Americans are not well-represented in their government

[LA Grant]

I've posted this a few times in different threads but it wasn't able to cut through the noise. But here's a proposal that should cut through partisan lines — left or right, Americans are not accurately represented by their government.

 

Your average elected official in The House of Representatives speaks for about 700,000 people.  When the limit of 435 total Reps for the House was set in 1913, the ratio was far lower: 1 rep for every 200k citizens. In the 100+ years since, the population has grown dramatically, yet the ratio remains fixed, archaically. 

 

Ironically, it means that America, for all of the branding of "freedom" and "democracy," represents the average citizen worse than other major countries. That's a pretty bad deal if you prefer, as I do, for America to be a representative democracy. 

 

Quote

according to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the House of Representatives is on the very high side of population per representative at 729,000. The population per member in the lower house of other major countries is considerably smaller: Britain and Italy, 97,000; Canada and France, 114,000; Germany, 135,000; Australia, 147,000; and Japan, 265,000.

 

There have been proposals — from both left & right — to change this, because there's no shortage of ways to see how an increase in the House would lead to (a) better representation for third-parties, (b) easier for cross-aisle coalitions to build, (c) would lead to more citizen-legislators and fewer career lifers or lobbyists with government clearance.

 

Quote

 

Smaller districts would also end the two-party deadlock. Orange County, Calif., might elect a Libertarian, while Cambridge, Mass., might pick a candidate from the Green Party.

 

Moreover, with additional House members we’d likely see more citizen-legislators and fewer lifers. In places like New York or Chicago, we would cross at least one Congressional district just walking a few blocks to the grocery store. Our representatives would be our neighbors, people who better understood the lives and concerns of average Americans.

 

More districts would likewise mean more precision in distributing them equitably, especially in low-population states. Today the lone Wyoming representative covers about 500,000 people, while her lone counterpart in Delaware reports to 900,000.

 

The increase would also mean more elected officials working on the country’s business, reducing the reliance on unaccountable staffers. Most of the House’s work is through committees, overseeing and checking government agencies.

 

With more people in Congress, House committee members could see to this critical business themselves — and therefore be more influential, since a phone call from an actual member is a lot more effective than a request from the committee staff.

 

True, more members means more agendas, legislation and debates. But Internet technology already provides effective low-cost management solutions, from Google Documents to streaming interactive video to online voting.

 

The biggest obstacle is Congress itself. Such a change would require the noble act — routine before World War I but unheard of since — of representatives voting to diminish their own relative power.

 

So if such reform is to happen, it will have to be driven by grassroots movements. Luckily, we are living in just such a moment: the one thing Move On and the Tea Party can agree on is that the Washington status quo needs to change. So far this year, that has meant shrinking government. But in this case, the best solution might just be to make government — or at least the House of Representatives — bigger.

 

Quote

The 1910 census (PDF) put the U.S. population at just over 92 million people. That means there was roughly one representative for every 211,000 people. That’s less than one third the current ratio.   There’s an easy way to get back to a more representative House, and it would account for population growth. This would best be done by constitutional amendment. 

 

• To ensure a legislative house that represents the people more closely, here is a proposal to increase the size of the House of Representatives. 
• The state with the lowest population shall be awarded two members in the House of Representatives.
• That state’s population divided by two shall be the base population number of a congressional district.
• The total population of the United States minus the territories and the District of Columbia divided by the number above shall be the size of the House of Representatives.
• No state shall have less than two representatives.

 

A system like that, applied today, would give the state with the lowest population, Wyoming, two representatives. The estimated population of Wyoming in July 2016 was 585,501. The population of the United States, at the same time, was estimated at 323.1 million. 

 

The base population for a representative would have been 292,750. That would result in a House of Representatives with 1103 members. That would be significantly more representative of the people.

 

That’s just one proposal to make the Congress more answerable to the people. It is time to do so.

 

 

Sources

https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/is-it-time-to-increase-the-size-of-congress/

https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/07/enlarging-the-house-of-representatives/

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/opinion/24conley.html

https://www.census.gov/population/apportionment/about/history.html

http://archive.ipu.org/parline-e/NumberOfSeats.asp?REGION=All&LANG=ENG&typesearch=1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929

 

Right now, the Republicans control the legislative & executive branch — if they truly believe in "smaller government" and "draining the swamp" — putting more power in the hands of the public would be a great way to achieve both.

[row_33]

I can only imagine how silly the opening post is.....

 

 

[Taro T]

56 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

I've posted this a few times in different threads but it wasn't able to cut through the noise. But here's a proposal that should cut through partisan lines — left or right, Americans are not accurately represented by their government.

 

Your average elected official in The House of Representatives speaks for about 700,000 people.  When the limit of 435 total Reps for the House was set in 1913, the ratio was far lower: 1 rep for every 200k citizens. In the 100+ years since, the population has grown dramatically, yet the ratio remains fixed, archaically. 

 

Ironically, it means that America, for all of the branding of "freedom" and "democracy," represents the average citizen worse than other major countries. That's a pretty bad deal if you prefer, as I do, for America to be a representative democracy. 

 

 

There have been proposals — from both left & right — to change this, because there's no shortage of ways to see how an increase in the House would lead to (a) better representation for third-parties, (b) easier for cross-aisle coalitions to build, (c) would lead to more citizen-legislators and fewer career lifers or lobbyists with government clearance.

 

 

Sources

https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/is-it-time-to-increase-the-size-of-congress/

https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/07/enlarging-the-house-of-representatives/

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/opinion/24conley.html

https://www.census.gov/population/apportionment/about/history.html

http://archive.ipu.org/parline-e/NumberOfSeats.asp?REGION=All&LANG=ENG&typesearch=1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929

 

Right now, the Republicans control the legislative & executive branch — if they truly believe in "smaller government" and "draining the swamp" — putting more power in the hands of the public would be a great way to achieve both.

 

This proposal wouldn't have ANYTHING to do w/ a desire to alter the, presumably unfair in your eyes, balance between the large & small states representation in the Electoral College now would it?

[row_33]

When libs whine about the unfairness when the Dems hold power....

 

for now they can suck it

 

[LA Grant]

4 minutes ago, Taro T said:

This proposal wouldn't have ANYTHING to do w/ a desire to alter the, presumably unfair in your eyes, balance between the large & small states representation in the Electoral College now would it?

 

If the House were proportional, the same ratio protections for small states would still exist. Less-populated states would benefit proportionally as much as the more populated states -- instead of having 1 Rep in Wyoming, they would have 2.

 

The result would be that your vote would matter more, and your Rep would be more accountable, wherever you live.

5 minutes ago, row_33 said:

When libs whine about the unfairness when the Dems hold power....

 

for now they can suck it

 

Aha. Thanks for the predictably partisan non-response. At least you boosted your post count, I guess.

[Taro T]

51 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

If the House were proportional, the same ratio protections for small states would still exist. Less-populated states would benefit proportionally as much as the more populated states -- instead of having 1 Rep in Wyoming, they would have 2.

 

The result would be that your vote would matter more, and your Rep would be more accountable, wherever you live.

 

Good job of TOTALLY ignoring the question that was asked of you.

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, Taro T said:

 

Good job of TOTALLY ignoring the question that was asked of you.

Do you like oranges or apples? Grapes.

[LA Grant]

Just now, Taro T said:

Good job of TOTALLY ignoring the question that was asked of you.

 

Oh my lord, you precious little snowflake... If you're not satisfied, you can have your money back.

 

I answered you with more thoughtfulness than you did in your response. If you're aware of how the Electoral College is calculated, the answer is obvious. It appears like you're trying to frame this as a "partisan" issue, and I don't think it is. If the last two Democratic presidents won without the popular vote, I would be just as disturbed by the process. Of course, that can only be a hypothetical, can't it? Because that's now how it happened.

 

The fixed limit for the House of Reps has a far more wide-ranging effect on US government than just the Electoral College. Being well-represented should matter to you. Don't know how else to say it.

[Koko78]

26 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

There have been proposals — from both left & right — to change this, because there's no shortage of ways to see how an increase in the House would lead to (a) better representation for third-parties, (b) easier for cross-aisle coalitions to build, (c) would lead to more citizen-legislators and fewer career lifers or lobbyists with government clearance.

 

A.) Unlikely. The US uses a system of single member district plurality to elect representatives. That system inherently discourages third parties.

 

B.) Maybe. Splitting up the districts further may allow more moderate candidates to emerge, but I doubt it. Just too much money and too much invested in keeping the partisan rancor going.

 

C.) Not a !@#$ing chance. Adding more reps will simply make more career politicians.

[3rdnlng]

5 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Oh my lord, you precious little snowflake... If you're not satisfied, you can have your money back.

 

I answered you with more thoughtfulness than you did in your response. If you're aware of how the Electoral College is calculated, the answer is obvious. It appears like you're trying to frame this as a "partisan" issue, and I don't think it is. If the last two Democratic presidents won without the popular vote, I would be just as disturbed by the process. Of course, that can only be a hypothetical, can't it? Because that's now how it happened.

 

The fixed limit for the House of Reps has a far more wide-ranging effect on US government than just the Electoral College. Being well-represented should matter to you. Don't know how else to say it.

Being able to get your point across in an short and concise way, rather than typing paragraph after paragraph is a sign of true intelligence. Please take note.

[LA Grant]

Just now, Koko78 said:

A.) Unlikely. The US uses a system of single member district plurality to elect representatives. That system inherently discourages third parties.

 

B.) Maybe. Splitting up the districts further may allow more moderate candidates to emerge, but I doubt it. Just too much money and too much invested in keeping the partisan rancor going.

 

C.) Not a !@#$ing chance. Adding more reps will simply make more career politicians.

 

A) Yes but with smaller districts, it's more likely for more third-party candidates to break through, is it not? You'd be more likely to see more independents like Rand Paul or Bernie Sanders. Like one of the op-eds pointed to, for example, it wouldn't be unlikely to see libertarian candidates emerge from California's conservative enclaves. 

 

B) Wouldn't smaller districts lead to more challenges to the money & partisanship establishment? There is clearly a desire for shaking up the crumbling two party system, on both sides. 

 

C) I think it would make it harder for career politicians to hold onto their seats if they're defying the will of their district. 

 

D) Before the limit was set over a century ago, the House of Reps increased in size with each Census... why shouldn't we return to this model of proportional government? At the very least, why not aim to get the ratio closer to what it was in 1913, when the average Rep spoke for 200k citizens instead of 700k? 

[Taro T]

59 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Oh my lord, you precious little snowflake... If you're not satisfied, you can have your money back.

 

I answered you with more thoughtfulness than you did in your response. If you're aware of how the Electoral College is calculated, the answer is obvious. It appears like you're trying to frame this as a "partisan" issue, and I don't think it is. If the last two Democratic presidents won without the popular vote, I would be just as disturbed by the process. Of course, that can only be a hypothetical, can't it? Because that's now how it happened.

 

The fixed limit for the House of Reps has a far more wide-ranging effect on US government than just the Electoral College. Being well-represented should matter to you. Don't know how else to say it.

 

Holy cow, you really truly believe the people reading what you write are dumber than tree stumps.  You are the most disingenuous poster that's been on this board in a very long time; which is quite an accomplishment.

 

You are not being "thoughtful;" you are exhibiting your duplicitousness.

 

And if you truly believe that doubling or tripling the membership in the HoR will increase its effectiveness, then you are demonstrating that you've never been on a committee nor a BoD.

[LA Grant]

2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Being able to get your point across in an short and concise way, rather than typing paragraph after paragraph is a sign of true intelligence. Please take note.

 

Yeah, I'm sure that's how you justify it.

 

Bathroom graffiti > books.

 

Obviously.

[keepthefaith]

I'd like the federal government to focus on solving the big priorities and solving them well before devoting time and debate to increasing the size of a dysfunctional body. 

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, LA Grant said:

 

Yeah, I'm sure that's how you justify it.

 

Bathroom graffiti > books.

 

Obviously.

Congratulations, you're learning.

[B-Man]

Are we counting just U.S. Citizens to elect "representatives" in the U.S. government ?

 

-- NOT asked in jest or sarcasm.

 

 

I have read many accounts of "progressives" who promote non-citizens voting, it's an idea with some support............."If they live here, they should get to vote"

 

 

So, if their votes are now "better represented" by increasing the House number........................That should be a non-starter.

 

 

 

.

[LA Grant]

Just now, Taro T said:

Holy cow, you really truly believe the people reading what you write are dumber than tree stumps.  You are the most disingenuous poster that's been on this board in a very long time; which is quite an accomplishment.

 

You are not being "thoughtful;" you are exhibiting your duplicitousness.

 

And if you truly believe that doubling or tripling the membership in the HoR will increase its effectiveness, then you are demonstrating that you've never been on a committee nor a BoD.

 

How am I being disingenuous or duplicitous exactly? You're insisting on focusing on me, or my motives, which you believe must be untrustworthy, rather than the content posted.

 

There've been proposals for this on both the left & the right. Try to talk about that instead of me, individually.

Just now, B-Man said:

Are we counting just U.S. Citizens to elect "representatives" in the U.S. government ?

 

-- NOT asked in jest or sarcasm.

 

I have read many accounts of "progressives" who promote non-citizens voting, it's an idea with some support............."If they live here, they should get to vote"

 

So, if their votes are now "better represented" by increasing the House number........................That should be a non-starter.

 

I'm talking only about legal citizens of the US with the right to vote.

 

There are laws that keep legal citizens from voting — for example, convicted felons in Florida lose the right to vote permanently, even after they've finished serving their sentence — but that's not the focus here.

 

Plain and simple, left or right — Americans deserve to have more say in their government than they do now. 

[3rdnlng]

3 minutes ago, B-Man said:

Are we counting just U.S. Citizens to elect "representatives" in the U.S. government ?

 

-- NOT asked in jest or sarcasm.

 

 

I have read many accounts of "progressives" who promote non-citizens voting, it's an idea with some support............."If they live here, they should get to vote"

 

 

So, if their votes are now "better represented" by increasing the House number........................That should be a non-starter.

 

 

 

.

If entering this country illegally is a felon then they can't vote anyway.

[boyst]

Is this worth reading?  Can someone tl,Dr?

 

This clown is exactly that. 

[LA Grant]

4 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

I'd like the federal government to focus on solving the big priorities and solving them well before devoting time and debate to increasing the size of a dysfunctional body. 

 

Don't you think "fair representation" should be a big priority for the federal government?

 

It's entirely possible that a House with 1000 Reps instead of 435 could find more coalition-based solutions, thereby curbing the dysfunction. Instead of 218 out of 435, you'd need 501 out of 1000 for majority. True, doing this wouldn't fix everything overnight, but it would probably lead to new ideas being presented, and more interesting debates.