AND GOVERNMENT SPENDING which was published in "Public Finance Review" 1999 (not by me). There are several more articles which can be found listed at the bottom of this page: http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/Why_435.htm

You really should spend a little more time thoughtfully considering the arguments being made in these documents as then you would appear to be open minded.

In these postings, I'm not hoping to convince the unconvincable. Instead, I'm only attempting to find people who do not regard 435 as a sacrosanct number, and those who are not wedded to being ruled by an oligarchy that is largely controlled by special interests. As for the rest of you, please continue to protest real change; I'm enjoying it immensely.

OK, loquitur, I see we got past the "discourse" thing. Regarding pork, please read the paper referenced above (if you really want to understand this). It substantiates the point (previously revealed to me through common sense) that the closer the Representatives are to the people, the less they are a country club, and the less likely they will be to build bridges to nowhere, etc.

so wait---the more i read of this, comrade, the more i am seeing your idea as essentially anti-democratic, like your objective is to paralyze the house by blowing it up, altering the notion of interaction away from coherent debate on the floor amongst representatives to interaction between repesentatives and constituents. you seem to think that this would be more "responsive" on the one hand--to whom? well, to you, of couse---and less able to actually do stuff on the other.

i would think that a more coherent approach toward the same end of making representatives more responsive would be to make them more revocable--so a more direct democratic approach---build a referendum process so that a constituency could revoke the representative--and since you seem to feel no particular need to attend to process, i will reciprocate.

personally, i think the american system is nowhere near democratic enough--the idea that the bush administration can remain in power agfter having launched a fucking war on false pretenses and that there is nothing to be done until the next single day, 4 years later, when americans are actually politically "free" rolls around...that has nothing to do with democracy.

and it seems to me that your proposal has even less to do with it---unless you have an idea of how legislation would be formulated and passed that did not involve "discourse"--which you seem to find pernicious (pipe-smoking professors? what, you have a problem with pipes?)---etc....

I agree. I believe that making the congressional districts much smaller will make our government far more democratic, as well as bring about the end to the two-party duopoly on political power.

You like keeping the congressional districts at 700,000++, and letting them grow to 1,300,000 by 2100. So we disagree on that.

It would be done in the same manner it is done now: in committees. That does not change. And instead of our Representatives spending almost every day raising money and campaigning, they will then have time to read the proposed legislation. I do not need my Representative to sit on the committee, I need him/her to vote up or down on proposed legislation based on his/her constituent's best interests.

you know, try as i might, i can't find the place in my post where i said anything remotely like this.


also: i don't understand how eliminating debate and confining most legislative work to committees increases anything democratic. explain please?

also: i don't see how you can really talk about democracy without talking about procedures--changing the number of representatives is not in itself doing anything except increasing the number of representatives. i understand the argument about smaller districts--but the proposal you advance only really seems thought out at this level. i don't understand what you take a democratic process to actually be--part of what you write sounds like you have a direct democracy idea, and part of it sounds like the opposite. this confusion follows from the above.

You are opposed to increasing the number of congressional districts; therefore, you are opposed to decreasing the size of the districts. If I misunderstand your position, then please correct me.

i'm not necessarily opposed--i just don't see increasing the number as in itself a magical action. this is why i keep asking you about procedures, about debate, about content--what you are proposing seems to me formal. if procedures were not radically changed---if the stayed constant, in other words--the effect of radically increasing the number of representatives would seem to me system failure.

you say that you support a type of representative functioning that would happen almost entirely in committee--i don't understand why that is desirable.

you seem skeptical about the role or even the need for floor debate about bills or issues--that seems questionable to me.

this because it seems that a committee-oriented process is LESS transparent and by extension LESS democratic that what already exists.

and to be clear, i am not a fan of the existing order at all--but i don't think i operate from the same political viewpoint that you do. at the moment, i'm mostly trying to piece together what your claims are in terms that make sense to me--not that i have any particular problem understanding what you say (it's not that complicated, trust me)--it's more that there seems to be kinda huge holes inside what you say that may only be apparent to someone who does not share your assumptions.

this follows for lots of folk no matter what they're arguing as a function of who they understand themselves to be addressing--what you have to say, what you do not: all fluctuates with audience.

so this is a piecing together process, with expressions of skepticism thrown in as they arise for me.

Has there been any comparison to other countries with smaller districts? Again, to use the UK as an example, the House of Commons has over 600 "ridings" represented, in a population roughly 20% of the US. Are the people in those ridings better represented than people in congressional districts? Are there studies of such things? How would you measure the quality of representation?

Well that's really the nut of the thing, isn't it? I don't see any way beyond subjective feedback from the represented, which I can't fathom would be any more objectively accurate than what we get now.

Right. And the anecdotal evidence I have seen (for whatever that's worth) is that most MPs are pretty much nonentities. Not that members of congress are giants, of course.

Please don't go all politician on me. It's difficult for me to address all the other points you raise without knowing where you stand on the population size of congressional districts.

Should they be smaller? Bigger? Don't know?

How should the ideal size be determined? By the ruling class? Or by some other standard?

Do you think it is an important factor, or irrelevant?

Do you think the citizen's would have more contact with his/her Representatives as the district became smaller.

You may regard those as rhetorical questions. I'm just trying to figure out where you stand. When people set about to oppose my position I assume that they already know their own.

JEQ, the constitution provides a MINIMUM but not maximum size for a congressional district. IIRC it's 50,000 per representative.

That is an excellent question!

"Are there studies of such things?" -- I believe the answer is no, but at a later time I should research this some more.

I believe that one problem with such an analysis is the subjective (normative) aspect of it with respect to evaluating who is "better represented". That is, it would be difficult to do this without bringing one's ideology into the evaluation. It would probably have to be based upon citizen surveys, but then, on what basis would a citizen make such a judgement if they have not lived (as a voting citizen) in a different country.

Anyway, if you want to see some related data, scroll down to the "doughnut chart" chart on this page:
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/section_III.htm
which compares the population per Rep of lower houses (there's also a link to additional data). I suppose everyone will have to draw their own conclusions.

uh...what? i assume the italics were meant to indicate some snarkiness in the use of the term.

so are you an anarchist?

to answer your question: i don't have a particular position on the re-scaling question because i can't figure out how to take a position on it in the abstract--it seems to me tied to many other things and i can't seem to get you to address them.

Apparently you are not aware that the term "politician" is popularly used as a pejorative. If you do not know why, then that is probably why you oppose the change.

No. Opposite of.

OK, to summarize: you may or may not be in favor of reducing district sizes (and increasing the number of Representatives) based on your other questions which I have failed to answer.

that's where we stand, so far as i can tell.
i really think that the central questions are procedural---i don't see any advantage to making the house so big that debate is impossible and relegating legislation to committees to the exclusion of debate does not seem a good idea.
to my mind, there are several problems left dangling here.
one of them is transparency.
in a complex legislative process, transparency seems to me fundamental--a guarantee of legitimacy no less.
i assume that for you, increased availability of representatives to, say, talk with you on the phone IS transparency-is that correct?


btw: what is the opposite of an anarchist?

Yes, but not just talking on the phone. I don't need my Representative to be in DC. I am happy to have him/her in my district, with an open door, answering questions.


Me.

I just asked my co-worker's 6 year old daughter this question. She replied "an architect".

procedure, procedure...are you then proposing a kind of virtual house, a videoconference house that would not require folk being in one place--or are you talking about something even more decentralized, which would in basic ways not be a house at all?

uh...tautology is not informative.
how would you characterise yourself politically, as the opposite of an anarchist, but in other terms?
authoritarian?
just wondering...
i'll play too, if you like, but at the moment, it's your move.

Those are certainly appropriate questions, and I have given this a lot of thought. However, I do not want to try to solution this thing out in its entire implementation. I can see several different ways to implement it, but I don't want to speculate on those now. If there were a committee to identify and evaluate the solutions, then you should be on it.

I did provide one possible arrangment on the TTO home page:
Q10: How do all those Representatives fit into one building?

...but I thought it was amusing. I actually couldn't think of an antonym for "anarchist" (architect was suggested above by a clever young lady). Perhaps you could describe me as a small r republican; i.e., I am committed to the republican form of government.

You're raising a point that is far more interesting than you may realize. No maximum district size was ever set.

The very first amendment inscribed on our Bill of Rights was never ratified to our Constitution. Very few people know anything about the history of this amendment, the fact that it contains an inexplicable mathematical error, or that all the states but one affirmed it before being it was completely forgotten by history. Here is a short article I wrote about this:
http://enlargethehouse.blogtownhall.com/

Here is the text of "Article the first" (along with the additional 11 amendments proposed in the BoR):
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/BoR_text.htm

Here is an interesting story about how 30,000 came to be the minimum size specified in the Constitution:
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages...Washington.htm

I think you would probably agree that a change in the size of the House is not likely to occur through legislation or a Constitutional amendment proposed in Congress but would require an Article V Constitutional Convention.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof...

So.....how would you word your proposed amendment?

Article the first
 

You are entirely correct!

The amendment that I favor was drafted by the first congress in 1789. Their formulation set a maximum district size of 50,000. The Senate's counterproposal was to set the district size equal to 60,000. It then went to a joint committee (in the haste of a closing Congress) at which time a mathematical defect was inexplicably inserted into the amendment; that version became the first amendment inscribed on our Bill of Rights.

To read how it was proposed by the House in 1789, read the left hand side of the table at:
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages...analysis.htm#b

If this subject interests you, a comprehensive report (PDF) is available from this page:
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/QHA-04.htm

jeq: i saw that proposal, but it didn't seem adequately detailed given the nature of the change you're proposing.

it seems to me that you have to be clear about the immediate practical implications of this and what would have to be done to deal with them (if that was required) or what advantage they pose (if there are any beyond making a representative physically closer to the constituency)...the tack that you've adopted to advance the case is interesting intially, but the more the discussion plays out the more suspicious i get about what's up with it simply because of the way you frame questions in and out of consideration for yourself rather than simply addressing them--it's not obvious that this interaction is part of the advancement of the plan, and could be a space to think it out in ways that you might not otherwise do. or not: it's of course your choice.

personally, i remain skeptical.

on the anarchist thing again: still pulling on your coat about this one...so if you're a republican in a---what----platonic sense? i wonder about this because the notion of legislation being carried out entirely by committees, particularly if they are in no particular place, reminds me a little of the "night committees" in plato's "the laws"---which is also a form of republic, but not the one that typically gets referred to. it's the other one, the authoritarian one, in which an invisible state operates in secret while the population busily goes about stratifying itself.

that's make some sense of your hostility to the political--but even so, it's a problem, because anarchists are hostile to the political, but on the right there's a really quite unhappy lineage of folk who also declare themselves hostile to the political, and these folk often also think in terms of natural social hierarchies and it's just not a good space to work from, that, if you know what i mean.

so a republican who is hostile to politics: is that correct?
care to be more precise about that please?

JEQ....thats what I was afraid of.

If it were to be ratified tomorrow, we would have a House of 6,000 members.

I think you will need to be far more flexible (maybe 1 per 500,000)to generate wide spread support (and my support)....or it aint gonna happen. But thats just my opinion

But as an aside, I can see some state legislators voting for your amendment for self-serving reasons....particularly those in (most) states with part-time legislatures and very low pay......career advancement!

Huh? Are the people in Utah, Nevada or Alaska individually more important than the people in Manhattan?

Just because you can paint them with a brush of "being from Manhattan", doesn't mean that they each aren't individually as important as each Alaskan.

With 1 rep per 50,000, each demographic sub-region of Manhattan would have it's own say. As would each 50,000 people in Alaska.

...

A benefit of a 6000 person house is that they could actually have time to read some of their bills that they pass. :) (Not all of them -- but some of them)

You could even have a system whereby you need to be sponsored by, say, 10 or 20 congresscritters to be allowed on the floor of the house, and then you'd vote withe power of everyone who sponsored you. A simple change that keeps the population of the house fixed, while increasing the size of congress. (This should be well within the power of congress itself to determine).

Smaller sized districts also generates a "pseudo-rep-by-pop" effect, better than huge districts. If you can lobby a mere 30,000 people to agree with you you can get a single vote in the house.

Those same single-issue people do have the power to decide policy issues.

On the other hand, I don't agree with JEQuidam. Such a change at this point would be disasterous, simply due to the raw magnitude of the change.

PS: It is considered good form here to quote external links "in-line", and to cite external links to a limited extent that is required by the discussion.

No that wasn't what I was trying to state. What I was trying to state was that the disparity grows larger as the states with more populations have "more" representatives to vote with.

I decided to actually look and see which states would "gain" from such an increase

EDIT: I miscalculated and used 60,000 as the disctrict size. I am recalculated it.

My local community board affects my life much more than any other government body. They directly affect my quality of life. After that is the State representation. I'm fortunate to live in an area protected by Sheldon Silver the Speaker of the NYS Assembly. (If it weren't for him we'd have new Westside Jets Stadium and congestion pricing in Manhattan.) I don't see the same effects from the Federal government.

Okay, here it is with 50,000 as suggested by TTO bringing the total representatives to 6,114.

With 50,000 as the number you have 9 states that if voting as a bloc will create a majority. It didn't change much either from the current system. Those same 9 can still vote as blocs and still dictate what the other 41 states will live with. While I don't know of the votes actually being solid unanimous votes, I will look to see just how often something like this does happen.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...usrepstto2.jpg

While I may be "better" represented, I don't think that my voice gets better heard when 9 states can dictate what the other 41 have to live with.

There is also some idea placed here that you currently aren't represented by you representative. Have you tried contacting them? Have they been too busy to meet or speak with you?

A firm schedule...
 

Yakk, I greatly appreciate all of your comments.

I have actually never discussed the transition. I believe that this will be implemented over two or three decades. For example, the 2020 apportionment would increase the size of the House to 3,000; then to 6,000 in 2030; and then achieve 1:50,000 by 2040.

OK, that's hypothetical, but I agree that the transition to a truly representative House should not be implemented too rapidly. The important thing is that this be implemented, without equivocation, according to a firm schedule which is not subject to subsequent political shenanigans.

Cynthetiq, States voting as a block??? That is a phoney argument. It's extremely unlikely that all the Representatives within any single state will ever vote as a block, let alone across a "block" of states. The representaties will be urban, rural, industrial, conservative, liberal, libertarian, green, etc., etc.,