PDA

View Full Version : We need a bigger House with 5,000 representatives




Eric Arthur Blair
10-07-2009, 03:12 PM
Expanding Congress to as many as 5,000 representatives would ensure new blood and new ideas.
By Jonah Goldberg
October 6, 2009


Watching the House of Representatives on late-night C-SPAN, you might have any number of reactions, including seppukuseppuku-inducing boredom. But, depending on who's talking and the quality of his or her chart-and-easel presentation, you might also feel disgust, rage, contempt or, in rare cases, inspiration. But whether you hail from the right, the left or the allegedly vital center, one reaction you probably won't have is: "Gosh, if only there were more of these jokers."

And that's too bad. Because what our political system may be lacking more than anything else is enough members of Congress. No, really. Seriously, stop laughing.

Except for a brief effort to accommodate Alaska and Hawaii, the size of the House has been frozen at 435 members since 1911. A 1929 law, driven in part to keep immigrants underrepresented, has kept it that way.

But there's nothing sacred about the 435 number. In fact, the founders would be aghast at the idea that the "peoples' house" is filled with pols speaking for hundreds of thousands of citizens.

In Federalist No. 55, James Madison observed that perhaps more than any other article in the proposed U.S. Constitution, the part dealing with the size and apportionment of the House received the most attention and criticism. The chief complaints, according to Madison, were that, under the proposed system, Congress would be so small that it would become an "unsafe depository of the public interests"; that the districts would be too large and diverse for any politician to "possess a proper knowledge of the local circumstances of their numerous constituents"; and that such a tiny House would have the net result of attracting the more elitist types whose aim would be the "permanent elevation of the few on the depression of the many."

So how big were these liberty-threatening districts? How tiny was the potentially oligarchic House? The districts had no more than 30,000 people, yielding a total of 65 representatives. Under today's apportionment system, the "ideal" congressional district is 700,000 people, with some districts reaching nearly 1 million. Montana, with a population of 958,000, has just one representative, but each of Rhode Island's two districts has about 530,000 people.

There is, of course, an important principle here, and if all of Montana's residents were black, it would be easier for everyone to see it. Montanans' votes don't count as much as Rhode Islanders' -- in fact, a Montanan's vote only counts for nearly three-fifths of a Rhode Islander's. That America's slave population was counted by the same ratio under the original Constitution is usually cited, rightly, as one of the document's greatest sins. A lawsuit filed in federal court in Mississippi last month hopes to force Congress to remedy the status quo's assault on the one-person, one-vote principle by increasing Congress to as many as a paltry 1,761 members.

Beyond principle, there are practical reasons to expand Congress. For decades, presidential candidates have promised to change the "way Washington works." But once elected, they're soon captured by their own congressional parties, which are in turn beholden to the "old bulls" and constituencies rooted in interests outside their districts.

A Congress of, say, 5,000 citizen-legislators would change that overnight. Would it cost more money? Yes. But today's huge staffs could be cut, and perks and pork might even be curtailed by using the old chewing gum rule: If there's not enough for everyone, nobody can have any.

Term-limit activists have the right idea -- getting new blood in Washington -- but their remedy is anti-democratic. The trick is to swamp Congress with new blood and new ideas. Want more minorities in Congress? Done. Want more libertarians? More socialists? More blue-collar workers? Done, done, done.

In debates about the 1st Amendment, it's often said that the cure for bad speech is more speech. Well, the cure for a calcified Congress just might be more members; the remedy for an undemocratic system, more democracy.

When you look at the congressional corruption scandals of the last 20 years, it's hard not to see them as stemming from a system that has, in fact, led to the "permanent elevation of the few on the depression of the many."

Critics of the status quo from the left and right yearn to shatter the two-party system's lock on politics. I'm not convinced that would be a good thing, but wouldn't the best way to do that be for smaller parties in Congress to champion new, fresh ideas? Rather than have some billionaire egomaniac who, in effect, creates or co-opts a ridiculous third party just so he can indulge his presidential ambitions, why not have third, fourth or 15th parties test their wares in a smaller political market and build themselves up to where they could field a president?

Obviously, the rajahs of incumbentstan don't like the prospect of diluting their own power. But expanding Congress would, among other things, make late night C-SPAN so much more entertaining.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-goldberg6-2009oct06,0,5681017.column

silverhandorder
10-07-2009, 03:17 PM
That is a stupid idea. We already have a shit ton of representatives. We have local, state and fed representatives. Adding more of them will not solve your problems.

tremendoustie
10-07-2009, 03:20 PM
Probably this would be better than what we have now, but I myself favor the plan to have 0 "representatives". ;)

sarahgop
10-07-2009, 03:21 PM
5000? how about none?

Eric Arthur Blair
10-07-2009, 03:28 PM
it would be unconstitutional to have no representation for the people in congress. Massive expansion would cripple the lobbies.

angelatc
10-07-2009, 03:29 PM
I like the idea.

tmosley
10-07-2009, 03:42 PM
5000 representatives limited to 12 years in office total. That sounds about right.

For that many people, I would say that they shouldn't have offices in Washington, but rather should have them only in their district, and be able to vote electronically.

*Edit* By not forcing them to go to Washington, the representatives can maintain other jobs, and as such, should not be paid a salary, but only have their costs covered (ie office and staff costs).

slothman
10-07-2009, 03:48 PM
Term-limit activists have the right idea -- getting new blood in Washington -- but their remedy is anti-democratic.


I am for term limits.
Mainly because people are politically stupid.
How many people you know do actual studying on candidates?
I made a political survey with like 300 questions.
Even 50 questions would be too much to find out if you like a potential politition.

Austin
10-07-2009, 03:56 PM
Awesome to see this idea getting some attention. I fully support it.

http://www.thirty-thousand.org

mport1
10-07-2009, 04:03 PM
I'd go the opposite way on representative. Lets try 0 :) Nobody can accurately represent you but you.

Acala
10-07-2009, 04:04 PM
This is a plan to try and solve the problems created by democracy with more democracy. Democracy is a failure. Always has been, always will be. The answer is not more reps, it is far, FAR less power. It is power that corrupts, not lack of representation.

I particularly like this: "the founders would be aghast at the idea that the "peoples' house" is filled with pols speaking for hundreds of thousands of citizens." Hahahaha! The Founders would all have killed themselves immediately upon seeing what we have allowed our government to become and long before they ever even thought about the ratio of representatives to citizens.

This is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Galileo Galilei
10-07-2009, 04:32 PM
Expanding Congress to as many as 5,000 representatives would ensure new blood and new ideas.
By Jonah Goldberg
October 6, 2009


Watching the House of Representatives on late-night C-SPAN, you might have any number of reactions, including seppukuseppuku-inducing boredom. But, depending on who's talking and the quality of his or her chart-and-easel presentation, you might also feel disgust, rage, contempt or, in rare cases, inspiration. But whether you hail from the right, the left or the allegedly vital center, one reaction you probably won't have is: "Gosh, if only there were more of these jokers."

And that's too bad. Because what our political system may be lacking more than anything else is enough members of Congress. No, really. Seriously, stop laughing.

Except for a brief effort to accommodate Alaska and Hawaii, the size of the House has been frozen at 435 members since 1911. A 1929 law, driven in part to keep immigrants underrepresented, has kept it that way.

But there's nothing sacred about the 435 number. In fact, the founders would be aghast at the idea that the "peoples' house" is filled with pols speaking for hundreds of thousands of citizens.

In Federalist No. 55, James Madison observed that perhaps more than any other article in the proposed U.S. Constitution, the part dealing with the size and apportionment of the House received the most attention and criticism. The chief complaints, according to Madison, were that, under the proposed system, Congress would be so small that it would become an "unsafe depository of the public interests"; that the districts would be too large and diverse for any politician to "possess a proper knowledge of the local circumstances of their numerous constituents"; and that such a tiny House would have the net result of attracting the more elitist types whose aim would be the "permanent elevation of the few on the depression of the many."

So how big were these liberty-threatening districts? How tiny was the potentially oligarchic House? The districts had no more than 30,000 people, yielding a total of 65 representatives. Under today's apportionment system, the "ideal" congressional district is 700,000 people, with some districts reaching nearly 1 million. Montana, with a population of 958,000, has just one representative, but each of Rhode Island's two districts has about 530,000 people.

There is, of course, an important principle here, and if all of Montana's residents were black, it would be easier for everyone to see it. Montanans' votes don't count as much as Rhode Islanders' -- in fact, a Montanan's vote only counts for nearly three-fifths of a Rhode Islander's. That America's slave population was counted by the same ratio under the original Constitution is usually cited, rightly, as one of the document's greatest sins. A lawsuit filed in federal court in Mississippi last month hopes to force Congress to remedy the status quo's assault on the one-person, one-vote principle by increasing Congress to as many as a paltry 1,761 members.

Beyond principle, there are practical reasons to expand Congress. For decades, presidential candidates have promised to change the "way Washington works." But once elected, they're soon captured by their own congressional parties, which are in turn beholden to the "old bulls" and constituencies rooted in interests outside their districts.

A Congress of, say, 5,000 citizen-legislators would change that overnight. Would it cost more money? Yes. But today's huge staffs could be cut, and perks and pork might even be curtailed by using the old chewing gum rule: If there's not enough for everyone, nobody can have any.

Term-limit activists have the right idea -- getting new blood in Washington -- but their remedy is anti-democratic. The trick is to swamp Congress with new blood and new ideas. Want more minorities in Congress? Done. Want more libertarians? More socialists? More blue-collar workers? Done, done, done.

In debates about the 1st Amendment, it's often said that the cure for bad speech is more speech. Well, the cure for a calcified Congress just might be more members; the remedy for an undemocratic system, more democracy.

When you look at the congressional corruption scandals of the last 20 years, it's hard not to see them as stemming from a system that has, in fact, led to the "permanent elevation of the few on the depression of the many."

Critics of the status quo from the left and right yearn to shatter the two-party system's lock on politics. I'm not convinced that would be a good thing, but wouldn't the best way to do that be for smaller parties in Congress to champion new, fresh ideas? Rather than have some billionaire egomaniac who, in effect, creates or co-opts a ridiculous third party just so he can indulge his presidential ambitions, why not have third, fourth or 15th parties test their wares in a smaller political market and build themselves up to where they could field a president?

Obviously, the rajahs of incumbentstan don't like the prospect of diluting their own power. But expanding Congress would, among other things, make late night C-SPAN so much more entertaining.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-goldberg6-2009oct06,0,5681017.column

Return the House of Representatives to the People

thirty-thousand.org

435 Representatives Can Not Faithfully Represent 300 Million Americans!

INTRODUCTION

The primary purpose of Thirty-Thousand.org is to conduct research on, and increase awareness of, the degradation of representative democracy in the United States resulting from Congress’ longstanding practice of limiting the number of congressional districts despite the continuing growth in the nation’s population.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights intended that the total population of Congressional districts never exceed 50 to 60 thousand. Currently, the average population size of the districts is nearly 700,000 and, consequently, the principle of proportionally equitable representation has been abandoned.

The historical trend relative to our federal Representation is illustrated in the charts below. The vertical bar chart illustrates that the total number of congressional districts was increased every ten years from 1790 to 1910 (with a single exception). These increases were a direct result of the growth in total population as was intended by the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.


Note that the last increase in representation occurred after the 1910 census when the total number of congressional districts was increased to 435. It has remained that size ever since (except for a four-year period when it was temporarily increased to 437 after the admission of Alaska and Hawaii).

http://www.thirty-thousand.org/

Acala
10-07-2009, 04:46 PM
Why not just eliminate the representation entirely and vote directly? We have the technology. So long as you have a TV and the RFID chip in your forehead, you could vote electronically from your home. The media will tell you what the issue is and what the possible options are and then we just all vote and make it so! Then the legislative body would be PERFECTLY representative of the people. That would certainly solve our problems because all our problems stem from the voice of the people not being heard.

Not.

Anti Federalist
10-07-2009, 04:47 PM
This idea works well in NH.

We have the largest state legislature in the US. Unpaid, of course, though there is a fuel and mileage stipend.

5000 federal reps, I'm all for it, as long as they don't get paid a salary.

Anything to gum up and monkey wrench the works is fine by me.

Galileo Galilei
10-07-2009, 05:01 PM
This is a plan to try and solve the problems created by democracy with more democracy. Democracy is a failure. Always has been, always will be. The answer is not more reps, it is far, FAR less power. It is power that corrupts, not lack of representation.

I particularly like this: "the founders would be aghast at the idea that the "peoples' house" is filled with pols speaking for hundreds of thousands of citizens." Hahahaha! The Founders would all have killed themselves immediately upon seeing what we have allowed our government to become and long before they ever even thought about the ratio of representatives to citizens.

This is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

It is not "more" democracy. It is better representation.

The Founding Fathers did not envision giant media corporations that control elections.

Smaller districts makes it more likely that voters know their candidate based on personal knowledge, rather than mass media.

The Constitution says each state is supposed to get one rep per 30,000 people, and this has been subverted.

Number19
10-07-2009, 05:40 PM
Good, sound, idea.

Here is another refinement on the democratic system, practiced by the Athenian Greeks : the representatives are not elected, but rather, at the start of each session of the congress, those interested in participating line up at the entrance and are admitted until the delegate number has been reached. Often, the interest was so low that the number of delegates was less than that allowed.

Mitt Romneys sideburns
10-07-2009, 05:47 PM
Unpaid, of course, though there is a fuel and mileage stipend.


We pay Texas congress something like $600. Thats it.

Paying them little to nothing sounds like a good idea, but the result here in Texas is our congress is full of rich lawyers who can afford to take several months off every year to play congressman.

SimpleName
10-07-2009, 06:09 PM
It is not "more" democracy. It is better representation.

The Founding Fathers did not envision giant media corporations that control elections.

Smaller districts makes it more likely that voters know their candidate based on personal knowledge, rather than mass media.

The Constitution says each state is supposed to get one rep per 30,000 people, and this has been subverted.

The population has grown enormously since the Constitution. If I found the right figures, the population has gone from about 4 million in 1790 to over 300 million in 2009. That is 75 times the amount of people. Despite this, the Congress has grown from about 60 members in the first Congress (1789) to 435 members today...merely 7.5 times more. Using those numbers roughly, there should be between 4000-5000 representatives as the OP said. This is obviously not fair representation.

The biggest problem with this is, besides the lack of representation, is where would we house all of these people? The Capitol couldn't possibly hold 5000 people. They would have to go to some gigantic auditorium. And then the Capitol becomes just another government office with little but historical value. Not that it matters. To me anyway. I'm sure so silly nostalgic Americans would have a problem with it.

It is sad that I can't even go see my representative when he is available. He is always at least 30 miles away. We should be able to go meet and talk with our representatives. There is no doubt corruption in the House would be curtailed if their constituents could constantly be in their face...literally!

Acala
10-07-2009, 06:20 PM
It is not "more" democracy. It is better representation..

Better representation means more direct public participation in government. all that means is more mob rule. Why not have direct democracy if more public input is better? Have PERFECT representation.


The Founding Fathers did not envision giant media corporations that control elections.

The Founders to a man disliked and distrusted democracy. They knew that democracy was suicidal. That is why they tried to place obstacles in the way of democracy.


Smaller districts makes it more likely that voters know their candidate based on personal knowledge, rather than mass media.

The voters are idiots. Isn't that obvious? Have you actually talked to any voters? They are fucking retarded. Giving them "more" representation will merely make their retardedness more quickly and fully manifest. They will not cease to be media dupes. They will not cease to be hateful, intolerant, greedy, fearful, jingoistic, slothful, irresponsible, and ill-informed. They will just have a more direct line from their addled brains into the government.

What voters really need is to be deprived of the opportunity to steal from their neighbors through government.


The Constitution says each state is supposed to get one rep per 30,000 people, and this has been subverted.

I think if you want to talk about something the Founders didn't forsee it would be the total population of the modern USA.

And of all the things in the Constitution that have been subverted, this is one of the least important for the preservation of liberty.

Dianne
10-07-2009, 08:55 PM
OMG so we want 5000 leeches ripping off the middle class? No thank you... downsize what we got... dump the damn lying Fed completely. I'll take my chance on my state's lyars over the Fed lyars any day.

ClayTrainor
10-07-2009, 08:57 PM
The power to tax property with force is the problem. It matters not if 5000 people or 500 people are doing it.

Live_Free_Or_Die
10-07-2009, 09:36 PM
nt

Austin
10-07-2009, 10:00 PM
I am surprised so many on here are unable to comprehend the benefits of such a measure.

TortoiseDream
10-07-2009, 10:05 PM
The real question is: what is the right ratio of people to representatives? Is it 1 to 1? That's pure democracy. Is it 3mil to 1? That's more like a king than anything. I personally think we have too few now, power is too centralized.

krazy kaju
10-07-2009, 10:10 PM
Massive expansion would cripple the lobbies.

This.

It could also possibly help create gridlock, which would be great.

Live_Free_Or_Die
10-07-2009, 10:12 PM
nt

Perium
10-07-2009, 10:14 PM
To those who what 0 represenatives.

You do realize that we live in a constitutional republic, therefor direct elections would just insure mob rule and be against everything we believe in.

To those who want Term Limints

I think its safe to say that we all mostly agree on some commons things like less government is better, free markets, and the right to free choice. With those items in mind why would we want government intervening in our ability to choose who we want to represent ourselfs?

I overall think this is a great idea, the easier we make it for common people to run for office the more we can take back Washington from the corrupt. I do like the idea of having these representatives actually stay in their home district, or nearby. Keeping them close would allow us to be able to pay a much lower salary (or none) since the congressman/woman could keep their current job.

The entire idea of a citizen congress in its current form is non existent. Even Paul doesn't resemble a ordinary citizen to me anymore, much less then the other career politicians.

krazy kaju
10-07-2009, 10:14 PM
Of course, if we decentralized power to the states, municipalities, counties, cities, and other local governments, we would achieve the goal of more equity in voting and not have to go through paying thousands of representatives in the House.

Perium
10-07-2009, 10:18 PM
More elections for Ron Paul supporters to spread limited resources among?

If we have 1 million dollars to spread of 10 races that represents about 10 million people on average. Splitting this districts into smaller races, about 100 (estimate) doesnt change the amount of money we have to spend per person. It actually means we choose to put money to better use in more friendlier districts that we have a better chance to run. Rather then wasting in on very large districts.

Perium
10-07-2009, 10:19 PM
Of course, if we decentralized power to the states, municipalities, counties, cities, and other local governments, we would achieve the goal of more equity in voting and not have to go through paying thousands of representatives in the House.

Good point, if they followed the 10 amendment we might just be re-leveling out the seats in congress rather then trying to make more seats.