More Congressmen?

Democracy did a thing where they asked a bunch of people to write a short piece about a "big idea" of theirs. There's some good ones in there, but I thought the most intriguing one was Larry Sabato's out-of-left-field idea of expanding the House of Representatives to include maybe 1,000 members.

Sabato points out that smaller districts would be cheaper to run in, making it easier for grassroots challengers to have a shot at unseating incumbents. This seems plausible enough to me, though of course constitution reform is, in practice, impossible to do.

Comments

Beyond the usual procedural hurdles facing any proposed Constitutional change, I can't imagine that the prairie states would ever get on board with a plan that would dilute their advantage in the electoral college (assuming that all 1,000 House seats would be counted for electoral apportionment).

Posted by Knecht Ruprecht | March 21, 2008 8:53 AM

I think that so long as there isn't more than one representative per 30,000 people (which there wouldn't be on Sabato's proposal), it's just done by statute:

"The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the state of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three" (Article I,§2).

Posted by Zippy | March 21, 2008 8:54 AM

The exact number of districts in the House of Representatives doesn't require a Constitutional amendment to change, but it would still be very difficult to get Congress to change it since that would dilute existing representative's power.

Posted by Ron | March 21, 2008 8:56 AM

Increasing the size of the House doesn't require a constitutional amendment. The current number, 435, is fixed by an ordinary U.S. statute, Public Law 62-5 (1911):

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/more_congressmen.php#comments

Presumably, Congress can just change the law.

Posted by Constantine | March 21, 2008 8:57 AM

Increasing the size of the House doesn't require a constitutional amendment. The current number, 435, is fixed by an ordinary U.S. statute, Public Law 62-5 (1911):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Law_62-5

Presumably, Congress can just change the law.

Posted by Constantine | March 21, 2008 8:58 AM

Matt,

I just wanted to let you know that just last year the U.S. military accused Iran of arming SUNNI militants in Iraq (though not al Qaeda).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6546555.stm

Obama apparently had no idea this was going on. So while McCain may have misspoke, Obama is actually the one confused on this issue.

McCain's senior adviser Mark Salter pointed this out in a recent interview, but it isn't making headlines like Obama's speech. So I thought I would just let you know.

Posted by Student | March 21, 2008 9:00 AM

The idea may have some merit, but I can't help but think that in reality all it would do is end up doubling the number of Dan Burtons in Congress.

Posted by Shawn | March 21, 2008 9:07 AM

It doesn't matter how many people are in the House of Representatives; if they're all just still Democrats and Republicans it's not going to be any different. Further, is it really valid to assume that shrinking districts will intrinsically prevent gerrymandering? Unfortunately you have to register to read the article so all I saw was the first paragraph.

Posted by STC | March 21, 2008 9:12 AM

More congresspeople... congresscritters...

Posted by DivGuy | March 21, 2008 9:12 AM

Well, a quick internet search shows that a Congressional salary is $169,300/year. For 435 members, that's $73.6 million. If we had 1,000 members, it would be $169.3 million. Add some other considerations - increased demand on office space on the Hill, staffing for each one of those representatives, parking, traffic, fitting 1,000 people into the floor of the House, increased medical expenses, larger pension payments - and you're probably talking about an extra $100-150 million a year at the very least.

Posted by Tel | March 21, 2008 9:13 AM

What Constantine said, both times. Actually Knecht Ruprecht, brings up another good reason to expand the number, in terms of the electoral college. The Plains states may be more willing to do it than you think since the enlargement every ten years of congressional dists leaves them conglemerating rural and suburban districts more and more. It wouldn't help the state's proportion, but it would help certain regions in every state get more direct representation.

Posted by AJ | March 21, 2008 9:22 AM

Really, we ought to aim for more like 3000, or roughly 1 representative per 100,000 people. You can, if you try hard, meet all of your constituents who would ever want to meet you if you are in a 100,000 person district.

In a 600,000 person district, you just run mass media ads and hope for the best.

Kudos to Larry Sabato.

Posted by Richard Campbell | March 21, 2008 9:41 AM

I really like Sabato's idea but I think this,

It doesn't matter how many people are in the House of Representatives; if they're all just still Democrats and Republicans it's not going to be any different.

is correct. It's not going to happen but if we moved to proportional representation many of our current woes would disappear.

Posted by Steam Powered | March 21, 2008 9:43 AM

Yep. 435 is the number set by law and can be changed by will. The number of Senators per states can not be changed AT ALL without wholly replacing the Constitution.

The one amendment out of the 12 amendments in the Bill of Rights that did not get passed (#11 eventually did) was an amendment setting a maximum population per Congressional district (50k I believe), which would then require that the total number of Congresscritters be increased. (Watch, I have probably screwed something up about my recitation.)

That all said, I really think the problem with House is that it is a first past the post system instead of a multimember district system. (Which would maximize the number of people casting a vote for a winning representative.)

max
['After considering the matter for 20 years, I have reluctantly concluded that Senators should be appointed by the state governments.']

Posted by max | March 21, 2008 9:55 AM

Larry Sabato's been floating around a lot of ideas for reforms of our system. They are all intriguing and aim to address some important concerns that the 2000 coup-d'etat and its aftermath have raised, but they are neither necessary nor sufficient to address those concerns.

Take his proposal to require that Congress renew any "war powers" type law renewed every few years. His thinking is that this would allow Congress to stop an unpopular war.

But how is this necessary? Congress can stop the war any time it wants to by making funding of the war dependent on setting up a withdrawl plan and sticking to it: and if the Pres. violates the law, he can be impeached/removed from office. But Congress doesn't do that because they feel that, even though the war is unpopular, opposing the war too vigorously will allow pro-war types to complain about "dirty hippies who hate our troops" and ruin political careers for war opponants.

So how then is Sabato's proposed change even sufficient? Even if Congress has to vote to maintain the war, a no vote would still result in political ruin even if the war is unpopular, because it would be spun as "not supporting the troops" and "wanting to cut and run rather than getting the job done".

Sabato's ideas tend to be coming from the right place in his heart, but they just tend to be neither necessary nor sufficient to address the problems they are supposed to address. Fundamentally the problems exist because we've lost track of our democratic mindset. Until we regain the mindset of citizens of a democratic republic, our system will continue to slide into cronyism and/or feudalism.

Posted by DAS | March 21, 2008 9:57 AM

Greater representation may indeed just produce more dimwits in DC. On the other hand it would be a finer-grained electoral snapshot, if you will, of the nation every two years and is just as likely to produce a greater input of ideas, broader alliances, and a more diverse pool of capable public servants.

An old fashioned notion, i know. . .

Posted by Will Divide | March 21, 2008 10:06 AM

I grew up in California, which has enormous state legislative districts -- 80 Assembly members and 40 Senators in a state with just over 50 CDs means that an Assembly district has about 350,000 people in it, and a Senate district has twice that.

I now live near Pennsylvania, which has over 200 State Representatives in the House alone -- a state Rep. district is smaller than a City Council district in Philadelphia. But it's hardly a silver bullet for corruption, which is absolutely rampant in Harrisburg, nor is it a means for getting alternative party candidates elected -- every single one of the State House members is an R or a D. I think it would help to expand Congress, but it will be pretty easy for the Forbidden City to adjust to a larger population of eunuchs without changing things very much, if adding more eunuchs is all we do.

Posted by Pesto | March 21, 2008 10:06 AM

Larry Sabato has addressed several proposals for fixing the Constitution.

He is one of the few political pundits who address an issue I've mentioned here several times before: that the Constitutional mechanism set up by the Founders 225 years ago may be badly broken because of changed circumstances (e.g, small feeble country on edge of civilized world versus global superpower)

But our shitty educational system is such that most Americans don't even know of the rationale for the Constitution's design (Federalist, Anti-Federalist papers) much less have the historical knowledge of ancient Greek and Roman republics that informed the Founders debate.

As with ancient Rome, global expansion has greatly increased inequities in income/wealth , has greatly increased malign political corruption, and Our Republic is collapsing into another Claudian military dictatorship.

IN part because the despicable behavior of Congress will lead the common citizens to support the first strong leader who will cut our Senators' fucking heads off.

Posted by Don Williams | March 21, 2008 10:06 AM

Constitution reform? The number of house members is fixed by an act of Congress, not the U.S. constitution. See public law 62-5. As long as the the number of representative does not exceed "one for every thirty thousand," Congress can change the law to increase the number of representatives. Thus, Congress could presumably have as many as 10,000 members.

Posted by thomas | March 21, 2008 10:08 AM

Sabato's proposal is wacky because it privileges getting-into-Congress over what Congress actually does. It would make it incrementally (not fundamentally) easier for people to run, but in exchange we would make it harder to actually legislate, which is the point of having a Congress.

Posted by Rich | March 21, 2008 10:10 AM

Larry Sabato was a student at the University of Virginia around the same time as I. He was ,if my memory serves, President of the Student Council. I always thought he would become a professional politician but evidently he decided to get an honest job.

Posted by Don Williams | March 21, 2008 10:11 AM

How quaint that Sabato thinks the reason politicians raise so much money is to compete in their own district rather than gaining influence while putting their family on their campaign payroll.

Posted by How Insane Is John McCain? | March 21, 2008 10:11 AM

Personally, I would like a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing that a US citizen has a RIGHT to VOTE.

Because as it now stands, a Republican Congress could pass a simple law saying that only citizens with a net worth of $10 Million or greater can vote.

Amazing how certain details got lost in the fine print in 1789. heh heh heh

Posted by Don Williams | March 21, 2008 10:16 AM

After all, Congress once had a law that you could only vote in US elections if you had a pair of testicles -- and that the testicles were white.

Posted by Don Williams | March 21, 2008 10:19 AM

Holy crap! Where would we put them all?? The Capitol ain't that big!

Maybe we could have them all sit on each other's laps?

Posted by scarpy | March 21, 2008 10:25 AM

Holy crap! Where would we put them all?? The Capitol ain't that big!

Maybe we could have them all sit on each other's laps?

Posted by scarpy | March 21, 2008 10:26 AM

Sorry, Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe has been talking about this for years.

JEFF JACOBY
A bigger, more democratic Congress

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | January 13, 2005

IRAQIS GO to the polls on Jan. 30 to choose the first truly democratic government in their nation's history. If all goes well, the election will result in a new National Assembly of 275 members, drawn from different political parties roughly in proportion to the share of the vote each party receives.

The distance Iraq has come in less than two years is remarkable. In January 2003, all political power in the country was concentrated in the hands of a single sadistic dictator. He represented, and answered to, no one but himself. Today, 7,200 candidates are campaigning for the privilege of holding office in a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. If that isn't progress, nothing is.

It is thanks to the United States, of course, that Iraq is about to join the ranks of the planet's democracies. Ironically, the moment the new National Assembly is seated, Iraq will surpass the US Congress in one key measure of democratic legitimacy: the ratio of elected lawmakers to citizens.

Divide Iraq's 25 million people by the number of members in the new parliament (275), and the result is one legislator for every 91,000 people. That will make Iraq's government almost exactly as representative as Great Britain's -- each member of the House of Commons also represents, on average, about 91,000 citizens. Other democracies are comparable. The ratio for Italy's Chamber of Deputies is 1 to 92,000. For the French National Assembly, 1 to 104,000. For Canada's House of Commons, 1 to 105,000. For Germany's Bundestag, 1 to 136,000.

But in the US House of Representatives, each lawmaker represents, on average, a staggering 674,000 citizens. That makes the "people's house" in Washington one of the least democratic bodies of its kind in the world. No wonder so many Americans feel alienated from Congress. The vastness of their constituencies has turned too many representatives into distant careerists, political moguls with bloated staffs and bloated egos who are more closely attuned to their campaign war chests than to the lives of the people they are supposed to represent.

Term limits would help reconnect members of Congress with their districts, as would an end to blatantly partisan gerrymandering. But there is an even better way to make Congress more democratic: Make it bigger.

Preposterous? It shouldn't be. When the Framers drafted the Constitution, they fully expected that as the American population grew, so would the House of Representatives. "I take for granted," James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 55, "that the number of representatives will be augmented from time to time in the manner provided by the Constitution." He was writing to rebut charges that the proposed House was too small to be democratic and would turn into an oligarchy. He repeated the point in Federalist Nos. 56 and 58, noting that the purpose of the decennial census was to facilitate the growth of the House.

And growth there was. From 65 seats in 1789, the House grew to 105 after the 1790 Census tallied 3.9 million Americans -- putting the ratio of representatives to citizens at 1 to 37,000. After the 1800 Census, the House was enlarged to 142, then to 186 after the 1810 Census, 213 after the 1820 Census, and so on for more than a century. The increase in House members always lagged behind the increase in population, so the number of citizens per member of Congress steadily rose.

Still, it was 1860 before the ratio went over 1 for every 100,000, and not until 1910, when the House expanded to 435 members, that it surpassed 1 for every 200,000. But in the years since, the number of House seats has remained fixed at 435, while the population has more than tripled. The result is today's swollen congressional districts, each of which now contains more people than most states did when the Constitution was ratified.

Enlarging the House to around 1,300 members -- triple its current size -- would doubtless take some getting used to. But the benefits would more than outweigh any inconvenience.

Among them: Congress would be enriched by a great infusion of new blood and new ideas. Congressional staffs could be sharply reduced. Smaller districts would promote greater political intimacy -- elections would be more likely to turn on personal campaigning and local ties instead of costly mass-media advertising. No longer would states have to lose seats in Congress even though their population had grown, and with fewer votes needed to get elected, the House would be more likely to reflect the nation's social and political diversity.

As the number of people grow, the "people's house" should grow. On this as on so much else, the Framers had it right.

Posted by Martin | March 21, 2008 10:43 AM

The obvious solution - it's time for the USA to break up. A country of 300 million + is simply far too big.

Posted by vanya | March 21, 2008 10:47 AM

As was mentioned before, this is an idea that's been floating around for some time, but that certainly doesn't dilute it's validity.

I'm for it 100%. Really, as Richard Campbell notes above, we should be aiming for 3,000 members.

The practical political effect would be to dramatically enhance the voting power of urban and (perhaps moreso) suburban constituencies versus their rural counterparts. It would be nothing less than revolutionary in effect. In fact, it might be the single best way for a 3rd Party to finally gain a permanent foothold.

As far as the "But there's not enough space in Cannon, Rayburn, or Longworth for that many Congressmen!" factor -- who says they all have to be in DC? We have copious amounts of technology that would remotely allow these members to communicate with one another, "attend" committee hearings, and vote securely.

If we ever do need to bring them all together physically, then we can always just rent out Constitution Hall or perhaps we can build our own version of the Great Hall of the People.

Posted by dry_fish | March 21, 2008 10:59 AM

The sums involved are nugatory in the context of a legislative branch that already costs over a billion dollars a year to run -- exclusive of the Library of Congress -- and an overall budget of over a trillion.

$150 million more a year is change between the couch cushions. It's not a reason not to do it.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | March 21, 2008 11:05 AM

Yeah, what Davis X said RE: the cost factor. It's nothing for Congress to piss away a billion dollars for random pet interests. $150M in this context is cheap.

Posted by dry_fish | March 21, 2008 11:18 AM

I'm in favor of this, and furthermore, I think all state legislatures should be unicameral like Nebraska's.

Posted by Delicious Pundit | March 21, 2008 12:02 PM

Re Vanya's comment "The obvious solution - it's time for the USA to break up. A country of 300 million + is simply far too big. "
--------------
Wrong --although I would agree with a push to sharply curtail powers of COngress/President in favor of moving most decision-making down to the State governments.

The Army during the Revolutionary War was named the CONTINENTAL ARMY for a reason.

Our Founders feared that the North American continent would fragment into a number of warring states -- as occurred for thousands of years in Europe.

IN that environment, any republican government tends to be replaced by strong monarchies -- due to the wartime pressures for strong leaders. Continual warfare would ensure a Continent of monarchs with dictatorial powers over impoverished peasants.

This ,in my opinion, is why Thomas Jefferson set aside his strong views on limited government in favor of the Louisiana Purchase. Any European power controlling New Orleans/lower Mississippi would have had defacto control of the American Midwest -- because economies of Midwestern states were totally dependent on exports to oceanic shipping at the mouth of the Mississippi. Hence, President Madison's and Andrew Jackson's desperate attempts to save New Orleans from the British in 1815.

I've seen one source note that it was cheaper in 1812 to ship corn from western Pennsylvania DOWN the Mississippi River to New Orleans then UP the Atlantic Coast to Philadelphia rather than try to haul the corn in wagons over the poor roads of era.

New York City's growth largely occurred because the huge Hudson River penetrates far inland (shipping being possible almost to Albany ) and then was connected to shipping on the Great Lakes via the Erie Canal. West Point --now the US Army's academy -- was a fortress with strategic control over the Hudson.

By contrast, shipping on the great rivers of Virginia could go no farther inland than the geological FALL LINE -- where earth Faults result in impassible waterfalls. Washington DC is where it is because shipping on the Potomac River halts at Georgetown -- just below the Great Falls.

Posted by Don Williams | March 21, 2008 12:26 PM

I'm in favor of this, and at the state level, I think more states should follow the sharp distinction between the chambers that New Hampshire does. NH has only 24 members of its Senate but 400 positions in its House of Representatives, meaning that each Representative has a constituency of only about 3,000 persons. The result is that you get one house with a very intimate relationship with its voters, and another with larger staffs, more experience with lawmaking, etc.

The current system in California is just asinine; with 80 members in the Assembly and 40 in the Senate, the two chambers are basically redundant.

Posted by Adam Villani | March 21, 2008 12:47 PM

As a New Hampshirite I'm favorably inclined toward Adam Villani's view... but the thing to remember is that the physics of decisionmaking bodies remain roughly constant. The effective number of decisionmakers either holds steady or *shrinks* as the size of the body grows. 24 people (the NH Senate) can actually all have a say. In a body of 400 people, the number of effective decisionmakers is probably below 20 and may be 10.

A 1000-member House is a small town, not a deliberative body. It further concentrates power in the majority leadership and the leadership of the two or three most important committees. It makes it somewhat easier to enter the House... as a freshman backbencher who the leaders of the House wouldn't be able to pick out of a police lineup, and whose legislative authority approaches zero.

Posted by Jacob T. Levy | March 21, 2008 1:08 PM

Larry Sabato's out-of-left-field idea of expanding the House of Representatives to include maybe 1,000 members.

Actually, George Will has voiced this idea several times in the past. His hope is that the House would be so twisted in knots by bickering Reps that nothing would get done - and a do-nothing government is a conservative's dream.

Posted by Jinchi | March 21, 2008 2:32 PM

It's often (but wrongly) argued that politicians representing smaller groups of people are more accountable than those with huge constituencies.

But this is simply untrue. Most people know who the president is and what he's done. Many know one or both of their Senators. Significantly fewer know about their own Representatives.

Likewise, Governors are better known than most Mayors who are better known than city councilmen.

Personally, I've been much more successful getting responses from my Senators than my Rep and I've never gotten any from my local officials. It's far easier to hold the bigger guys responsible, because more eyes are watching them.

Posted by Jinchi | March 21, 2008 2:43 PM

Sabato's beef with Congress boils down to gerrymandering, and until that's dealt with no amount of tinkering will address the problem. A 1,000- or 3,000-member House would be even more minutely and successfully gerrymandered than the 435-member version, and special interests could buy/bankroll pliant legislators more cheaply, as they already do in state legislatures.

That said, it really is ridiculous that California's state senators represent more people than its U.S. representatives. (That's also the case in Texas.) States, like California, with initiative should be able to enact laws limiting the number of constituents per district.

Whether a very large legislature would be more responsive, however, is doubtful.

Posted by allbetsareoff | March 21, 2008 4:13 PM

Yeah, I've seen this one before too -- I want to say by Tom Geohegan in TNR maybe 10 years ago.

Good to know Sabato is more than a quote slut/nattering head.

But I'm with those who say this proposal just seems unmanageable in terms of numbers of people. As if the Hill (the House especially) isn't chaotic and unruly enough.

Posted by Bart Acocella | March 21, 2008 4:40 PM

It's ridiculous that lame ideas like this take the place of real social and political change in this country.

Truly pathetic.

Let's fudge the numbers, is what this amounts to.

How about fudging the numbers for the MONEY that goes to the politicians in this country?

How about eliminating ALL campaign contributions to any political party by anybody? Want to run the country? Finance your run yourself, out of your own pocket. Worried about the rich being the only ones who can run? How is that different from now in every single office of significance? Poorer people can run campaigns as long as the law says that anybody can work for any campaign out of their own pocket. No paid workers. If you don't have volunteers, you can't run. That means you'd better convince somebody other than your wife that you'd be good.

Better yet - let's not pay Congress and elected officials at all, other than a "cost of living" stipend. No "free postage" privileges, either.

Let's make it NOT PROFITABLE to be a politician.

Then if you do it, you do it for the reason that you think you can do something good - or you're a complete psychotic, which should be discernible (although it doesn't seem to be now - look at McCain).

Fergeddaboudit. Politics is the business of corruption and no amount of fudging is going to change that. Only doing away with the state will help - and you chimps don't have the brains or self-control to make that work.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 21, 2008 8:14 PM

Utterly self-controlled bank-robber and felon Richard Steven Hack has the temerity to label others 'chimps.'

If the state evaporates, Mr. Hack -- what with his fabulous social skills -- would be the first to go.

Posted by Daniel Shays | March 23, 2008 4:31 AM