The Case for Enlarging the House of Representatives

[mikegriffith1]

The Bill of Rights was originally going to be 12 Amendments instead of 10.

James Madison wanted the First Amendment to be a formula for apportioning the House of Representatives.* If his Amendment had been accepted, the House would currently have 1,625 members instead of 435.

Instead, the ratio of one House member for every 30,000 constituents was enshrined in the Constitution. By 1800, it was 34,609 constituents per. By 1900, it was 193,167 per.

In 1929, Congress froze the number of Representatives at 435, even though we had only 48 states and a population of 121 million at the time.

Today, with 50 states and frozen at 435 representatives, the ratio is 762,000 constituents per House member, and climbing.

Our Representatives are completely out of touch with the People.

It is time to rethink apportionment.

Lots of stuff to think about here: The Case for Enlarging the House of Representatives


*The second of the 12 amendments proposed later became the 27th Amendment.

I think expanding the House would lead to a bigger circus than we have now in the House. The Senate is much more deliberative and better able to work out compromises precisely because it has only 100 members and all the members know each other. Many House members have never even spoken with other House members, even in their own party, because the House has so many members.

 

[HappyJoy]

The Founding Fathers put 'checks and balances" into the Constitution. It gave us "brakes" to think what we are doing. The 17th Amendment was one of the "Checks and balances" steam rolled over. For the selection of Federal Senators by State Legislatures would have mad what we see today a lot more difficult. There would be no 50 year careers like Biden. These people even with flaws gave us documents of freedom. We see today the totalitarianism building.

Hey, guess what? The founding fathers were wrong about how the senate was elected. If state legislatures selected our senators for us today they would simply pick someone from the dominant party and those senators would only be accountable to a political party and nothing else.

I have no idea why a senator couldn't still serve for decades under the old way. I get that the far right wants to remove democracy from the public as much as possible and many (compared to anyone not in the far right) are still pissed that women, non property owners and even blacks have the right to vote. You guys have even created conspiracies about non-citizens voting in federal elections in an attempt to create fear around our democratic processes not to mention the shit you guys believe happened in 2020.

 

[BluesLegend]

Nope. NFW.
More pols in DC is always a bad idea.

Bingo, we can't control the corruption as is it.

 

[BluesLegend]

The new capital building would cost what, $2 trillion? Don't give those fools in DC something new to spend money on.

 

[g5000]

There's plenty of representation at the state and local levels.

California has only 60 representatives in their lower house.

What state has the most liberal laws in the country?

 

[g5000]

Well, if the dems population in the u.s. is higher than the repub population, it only stands to reason that, if the added 1200 representatives, the majority of then would go to dems, no?

So you are admitting you don't want the House to actually represent the People!

By the way, the number of Democrats and Republicans is about the same.

Independents are by far the largest demographic and they have no representation at all in Congress.

 

[g5000]

America 2021: The case for eliminating income tax, having States appoint Senators, zero based budgeting, and eliminating all Federal functions not specifically enumerated in the Constitution

I am all for eliminating the federal income tax in exchange for the Fair Tax. I am also all for balanced budgets which is a subject I post about more than almost all other subject combined.

I have mixed feelings about repealing the 17th amendment. Since most state legislatures are controlled by the Republicans, it would mean a Senate way out of balance. There would be about 70 Republican Senators, and that is not representative of our population at all.

 

[Polishprince]

Nope. NFW.
More pols in DC is always a bad idea.

I think if the idea were paired with a proposal to have Congress meet virtually through Zoom calls, and to have the congresspeople stay in their districts all year round, it might have some merit.

There is no reason to have all of those politicians and lobbyists gathered in Washington, not in the age of modern communications.

Eliminating congressional pay and benefits, letting those who serve earn their own livings in their own professions in their own districts makes sense. Right now, they seem so detached from the people. Guys like Dr. Paul could stay in Bowling Green doing eye surgery, AOC could stay in the Bronx serving drinks and my congressman Mike Kelly could be selling Toyotas on his used car lot.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The number has been capped at 435. Remove the cap and assign new representatives, one for every 30,000 people, like the op is suggesting,

The OP never suggested any such thing.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

LOL yes it does it is BASED on the size of Congress.

I never claimed otherwise.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Why would there even be a need for more representatives? If two Senators can handle a state's business in addition to their other responsibilities,

Are they?

What's the approval rating of Congress?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Explained in my responses to taz

And you failed.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Where am I wrong?

You aren't addressing the specific point I was to a specific comment by a specific poster.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Increasing the membership of the House wouldn't increase the number of electors?

Of course it would. What does that have to do with expanding the size of Congress?

 

[candycorn]

Of course it would. What does that have to do with expanding the size of Congress?

If you expand the size of the House of Representatives, wouldn't the larger states like California, Texas, NY, and Florida get more seats than states that have a smaller populations like Alaska and Maine?

 

[g5000]

The number has been capped at 435. Remove the cap and assign new representatives, one for every 30,000 people, like the op is suggesting, and I think you'll find the number of dem representatives grows exponentially, because of the supposed number of people who lean dem as opposed to the number of people who lean repub.

I am not suggesting one for every 30,000. I am suggesting we follow James Madison's plan, which would increase the House to 1,625, which works out to one for every 200,000.

 

[HappyJoy]

So you are admitting you don't want the House to actually represent the People!

By the way, the number of Democrats and Republicans is about the same.

Independents are by far the largest demographic and they have no representation at all in Congress.

It's sad when one needs to consider the ideological make up of these representatives in order to decide whether they are for or against more representation.

It's the same argument with DC statehood. Those who are not for it the biggest reason appears to be that DC would elect people who the poster is not politically aligned with. As though we can't have better democratic representation unless they all agree on the same things.

There are valid arguments against DC statehood (I happen to disagree with them) but they are always secondary after "Oh, you just want the libtards to have two more senators". it's irrelevant.

 

[g5000]

Explained in my responses to taz

Which was an open admission on your part that you don't want the House to accurately represent the People.

 

[g5000]

Doesn't the number of electoral votes derive from the number of Senators and representatives? So, if you boost the number of representatives to 1600, then the number of electoral votes goes to..what...1803?

Current there are 538 electoral votes.

200 for Senators
435 for members of the house
Plus 3 for dc

That's 538

If you increase the size if the house, the number if electoral votes does too.

If I am correct that the increase of number of reps would tend to lean left, then not only would it mean that there would be a permanent majority in the house, but also a permanent democratic president also.

Interesting. Simply by adding more representatives, the dems could completely erase the republican party.

Here's my reasoning for this. Currently you have 435 reps. Those 435 represent a total mix of people, both dems and repub. At present, we have states that are generally guaranteed to go blue and some red. Those electoral votes essentially automatically assigned.

If you now increase the number of representatives to say, 1600, and the total electoral pool is at 1803, then you'd have to assume that you'd need about (guessing) 950 electoral votes to win.

If you increase.the representation, you increase the number of congressional districts, if those districts (because there are more dems than repubs) tend to align blue, it means you get more automatic electoral votes that are blue. Basically, you edge closer to election by popular vote.

Imagine if you had an area that has 2 million dems, but only 500,000 repubs. Let's say the dems are represented by 4 and the repubs are represented by 2. If you go the 30,000 route, the dem representation jumps to 67 and the repub representation jumps to 17.

Those aren't actual numbers but you get my point. You end up increasing dem representation, and number of automatic electoral votes in an exponential way.

Am I wrong here? I'm thinking that an increase in number of representatives can only benefit the dems when it comes to elections. Where am I wrong?

You are wrong in that you assume there are more Democrats than Republicans. They are about evenly split. And Independents vastly outnumber both parties, and are not represented in Congress at all.

Your concerns are addressed in the link I provide in the OP:

Other than the highly contentious 2000 election, increasing the House size to 585 would not have changed the outcome of any of the last twelve presidential elections.

They only did an examination of 585 House seats instead of 1625. I would settle for 585.

More information here: The Case for Enlarging the House of Representatives | American Academy of Arts and Sciences

 

[g5000]