Expand the Size of the House of Representatives

[tuckerkao]

The total U.S. population barely reached 326 millions according the latest projection. However, the Electoral College still remaining 538 total, 100 Senators, 435 Representatives and 3 for District of Columbia. It was expanded from 535 - 538 adding in DC before the election of 1960. The U.S. population was only 180 millions during the Kennedy-Nixon race.

Wouldn't it be nicer if the total electoral votes raised to 767, so the citizens from each state could be a bit more evenly represented?

Washington D.C. will have its first voting seat, 1 Senator + 3 electoral votes -> 4 total.

The larger the house size, the stronger the house speaker's leadership will be.

Democrats and Republicans will likely to reach the bipartisan deals easier.

 

[Bamspeedy]

So we can have more 'do nothing' people on the payroll?

Democrats and Republicans will likely to reach the bipartisan deals easier.

Instead of needing 270 votes they would need 384 to pass something. I see you're thinking it will be easier to find '1 vote', but it's less likely 1 vote will be the deciding factor.

 

[Birdjaguar]

There are two questions:

1. What is the best ratio of representatives to population?
2. What is the optimum size of the House of Representatives for legislative efficiency?

The answers may not sync. Is one question more important than the other?

 

[Azem.Ocram]

Why not weight the vote of each Representative or Senator according to the population of each constituency? That way, a California representative will have 3 times the voting power as one from Yellowstone Territory.

 

[Perfection]

The total U.S. population barely reached 326 millions according the latest projection. However, the Electoral College still remaining 538 total, 100 Senators, 435 Representatives and 3 for District of Columbia. It was expanded from 535 - 538 adding in DC before the election of 1960. The U.S. population was only 180 millions during the Kennedy-Nixon race.

Wouldn't it be nicer if the total electoral votes raised to 767, so the citizens from each state could be a bit more evenly represented?

Washington D.C. will have its first voting seat, 1 Senator + 3 electoral votes -> 4 total.

The larger the house size, the stronger the house speaker's leadership will be.

Democrats and Republicans will likely to reach the bipartisan deals easier.

Remember that the 23rd amendment states that DC will never get more electoral votes than any state, even though DC significantly more populated.

 

[metatron]

The larger the house size, the stronger the house speaker's leadership will be.

Democrats and Republicans will likely to reach the bipartisan deals easier.

The former is quite dubious.
The latter is completely implausible, since as a matter of, well, math, a greater number of smaller districts is going to be (equally or) more partisan.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I'd prefer that for the house, individuals sign up to be included in a state pool and then the house is selected at random from the individual state pools. At the end of two years you could choose to stay for another two years or go back to the pool. After four years you would have to leave and skip at least one term before you would be eligible again.

Minimum standards would have to be met to be in the pool. Things like a HS diploma, some kind of work history, age requirement, and you must attend/pass classes about how the government works. Pay would be very good, but no retirement.

The Senate could be elected as they are now.

 

[metatron]

Minimum standards would have to be met to be in the pool. Things like a HS diploma, some kind of work history, age requirement, and you must attend/pass classes about how the government works. Pay would be very good, but no retirement.

So marginalised minorities with poopy schools are out (never mind naturalised first generation immigrants), religious minorities who operate by way of either GED or nothing are out, the self-employed are out (like that's not a lot) and the rest has to pass some highly dubious class, presumably graded by either Andrea Dworkin or Mike Huckabee.

This strikes me as highly suboptimal system spawned by a mind-set that can only be described as capital-D-Democratic.

(I hope i don't have to litigate one specific datum here. It's absurd. So pulse is irrelevant.)

 

[tuckerkao]

Remember that the 23rd amendment states that DC will never get more electoral votes than any state, even though DC significantly more populated.

DC only has 3 electoral votes with 538 total, but the ratio will give DC 4 electoral votes with 767 total because almost every state will get more according to that math.

 

[Birdjaguar]

So marginalised minorities with poopy schools are out (never mind naturalised first generation immigrants), religious minorities who operate by way of either GED or nothing are out, the self-employed are out (like that's not a lot) and the rest has to pass some highly dubious class, presumably graded by either Andrea Dworkin or Mike Huckabee.

This strikes me as highly suboptimal system spawned by a mind-set that can only be described as capital-D-Democratic.

(I hope i don't have to litigate one specific datum here. It's absurd. So pulse is irrelevant.)

So are all of those adequately represented now? My idea of a course would be all about how to make laws and and how the House works. GED would be fine. The goal is a group of reps who are willing to learn about how government works and who are not full time politicians who do not expect to make a career of it. I think their motivation to do a good job would be of a higher quality than those currently elected.There would be no need to worry about re election or raising money. If the terms were staggered, then there would always be a group of "experienced" reps serving, but "luck of the draw" would create a changing House over time. Party dominance would mean less. Our current system as it functions is pretty terrible.

 

[Commodore]

Remember that the 23rd amendment states that DC will never get more electoral votes than any state, even though DC significantly more populated.

That would be because they aren't a state.

Plus, Washington DC only has a larger population that two states: Vermont and Wyoming. And it only has around 20,000 more people than Vermont and around 60,000 people more than Wyoming. That's not what I would describe as "significiantly more populated".

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I'd prefer that for the house, individuals sign up to be included in a state pool and then the house is selected at random from the individual state pools. At the end of two years you could choose to stay for another two years or go back to the pool. After four years you would have to leave and skip at least one term before you would be eligible again.

Minimum standards would have to be met to be in the pool. Things like a HS diploma, some kind of work history, age requirement, and you must attend/pass classes about how the government works. Pay would be very good, but no retirement.

The Senate could be elected as they are now.

For this hypothetical lottery, are all eligible citizens included whether they sign up or not? Would people be able to refuse or opt out?

 

[Perfection]

That would be because they aren't a state.

Plus, Washington DC only has a larger population that two states: Vermont and Wyoming. And it only has around 20,000 more people than Vermont and around 60,000 people more than Wyoming. That's not what I would describe as "significiantly more populated".

hey look at that, I thought the difference was more.

 

[schlaufuchs]

hey look at that, I thought the difference was more.

Give Arlington county back to DC and it would be significantly more populated.

 

[Oerdin]

More reps means more and better representation as well as making it harder to gerrymander. It also fills the original intent of the house of reps where more populous states are supposed to get more votes. Lastly, regular people can actually campaign and win in districts with just 50k people in them but not so much when those districts might be a million or more people.

 

[metalhead]

The former is quite dubious.
The latter is completely implausible, since as a matter of, well, math, a greater number of smaller districts is going to be (equally or) more partisan.

But district representatives will better represent their districts. The existence of extreme partisan districts isn't itself a problem, the issue is how many people get "trapped" inside those districts. Smaller districts necessarily "trap" fewer people. The will of the people will be better reflected by the partisan makeup of the House.

Population growth without growing the legislature is a very underrated contributing factor to the current political climate.

 

[CrazyScientist]

I've often wondered if the House shouldn't be expanded to an even greater degree than described here. Imagine, for example, if each congressional district could contain a maximum of, say, 10000 people. Yes, this would mean there would be ~30K house members, but each representative would be much more personally and directly accountable to their constituents than they are currently. The idea here is to hew closer to the original vision of the congressperson as citizen legislator, accountable to people with which they are personally acquainted, from their own town or neighborhood. Maybe each tiny district could then decide on their own if they want to hold elections for congress, or just select a resident by a lottery akin to jury-duty. I can see many potential problems with such a system, but I'm not sure it would be any worse than what we have currently.

 

[metatron]

But district representatives will better represent their districts. The existence of extreme partisan districts isn't itself a problem, the issue is how many people get "trapped" inside those districts. Smaller districts necessarily "trap" fewer people. The will of the people will be better reflected by the partisan makeup of the House.

That's correct, and a worthwhile thought to entertain but largely besides the original point, as my remark (which you quoted) was in reference to this claim:

"Democrats and Republicans will likely to reach the bipartisan deals easier."

This being unlikely as per my above reasoning on the one hand and the increased quality of representation that you quite correctly expect are not mutually exclusive at all.
In fact outside heavily partisan-gerrymandered states the House is likely a lot more representative than 20 years ago in the terms that you allude to, a development that has gone hand in hand with increased partisanship, primaries becoming the chief electoral concern of incumbents etc. etc.
May expectation is that increasing House seats and decreasing district size would only emphasize this, so long as no fundamental change to the system is made.

 

[Birdjaguar]

More reps means more and better representation as well as making it harder to gerrymander. It also fills the original intent of the house of reps where more populous states are supposed to get more votes. Lastly, regular people can actually campaign and win in districts with just 50k people in them but not so much when those districts might be a million or more people.

If the House gets too big it will be even more unwieldy. The first main problem with the House is that members have to spend most of their two year term fundraising (more and more $) to get re elected. The second is that consider the job a career path. If you eliminate any need for re election, they have more time to focus on doing their job. If you eliminate the second they are less susceptible to lobbying because campaign money as a vehicle for influence is gone and any donation schemes by lobbyists are only short term and probably illegal.

Oh, if the House was 1000 members we would have to build a new building to house them and DC real estate is terribly expensive.

 

[Oerdin]

It could be done as far as expanding the house physically goes. Wrt fund raising... I would argue decreasing the size of districts actually means less money is needed as much of tge electioneering could be done through okd fashioned door to door retail politics instead of via massive expensive media campaigns like you have to do in massive districts with a million or more people. Make tge districts one per 50,000 people, as originally intended, and suddenly regular people will be able to start winning. Also it makes bribery harder as you have to bribe more politicians and with smaller districts reps would feel a lot stronger pull to actually do what the people in their district want them to do.