National Review Online’s editor, Jonah Goldberg, has this editorial in National Review, advocating that the number of members of the U.S. House of Representatives be expanded. Thanks to Michael Warnken for link.
National Review Online’s editor, Jonah Goldberg, has this editorial in National Review, advocating that the number of members of the U.S. House of Representatives be expanded. Thanks to Michael Warnken for link.
How about expanding it to the size of the New Hampshire house?
Perhaps Goldberg is just trying to open a debate on the size of the US House with a non-threatening plea to make C-Span more interesting. Perhaps.
This article is not breaking new ground however. The argument for an expanded US House has been out on the web for years. See thirtythousand.org.
While I concur with the basic arguments as very persuasive, it will not come become a real issue until it is backed with threats of secession from the people in the states.
Furthermore, enlarging the size of the US House needs to be part of a general program of election reforms which would address the injustices of ballot access, corporate control of campaign finance, gerrymandering, and using range or score voting for candidates on the ballot.
There is not yet a movement for such comprehensive reforms and the system will probably break down in mindless violence and a mindless repressive reaction into fascistic authoritarianism. You never know when its too late until it IS too late.
I think my phrasing about voting candidates was clumsy. What I advocate is replacing the present system of first-past-the-post or plurality winner take all with a system which allows the voters the opportunity to express a relative preference by scoring the candidates on a scale of 1 to 5 or 1 to 10. One advantage is that would greatly diminish the need for run-off or election recounts because it would allow the voter to express more precisely who they want most, then next best, etc.
We need to increase the US House Badly. The average size of the House is 700,000 which is far too large. I am watching the case over the US House and still have my case on the California Assembly. As more of these actions come on line, the issue becomes more and more clear, we do not have representation and we need it badly.
That is it!
I have to agree that there needs to be more members of the US House of Representatives. Our Founding Fathers never intended for one person to represent 700,000 people in the “people’s house.”
Conservatives will oppose such because they don’t want to see any more “liberals” elected and they will also bring up the extra expenditures in salaries and staff.
Liberals will oppose such because they don’t want to see any more “conservatives” elected though they wouldn’t mind the expenditures if they knew more liberals would be elected.
Still, the people’s house needs to be closer to the people. 1 member for each 100,000 citizens should be a reasonable ratio.
How about dividing the regime ??? — since the Donkeys and Elephant areas are heading direct to Civil WAR II — do not pass Go! — do NOT collect a zillion inflated dollars.
Current ANTI-Democracy gerrymanders = Average about 60 percent of the votes in 1/2 of the gerrymander areas = about 30 percent FANATIC extremist leftwing or rightwing minority rule.
P.R. — Total Votes / Total Seats = Equal votes for each seat winner — via pre-election candidate rank order lists to transfer surplus and loser votes.
Nonpartisan A.V. for executive / judicial offices.
I support expanding the US House. 1,000 per rep is reasonable. I would also give DC back to MD and move the capitol to KS so that a new larger capitol could be built.
How about starting off the enlarging of the House of Representatives by giving the people of the District of Columbia, a REAL Congressional seat!!
We pay taxes, fight the same foreign wars, etc etc. Congress took away our right to vote when it moved to the District in 1800. It can simply restore the vote!
“P.R. — Total Votes / Total Seats = Equal votes for each seat winner — via pre-election candidate rank order lists to transfer surplus and loser votes.”
I say whatever is done or not done with representation in the House, Demo Rep should be appointed forthwith as head of the National Bureau of Standards.
What’s the argument against expanding the House? Current members will snort and squeal, but popular opinion of politicians is at an all time low. I don’t think advocating a 1000 member House is palatable to the average voter (it sounds unwieldy and bureaucratic to me), but perhaps even an incremental increase which will establish precedent that will be an effective first step. If 435 becomes 550, we’ll be slightly better off: 20 years from now, that number may be revisited. Advocating for expanded House membership – i.e., Representatives who are in closer touch with their constituents – is a pretty easy sell. Just like the term limits movement, however, there has to be a well-organized grass roots army to push the idea. I see nothing like that on the horizon.
I’m not sure I buy the cost argument; a House member with a smaller # of constituents would have a smaller staff. I guess the main argument against a larger house would be that debate would become unwieldy. But does anyone seriously think that the floor debates in the House change anyone’s mind? It’s largely posturing for the folks back home on C-SPAN.
I’m reluctantly coming to agree with Demo Rep (I hate myself for saying that). The divides between red and blue states on a whole range of issues seems almost unbridgeable, despite Obama’s wonderful speech at the Democratic convention in 2004. I think even he might admit that in private.
Back in the 80s there was a book called “The Seven Nations of North America”, which proposed that there were natural regions that spanned the borders with Canada and Mexico. I’m not sure how many Canadians would want to take adjacent regions of the US these days, but since those areas would desperately love yo have universal health care, it might be possible to work something out.
The U.S.A. House of Reps became a mob scene in 1873 after the 1870 Census – 1872 election — giving a higher percent of the Reps to the ex-slave States due to the 13th Amdt and 14th Amdt, Sec. 2.
More seats added for northern State party hacks.
Throw in the invention of the typewriter in about 1869 = a zillion bills — with even more dictator types as party hack Speaker to control the party hack agenda.
Only about 5 to 8 percent of the 435 computerized gerrymander seats are any where near *competitive* = about 390 safe seat party hack D/R extremists.
The winning gerrymander gang claims a 100 percent mandate for its extremist leftwing / rightwing agenda — even worse for each extremist Prez/VP since 1932.
Result – see the ROT/END of the Roman Republic in 120 B.C. to 27 B.C.
#8 Congress has no constitutional authority to apportion representatives to the District of Columbia. It does have the authority to have District residents included in the Maryland apportionment population and participate in Maryland elections for all federal elections (president, senate, representatives).
The basis of the Mississippi lawsuit on equal protection grounds is deeply flawed, at least so far as it is conflated with population growth. The House was as malapportioned in 1912 as it is in 2009. If the courts were to buy into the argument that a House with 1760 representatives would comply with equality standards applied to state legislatures, they might find that they were mandating an expansion of the House to 3000 members following the 2010 census.
That so few as 1760 representatives could satisfy a maximum deviation threshold of 5% is essentially a fluke result and outlier.
How about allowing the major Indian tribes in the country to each have a member of Congress? It worked for the C.S.A. and Jefferson Davis.