This plan would reduce the representation of small states relative to big states in the electoral college. I suggest increasing the per-state votes in that body in proportion to the increase in per-population votes.
What a great article, Glenn. Always thought smaller decision making was better than unwieldy large decision making. Perhaps the solution would be to abolish the lobbyists. and let the reps write the laws.
The late Walter Williams was advocating for a 1500-member House years ago. I'm glad to see someone bringing up the idea again. I do have another idea, though--use modern technology to eliminate the in-person meetings of the House: let them stay in their districts, close to their people, rather than congregating in DC.
In "The Breakdown of Nations," economist/political scientist/jurist Leopold Kohr wrote, "Wherever something is wrong, something is too big. If the stars in the sky or the atoms of uranium disintegrate in spontaneous explosion, it is not because their substance has lost its balance. It is because matter has attempted to expand beyond the impassable barriers set to every accumulation. Their mass has become too big. If the human body becomes diseased, it is, as in cancer, because a cell, or a group of cells, has begun to outgrow its allotted narrow limits. And if the body of a people becomes diseased with the fever of aggression, brutality, collectivism, or massive idiocy, it is not because it has fallen victim to bad leadership or mental derangement. It is because human beings, so charming as individuals or in small aggregations, have been welded into over-concentrated social units such as mobs, unions, cartels, or great powers.” ... ...
Perhaps this is the exception to Kohr's rule. Or perhaps we should think of this problem in terms of the numerator, rather than the denominator, in which case, what has gotten too big here is the population per district.
Another thoughtful, stimulating essay full of interesting ideas, but I agree with Mr. Graboyes that bigger isn’t better. I completely agree with the point that 1 rep per 700K people is not a good thing. But the specter of 1,000 or 1,500 Representatives pushing earmarked pork barrel projects is too horrible to contemplate. While it would seem to diminish the need for big money and lobbyists, in order to stand out and be recognized for re-election, I’m sure they would find some other cash driven way to do so. Imagine the elbow throwing and pushing it would take to make the news feeds every cycle. The idea might work if it was more like jury service - randomly select 1000 ordinary folks and require them to serve a two year hitch. Make sure issues are clear and “bounded” enough that reasonable citizens could grasp the issue and impact, as well as the Constitutional basis for the action and take a vote. Couldn’t be much worse than what we have.
Another very important change would be to restrict the size of voting precincts. The founders desire was small precincts that, again, allows familiarity and efficiency regarding elections. Much harder to add ghost voters.
If memory serves, Texas on admission could in the future break itself into 5 states, which would be one way to increase the states. I would just hope that one of them would only include the city limits of Dallas & Houston and the pavement of I-45 connecting them....
I am with Mark Twain on this subject in the House. I agree with the repeal of the 17th Amendment so the return of recall power by state legislatures makes citizens pay attention to who are the majorities in the state capitals. The house rules should have minimum attendance records in chamber floor and committees in order to qualify for re-election. I called it the PunchInPunchOutAmendment
An apportionment problem is that members in the House and Electoral College represent the population of their district, which includes illegal aliens (who cannot vote) inflating the influence of voters where large illegal populations reside.
"More members of Congress means more people to actually read bills. More members of Congress means more people to oversee the unelected bureaucracy. More members of Congress means more representatives to act as ombudsmen for citizens having trouble getting the government to act as it should."
I'm not convinced. As long as legislation is deemed the work product of a rep, more members means more bills. More bills mean less scrutiny. More horse-trading. More demands for earmarks. The number of relationships goes up with the square of the number of people. The number of possible factions also takes off at an alarming rate.
It's a disappointing prospect, but it may be that the American constitutional republic does not scale. That the only way to bring things back within the original scope is to partition the country into regions where the constitutional institutions can still function. No, I'm not talking about a civil war. I'm thinking of an orderly reorganization. Which is its own flavor of pipe dream.
Of the four arguments presented by Ms. Allen, I find the third the most persuasive. But I foresee issues with a massive expansion. There is an historical limit to the number of legislators that can work effectively together, and develop personal rapport. Both the Roman Senate and the British Parliament were de facto capped at about 600 members. And interestingly in both cases the total membership could not fit together in one room in the Curia or in Westminster. Perhaps technology can address this; the reason the Founding Fathers landed on 30,000 as the proper number of constituents is based on an observation of Aristotle that it was the maximum number who could gather together to hear one man speak to all. Obviously that has changed. Can a committee of 10,000 actually function? I’m open but sceptical.
A larger number of House districts with significantly less people per district would also reduce the incentive for gerrymandering. And by extension also do wonders to reduce the necessity of judicial involvement in redistricting.
This plan would reduce the representation of small states relative to big states in the electoral college. I suggest increasing the per-state votes in that body in proportion to the increase in per-population votes.
What a great article, Glenn. Always thought smaller decision making was better than unwieldy large decision making. Perhaps the solution would be to abolish the lobbyists. and let the reps write the laws.
Too radical?
The late Walter Williams was advocating for a 1500-member House years ago. I'm glad to see someone bringing up the idea again. I do have another idea, though--use modern technology to eliminate the in-person meetings of the House: let them stay in their districts, close to their people, rather than congregating in DC.
"they likely have never met their member of Congress."
If I were to meet my member of Congress I would probably feel an uncontrollable urge to spit on her shoes.
But then my "representative" is Pramila Jayapal, so there you are.
In "The Breakdown of Nations," economist/political scientist/jurist Leopold Kohr wrote, "Wherever something is wrong, something is too big. If the stars in the sky or the atoms of uranium disintegrate in spontaneous explosion, it is not because their substance has lost its balance. It is because matter has attempted to expand beyond the impassable barriers set to every accumulation. Their mass has become too big. If the human body becomes diseased, it is, as in cancer, because a cell, or a group of cells, has begun to outgrow its allotted narrow limits. And if the body of a people becomes diseased with the fever of aggression, brutality, collectivism, or massive idiocy, it is not because it has fallen victim to bad leadership or mental derangement. It is because human beings, so charming as individuals or in small aggregations, have been welded into over-concentrated social units such as mobs, unions, cartels, or great powers.” ... ...
Perhaps this is the exception to Kohr's rule. Or perhaps we should think of this problem in terms of the numerator, rather than the denominator, in which case, what has gotten too big here is the population per district.
Another thoughtful, stimulating essay full of interesting ideas, but I agree with Mr. Graboyes that bigger isn’t better. I completely agree with the point that 1 rep per 700K people is not a good thing. But the specter of 1,000 or 1,500 Representatives pushing earmarked pork barrel projects is too horrible to contemplate. While it would seem to diminish the need for big money and lobbyists, in order to stand out and be recognized for re-election, I’m sure they would find some other cash driven way to do so. Imagine the elbow throwing and pushing it would take to make the news feeds every cycle. The idea might work if it was more like jury service - randomly select 1000 ordinary folks and require them to serve a two year hitch. Make sure issues are clear and “bounded” enough that reasonable citizens could grasp the issue and impact, as well as the Constitutional basis for the action and take a vote. Couldn’t be much worse than what we have.
Repeal the 17th!
Another very important change would be to restrict the size of voting precincts. The founders desire was small precincts that, again, allows familiarity and efficiency regarding elections. Much harder to add ghost voters.
These ideas are worth trying. Increasing the size of Congress would also mostly do away with gerrymandering squabbles. Your mission : Make it so.
If memory serves, Texas on admission could in the future break itself into 5 states, which would be one way to increase the states. I would just hope that one of them would only include the city limits of Dallas & Houston and the pavement of I-45 connecting them....
A four pointed star in the middle encompassing DFW, San Antonio, Austin and Houston , with four other states carved from the rest.
I am with Mark Twain on this subject in the House. I agree with the repeal of the 17th Amendment so the return of recall power by state legislatures makes citizens pay attention to who are the majorities in the state capitals. The house rules should have minimum attendance records in chamber floor and committees in order to qualify for re-election. I called it the PunchInPunchOutAmendment
An apportionment problem is that members in the House and Electoral College represent the population of their district, which includes illegal aliens (who cannot vote) inflating the influence of voters where large illegal populations reside.
"More members of Congress means more people to actually read bills. More members of Congress means more people to oversee the unelected bureaucracy. More members of Congress means more representatives to act as ombudsmen for citizens having trouble getting the government to act as it should."
I'm not convinced. As long as legislation is deemed the work product of a rep, more members means more bills. More bills mean less scrutiny. More horse-trading. More demands for earmarks. The number of relationships goes up with the square of the number of people. The number of possible factions also takes off at an alarming rate.
It's a disappointing prospect, but it may be that the American constitutional republic does not scale. That the only way to bring things back within the original scope is to partition the country into regions where the constitutional institutions can still function. No, I'm not talking about a civil war. I'm thinking of an orderly reorganization. Which is its own flavor of pipe dream.
Of the four arguments presented by Ms. Allen, I find the third the most persuasive. But I foresee issues with a massive expansion. There is an historical limit to the number of legislators that can work effectively together, and develop personal rapport. Both the Roman Senate and the British Parliament were de facto capped at about 600 members. And interestingly in both cases the total membership could not fit together in one room in the Curia or in Westminster. Perhaps technology can address this; the reason the Founding Fathers landed on 30,000 as the proper number of constituents is based on an observation of Aristotle that it was the maximum number who could gather together to hear one man speak to all. Obviously that has changed. Can a committee of 10,000 actually function? I’m open but sceptical.
A larger number of House districts with significantly less people per district would also reduce the incentive for gerrymandering. And by extension also do wonders to reduce the necessity of judicial involvement in redistricting.
I have a better idea. Let’s make the country smaller. Thirteen states should do.