Is it time to increase Congress?

[Jenson71]

Currently, there are 100 members of the U.S. Senate serving in Congress. This is based on each state having two Senators.

Currently, there are 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives in Congress. This is based on a number they came up with decades ago, when the population was much lower than it is now.

Each member of the U.S. House of Representatives has a constituency of over 600,000 people. A single individual represents the interests of over half a million people.

Is it time we increase the number of congressmen representing the will of the people? What do you see as being some advantages and disadvantages to that? I'm all for it, personally.

[patteeu]

I'd be OK with that in order to reduce the size of each representative's constituency. Reforms I'd rather see would be some form of cumulative voting scheme and a reduction in the size of Congressional staffs.

The cumulative voting idea would provide greater chances for minority political views to be represented in the House and it would reduce the need to gerrymander. Lets assume for the sake of this example that we keep the number of representatives the same as they are now. Instead of each representative coming from a distinct congressional district, you would have much larger districts (perhaps even state-wide districts) that would each send multiple representatives to the House. Each voter would be able to cast a number of votes equal to the number of representatives that their district would elect. They could either cast all their votes for the guy they liked best or they could spread them around. The result would be that minorities (e.g. blacks, hispanics muslims, mormans, libertarians, greens etc.) would be able to pool their votes and potentially get someone elected who could have never won an all-or-nothing single candidate district. Alternatively, you could allow voters to register to vote in any district they wanted to vote in instead of forcing them to vote in their home district. In our modern world with our communication and transportation technologies, there is no real reason, that I can think of, to tie voters to a small geographic area when it comes to their political representation.

The idea to reduce staff sizes would be aimed at forcing elected officials to do more of their own work and rely less heavily on nonelected, semi-permanent career staffers. The downside would be some loss of continuity. An additional upside, from my pov, would be a less prolific Congress. This idea would fit nicely with your idea of increasing the number of elected representatives.

[keg in kc]

I've been trying for some time to increase the amount of congress I have.

[banyon]

I'd be OK with that in order to reduce the size of each representative's constituency. Reforms I'd rather see would be some form of cumulative voting scheme and a reduction in the size of Congressional staffs.

The cumulative voting idea would provide greater chances for minority political views to be represented in the House and it would reduce the need to gerrymander. Lets assume for the sake of this example that we keep the number of representatives the same as they are now. Instead of each representative coming from a distinct congressional district, you would have much larger districts (perhaps even state-wide districts) that would each send multiple representatives to the House. Each voter would be able to cast a number of votes equal to the number of representatives that their district would elect. They could either cast all their votes for the guy they liked best or they could spread them around. The result would be that minorities (e.g. blacks, hispanics muslims, mormans, libertarians, greens etc.) would be able to pool their votes and potentially get someone elected who could have never won an all-or-nothing single candidate district. Alternatively, you could allow voters to register to vote in any district they wanted to vote in instead of forcing them to vote in their home district. In our modern world with our communication and transportation technologies, there is no real reason, that I can think of, to tie voters to a small geographic area when it comes to their political representation.

The idea to reduce staff sizes would be aimed at forcing elected officials to do more of their own work and rely less heavily on nonelected, semi-permanent career staffers. The downside would be some loss of continuity. An additional upside, from my pov, would be a less prolific Congress. This idea would fit nicely with your idea of increasing the number of elected representatives.

I agree with this commie parliamentarian hogwash.

[BucEyedPea]

“Nothing can be more fallacious than to found our political calculations on arithmetical principles. Sixty or seventy men 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 depository. And if we carry on the supposition to six or seven thousand, the whole reasoning ought to be reversed. The truth is that in all cases a certain number at least seems to be necessary to secure the benefits of free consultation and discussion, and to guard against too easy a combination for improper purposes; as, on the other hand, the number ought to be kept within a certain limit, in order to avoid the confusion and intemperance of a multitude. In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever characters composed, passion never fails to wrest the scepter from reason. “—JAMES MADISON, Writer of the US Constitution

[CHIEF4EVER]

I'd be OK with a limited increase in the number of US Representatives commensurate with the increase in population. That being said, I also believe the gubment is a bloated 11 million headed hydra and needs to be reduced by a large amount. Both at the Federal and State levels.

[BucEyedPea]

I'd be OK with a limited increase in the number of US Representatives commensurate with the increase in population. That being said, I also believe the gubment is a bloated 11 million headed hydra and needs to be reduced by a large amount. Both at the Federal and State levels.
Well, then this is a sure way to see it bloat and increase even more.

[CHIEF4EVER]

Well, then this is a sure way to see it bloat and increase even more.

How so? The bloated 11 million headed hydra isn't comprised of those who represent us. It is comprised of the numerous (and often unnecessary or redundant) governmental departments. I think THAT part of government could be slimmed down a great deal and still enable our elected representation to effectively govern us.

[patteeu]

I agree with this commie parliamentarian hogwash.

Ouch. ;)

[BucEyedPea]

How so?

What about an increased Federal payroll with lavish benefits that many in the private sector don't even get. The fact that they've voted themselves pay increases when the average pay isn't even keeping up with inflation.

And if govt tends to attract more of those that are criminal or corrupt ( and I believe that is the case)...why do we need to risk more of that, particularly when it's not even necessary to get the job done...kinda like a law of diminishing returns as you can see in the Madison quote I posted above.

History has shown, at least in our Framer's mind, that large assemblies are boisterous, confusing, and inefficient. If committees are already known for their inability to "do" why is a larger one better? Afterall, that's what govt is one BIG committee.

The original ratio was one congressman=30,000 people.
By 1921, each rep'd 211,877. An effort then was made to increase the House membership but it was already becoming unwieldy so the resolution was defeated.

In 1929 a bill was passed which provided that no matter how much the population increased the house could never exceed 435 members.

The Framers did anticipate population increases, so they framed the Constitution to leave to the general legislature a discretionary power to limit representation by forming a new ratio.

I'm not one who is generally, fond of monkeying around much with the soundness of most of the Framer's thinking. I have my exceptions...but this they anticipated, discussed and had a solution that was the opposite. I don't think there is a modern political mind around today that matches them.

JMO

[ck_IN]

OMG No!!!

We have too much guvment now. Please for the love of all that is good <b>do not</b> expand it!

[Cochise]

Just what the world needs, more politicians.

[Jenson71]

BucEyedPea, as usual, you bring up some interesting points. I still would like to see more opinions, of politicians and teachers and researchers. Part of me is thinking, with 535 congressmen, the process of U.S. government is slow and ineffecient and certainly, adding 100-150 more mouths and opinions will only make it worse, and hardly anything will get done. Another part of me believes more representatives in our government would be a good thing and with more people/ideas, more things will get done. Of course, I suppose I would be asking a bit much, if I asked for these representatives to have only the best interests of the people in mind.

[JBucc]

I should have my own personal representative who's vote counts 10 times that of a normal congressman. Other than that I don't care.

[patteeu]

BucEyedPea, as usual, you bring up some interesting points. I still would like to see more opinions, of politicians and teachers and researchers. Part of me is thinking, with 535 congressmen, the process of U.S. government is slow and ineffecient and certainly, adding 100-150 more mouths and opinions will only make it worse, and hardly anything will get done. Another part of me believes more representatives in our government would be a good thing and with more people/ideas, more things will get done. Of course, I suppose I would be asking a bit much, if I asked for these representatives to have only the best interests of the people in mind.

Which is better in your opinion, hardly anything getting done or more things getting done?

[Jenson71]

Which is better in your opinion, hardly anything getting done or more things getting done?

More things getting done.

[patteeu]

More things getting done.

Oh, OK. I'd kind of prefer to see fewer things getting done.

[banyon]

Oh, OK. I'd kind of prefer to see fewer things getting done.

Well your Bush/Cheney Administration should be the best ever then! :thumb:

[BucEyedPea]

More things getting done.
If you want more things to get done you'd need less people.
In fact, a govt of one, would accomplish that better.


Oh, OK. I'd kind of prefer to see fewer things getting done.
I'd have to agree. Too much faith in govt solving our problems and running our lives.

[patteeu]

Well your Bush/Cheney Administration should be the best ever then! :thumb:

ROFL

[tiptap]

I think you increase the salary of the Representatives and Senators. You also increase their staff outlays. Then you insist that ALL lobbying be done within the states. Ban lobbyists from the District of Columbia. That is contact is only allowed back in your home state. What this could do is provide a haven away form lobbyists with a staff that is beholden more to the design of the elected member. It should allow for a staff that can provide better oversight information and research. Suddenly the time back home has to be split between lobbyists and constituency and the voters will have a clear picture who has the immediate focus of the elected.

I do agree that expanding the number of Representatives is bad. Even now the rules in the House gravitate power to the leadership and it would be even more so with diluted power of a larger membership.

[banyon]

I think you increase the salary of the Representatives and Senators. You also increase their staff outlays. Then you insist that ALL lobbying be done within the states. Ban lobbyists from the District of Columbia. That is contact is only allowed back in your home state. What this could do is provide a haven away form lobbyists with a staff that is beholden more to the design of the elected member. It should allow for a staff that can provide better oversight information and research. Suddenly the time back home has to be split between lobbyists and constituency and the voters will have a clear picture who has the immediate focus of the elected.

I do agree that expanding the number of Representatives is bad. Even now the rules in the House gravitate power to the leadership and it would be even more so with diluted power of a larger membership.

Absolutely. Although we'd have to amend the Constitution to do it.

[Hound333]

I would be worried how the new districts would be mapped out. I would be upset with one side or the other getting the upper hand in redistricting. I think that would turn into a massive headache in itself.

[whoman69]

I would be worried how the new districts would be mapped out. I would be upset with one side or the other getting the upper hand in redistricting. I think that would turn into a massive headache in itself.
That's already happening, its why Tom DeLay got in trouble.

Adding more nincompoops to Washington is only going to increase the big money lobbying. Its going to make more committees and more ways for people to stick the pork in the barrell.