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.
I have often wondered about this as I have looked at open constitutional amendments. Your comments make sense. Would you please explain the impact on the electoral college ?
Why not have every legal citizen be a member of the House of Representatives. 350 million strong. Now that would ensure representation of all Americans. Impractical I know, but the potential for interesting times, and humor, would be off the charts!
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.
Rather than a fixed number, 1000 or 1500, I think the smallest state should get two reps and the House district size should be adjusted according to the population of those districts every ten years.
I actually see the point you are trying to make. You make it clear that this will indeed increase the government size (bureaucracy). Yet it would provide a nice balance to the 100 member limitation of the Senate. This would also make the "representative" part of our government actually "representative!" Maybe then the Senate could then actually represent the states as an entity (whole) rather than a popularly elected mini-House-of-Lords? Great idea!
Great comments from everyone. Now, who has to pass the legislation to make any of these changes? The very SOBs who hold us accountable to trade and finance regulations or insurance and retirement plans that they themselves don't have to adhere to, meaning it will never happen. The inherent problems with government stem from human nature (original sin if you prefer), so no matter the "solution," politicians will find a work-around that increases their power and their wealth. I'm generalizing, of course because there are a few good ones. But very few.
I couldn’t agree more. It would also help reduce the discrepancy where Wyoming has 0.3% of the population but 0.6% of the electoral college votes. Can’t see Republicans going for it, because of that, but it would be good for the country.
It's hard to gerrymander a state that has one House district. Increasing the number of representatives would increase the number of majority-minority and urban districts, which is why liberals like the idea.
Increasing the number of reps will only put more power into the hands of party leadership within each house. Each member of Congress will have a smaller voice and be less, not more, able to shape direction through policy or debate. Being even more able to hide in a larger crowd of representatives will only promote even more fridge positions in order to gain a now further diminished share of the "attention economy".
Using open primaries, like Maine has, forced candidates to try to accommodate as much of the electorate as possible while also allowing for a greater diversity of positions from the individual candidates.
Additionally, pass a balanced budget amendment. Making the representatives feed their programs from a finite pie, will force them to have to work with the other party (so I've heard), or at least leave us with a smaller bill from the exaggerated excesses from the majority party as the majority switches every few years.
And would bring us the problems that Israel, Germany, and others have. No longer would a two party system exist, and truly fringe elements would now get a seat b/c they got 2-5% of the vote. This would be chaos, due to the small parties now in a position to be like President Manchin.
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'm for ANY idea that gets them out of the cesspool of Washington. AND I think term limits would be an issue the VOTERS on both sides would embrace. Can't tell you how many Dems I have talked to who agree with me on that one issue!
Amend the Constitution. Better yet, let’s have an Article V Convention of States.
From the “One vote can make a difference” files: 64% of New York residents filled out their Census form. Had EIGHTY-NINE more people done so, New York would not have lost their one seat: https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2021/04/27/new-york-loses-congressional-seat-census/
I have often wondered about this as I have looked at open constitutional amendments. Your comments make sense. Would you please explain the impact on the electoral college ?
Why not have every legal citizen be a member of the House of Representatives. 350 million strong. Now that would ensure representation of all Americans. Impractical I know, but the potential for interesting times, and humor, would be off the charts!
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.
Rather than a fixed number, 1000 or 1500, I think the smallest state should get two reps and the House district size should be adjusted according to the population of those districts every ten years.
I actually see the point you are trying to make. You make it clear that this will indeed increase the government size (bureaucracy). Yet it would provide a nice balance to the 100 member limitation of the Senate. This would also make the "representative" part of our government actually "representative!" Maybe then the Senate could then actually represent the states as an entity (whole) rather than a popularly elected mini-House-of-Lords? Great idea!
Great comments from everyone. Now, who has to pass the legislation to make any of these changes? The very SOBs who hold us accountable to trade and finance regulations or insurance and retirement plans that they themselves don't have to adhere to, meaning it will never happen. The inherent problems with government stem from human nature (original sin if you prefer), so no matter the "solution," politicians will find a work-around that increases their power and their wealth. I'm generalizing, of course because there are a few good ones. But very few.
MAYBE 500. But 1,000? In the name of all that's holy, please no.
Too bad Cuomo killed 15,000 old folks. NY could have held that seat they're going to lose.
I couldn’t agree more. It would also help reduce the discrepancy where Wyoming has 0.3% of the population but 0.6% of the electoral college votes. Can’t see Republicans going for it, because of that, but it would be good for the country.
It would do the same for Vermont.
The last thing the GOP establishment wants is a more representative house with compact districts that haven't been gerrymandered.
It's a fantastic idea for America.
It's hard to gerrymander a state that has one House district. Increasing the number of representatives would increase the number of majority-minority and urban districts, which is why liberals like the idea.
Respectfully, I disagree.
Increasing the number of reps will only put more power into the hands of party leadership within each house. Each member of Congress will have a smaller voice and be less, not more, able to shape direction through policy or debate. Being even more able to hide in a larger crowd of representatives will only promote even more fridge positions in order to gain a now further diminished share of the "attention economy".
Change the primary system to an open primary using a Cordoncet Method for elections. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method
Using open primaries, like Maine has, forced candidates to try to accommodate as much of the electorate as possible while also allowing for a greater diversity of positions from the individual candidates.
Additionally, pass a balanced budget amendment. Making the representatives feed their programs from a finite pie, will force them to have to work with the other party (so I've heard), or at least leave us with a smaller bill from the exaggerated excesses from the majority party as the majority switches every few years.
What are your thoughts on multi-party, proportional representation, Erick?
I am not really a fan. I think it makes difficult governing even more difficult.
And would bring us the problems that Israel, Germany, and others have. No longer would a two party system exist, and truly fringe elements would now get a seat b/c they got 2-5% of the vote. This would be chaos, due to the small parties now in a position to be like President Manchin.
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.
You nailed the real problem. It's not the number of representatives but how they act once they get to DC.
I'm for ANY idea that gets them out of the cesspool of Washington. AND I think term limits would be an issue the VOTERS on both sides would embrace. Can't tell you how many Dems I have talked to who agree with me on that one issue!
Clever.
Excellent idea, should be revisited