JEQuidam

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

__________________
It was supposed to be our House.

Willravel

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?

SecretMethod70

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

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Willravel

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!

SecretMethod70

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).

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

dc_dux

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?

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

SecretMethod70

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 :/

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

dc_dux

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."

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

SecretMethod70

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

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Willravel

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.

SecretMethod70

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.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

JEQuidam

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.

__________________
It was supposed to be our House.

ratbastid

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.

Jinn

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

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

JEQuidam

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.)

__________________
It was supposed to be our House.

dc_dux

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!

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Willravel

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.

ratbastid

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.

Ustwo

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.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

JEQuidam

__________________
It was supposed to be our House.

Jinn

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.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

JEQuidam

__________________
It was supposed to be our House.

Derwood

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

ratbastid

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?

JEQuidam

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.

__________________
It was supposed to be our House.

Willravel

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?

JEQuidam

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.

__________________
It was supposed to be our House.

ratbastid

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.)

JEQuidam

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.

__________________
It was supposed to be our House.

Willravel

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.

Ustwo

Odds are we would have bombed France in 2003 then.

A direct democracy does have some issues.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

JEQuidam

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".

__________________
It was supposed to be our House.

Willravel

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?

JEQuidam

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

__________________
It was supposed to be our House.

Willravel

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

The_Jazz

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.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Willravel

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

dc_dux

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?



DC Vote!

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

SecretMethod70

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.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

JEQuidam

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.

__________________
It was supposed to be our House.