One Thousand Seats
The census numbers are out. Texas is going to gain two seats. Florida will gain a seat. So too will North Carolina. New York will lose one. California will lose one seat (Edited: I originally wrote they would not lose a seat). But the overall number in the United States House of Representatives will remain at 435.
The United States Constitution requires that each state get two senators and no state can have that number reduced without the consent of that state. The constitution makes no claims to the number for the House of Representatives.
On September 25, 1789, Congress proposed the first amendment in the Bill of Rights to be a Congressional Apportionment Amendment. It would require an increase in the number of members of the House as the nation’s population grew. That amendment lingers, failing by one state to get adopted. It has no expiration date and could still be ratified by the states.
Had it passed, the first amendment to the Bill of Rights would not be what we have, but rather this amendment to increase the size of the House. Thought it has not passed, it is time to increase the size of the House of Representatives to 1000 members.
The House has been fixed at 435 members for too long. As the nation is now 350 million people, we are no longer a nation of laws made by representatives of the people, but representatives of the closely connected in Washington, DC. We have moved from an era when many people knew their congressman, to an era where too few do.
An increase in the number of representatives would solve the Democrats’ complaints about gerrymandering by ensuring more compact districts that represent more uniform demographic and community interests. It could also solve problems related to the Electoral College.
435 members of Congress sounds great, superficially, as an advocate of small government. But the result is 435 members who not only have not reined in government, but because of their need for notoriety and recognition over large areas and sometimes in multiple media markets, they grow government and seek recognition.
1000 members would make a nice contrast to the current 100 members in the Senate. It would more than double the size of the House and reduce the number of citizens each representatives represents, putting them closer to those they represent in communities of interest.
We may not get a smaller government, but we will absolutely get a more representative House of Representatives.
A caller on a talk show years ago had a great idea. Have all of the House and Senate live and work out of their local offices. They can vote and debate electronically. This way they are in touch with their constituents’ complaints and concerns. Now they live isolated in a big bubble like the rulers in the Hunger Games.
I've liked this idea for a long time - it's one of Jonah Goldberg's hobby horses - but I'm too lazy to do the math. How many people would a 1000 member district have in comparison to a 1500 seat map? I think the rationale given to freeze the House at 435 was that the buildings in Washington were too small to expand further [the real reason was to restrict immigrant districts] but I think we could solve that thanks to Zoom and other technologies. Why not have 500 members meet in DC and the remainder have to serve in their districts or state capitols. We could give the party leaders some leverage over who gets a big boy chair and it might attract a different breed of politico to run - someone who wants to stay home and not disrupt their family.