RSS Feed Menu
The proposal on FrumForum to “supersize” the House of Representatives would effectively hand legislative power to lobbyists and executive power to the Democrats. I would strongly prefer to keep the Congress as it is, and if we absolutely had to change its size, I would cut it in half. This would bring it closer to the original design.
While we can easily increase the number of representatives, there are some resources we can’t increase. It is highly unlikely that expansion of the House would create a lot of new TV stations and newspapers or increase the coverage of congress in the media. Many voters already don’t know who represents them. Major metropolitan areas are already split between multiple congressional districts, and several of the biggest media markets in the country contain a double digit number of districts. As a result, most of the local news coverage in the country is already split among multiple Congressmen and congressional campaigns. Not surprisingly, voters end up confused about which of their local representative’s they are supposed to follow and who is running against whom. If we increase the number of congressional districts in either NY or LA to 100 or more the coverage of each individual representative will be reduced to almost zero.
Paradoxically, if congressional districts are made smaller to bring representatives closer to the people, the voters will actually end up knowing a lot less about their representatives. The Internet does not ‘change everything’ – most voters do not look up how their Congressman voted on legislation.
Of course, a small group of people do track congressional votes very closely; special interests (both economic and ideological). With smaller districts, well organized national groups will have more leverage than they have now. Not only will the upside of toeing their line will be much bigger (the ability to bring even a small group of voters to the polls will have more weight), the downside will be smaller because most voters will be less informed. Special interests will ultimately have more influence in the nominating process than they already do.
Congressional candidates will also be operating with fewer resources. In addition to special interest, party organizations will probably completely take over GOTV efforts and will be running a lot more ads generically boosting the party and blasting the opposition. Voters will become less informed about individual candidates, and vote based on party labels. Paradoxically, smaller congressional districts may effectively deprive American citizens of representation as we know it. Congressmen will be accountable to their respective parties and associated lobbies rather than their constituents – just like Europe. (It is worth remembering that while the RNC and DNC are not accountable to the voters, they are accountable to big donors).
We need to consider how a bigger House would operate. Here again we run into the issue of finite resources. The amount of time available for floor debates will not increase. Neither will the time available for committee hearings (unless the number of committees increases dramatically – and doing so would greatly increase confusion and fighting over jurisdiction and reduce efficiency). Even the number of pork barrel projects is not infinitely elastic! Party leaders will have much less time to get to know their individual members, and learn the needs of their districts. The number of Americans who make a good Congressman would not increase. There are already quite a few Congressmen who are not very intelligent, well informed, or honest. A supersized House will have a much higher proportion of them – and of the various oddballs (if you liked Cynthia McKinney, you will love a bigger House since there will be a lot more like her). Eventually we will have a situation where the Nutjob Caucus wants to debate UFOs and the leadership wants to pass a budget.
For pragmatism to win we would need House rules giving near dictatorial powers to a handful of leaders. There would also be draconian party discipline (again, like in Europe). The membership will be effectively split into two tiers: one will be a small active minority (no more than a couple hundred) of members who will grill witnesses in committee hearings and make floor speeches. The other will be a large passive majority of members who will just sit there (assuming they even show up) and vote (usually the way their party leaders tell them to). The House will become less democratic, not more. It is no coincidence that no G7 member has an elected legislative chamber bigger than 650 members – it is just not easy to keep a larger body functional. If you want to see parliaments with membership in the four digits, you have to look at the Soviet Union, Red China, or Libya.
We should not neglect the effects of a bigger House on other branches of government. Obviously, the executive branch will have to handle a lot more requests for information from Congressmen including a higher number of frivolous requests. It is quite predictable that those requests will be handled at a lower level of bureaucracy than now, and most representatives will have much less access to high-ranking officials than now. That may reduce the quality of congressional oversight.
Finally the biggest effect would be on the geographic distribution of power in the US – namely, further shift of power away from small states towards big states. The average number of representatives per state has already increased from 5 in 1789 to 8.7 now (this is a much more important number than the average population of a congressional district). This has already made small states less powerful collectively than they were at the time they ratified the Constitution. Why? Because of the way the Electoral College is structured. First, each state gets the number of votes equal to the number of the state’s representatives in the House – and that number is roughly proportional to the state’s population. But then on top of that every state gets two “bonus” votes for two US senators from that state. And that bonus means proportionally much more for smaller states than for larger states (e.g. the smallest states of the Union get their electoral votes increased from 1 to 3 while California only gets a barely noticeable increase from 53 to 55).
For a good example of that effect on presidential elections, consider that in 2000 George W. Bush won Wyoming, Alaska and both Dakotas while Al Gore won Connecticut. Now, Connecticut had population almost a million (or over 40%) bigger than the combined population of those four states. As a result, Connecticut had six congressional districts while each of those four states had just one. But thanks to “bonus” votes Connecticut had 8 electoral votes while WY, AK, SD and ND had a grand total of 12 electoral votes. Had Al Gore lost Connecticut but won those four tiny states, he would have won the election (ironically, he could have lost the popular vote due to such an unequal exchange!). All in all, Bush carried 30 states while Gore carried only 20 states plus DC. Bush thus netted 18 “bonus” votes, and that made all the difference. Had each state received only one “bonus” electoral vote, Gore would have won. Even if you cut the “bonus” by just one quarter and award each state one and a half electoral vote, Gore still wins! Any increase in the average number of congressional districts per state effectively dilutes the “bonus” votes that the state gets for its two senators (now they are worth just slightly more than half of their worth at the time of Constitution ratification), and therefore shifts the power from smaller states to bigger states (a scary thought for conservatives: if the House had 500 or more members in 2000, Al Gore would have won).
We already have that happening naturally, thanks to unprecedented concentration of population in some huge states, but there are no good conservative reasons to accelerate that process (now it takes just 11 biggest states – well under a quarter of all states – to get a majority in the Electoral College, while in the 18th century at least one third of all states were necessary). Besides the fact that making it easier for presidential candidates to ignore whole groups of states is not good for federalism or sound public policy, there is a purely practical consideration. The Democrats tend to sweep large metropolitan areas and thus win fewer but bigger states, while Republicans tend to do well in rural areas and thus they get a bit of an advantage (typically around 12-20 electoral votes) thanks to “bonus” votes. It is not beneficial for them to devalue that advantage by diluting the votes.
34 Comments so far ↓
talkradiosucks.com // Jan 24, 2011 at 8:54 am
pnumi2 — thanks for your reasoned responses.
I don’t think there’s any way to say definitively that one method or another is inherently more fair than the other. Just like with most things, it depends on your perspective.
Most people who discuss this issue live in big cities in big states. They don’t understand what it is like to be in a rural area in a small state. The reason why we don’t have strict proportional representation is because of the history of the union. The small states had to have assurances that they would not be completely marginalized when the states decided to join together, and this is one way that reassurances were given.
Remember that the president was originally not supposed to be chosen by the people at all. He was supposed to be selected by state leaders. The electoral college is intimately bound up in all of that.
lessadoabouteverything // Jan 24, 2011 at 10:26 am
“With a straight popular vote, nobody will even care about states any more, all they will do is spend their time pandering to people in cities.” Look, this is simply assertion. The Democratic and Republican parties have their own natural constituents. Are you really claiming Republicans will spend time in NY or LA to vote gather? They go there to get money, true but that is it. For once Democrats would have reason to go to Texas and Republicans to California, and most importantly voters will no longer be disenfranchised. Why show up at all if you are a Republican in San Francisco, maybe for a vote for Senator if even that is competitive?
And the electoral college does not benefit small states as far as having any attention paid to them.
Frankly the only way we will get rid of the electoral college is if Texas goes blue, if that happens the small states would be meaningless, NY, Texas, California in the Democratic column would be the effective death of the Republicans. Republicans can win 29 states and the popular vote total and be swamped in the electoral college in such an event.
You say we are a Union of states, but that is what the Senate Represents.
And yes, I know this is all theoretical, but these electrons are free so might as well use them.
lessadoabouteverything // Jan 24, 2011 at 10:43 am
“Remember that the president was originally not supposed to be chosen by the people at all.” Yes, and remember slaves were 3/5 of a person and women had no vote. I see no reason why we have to be forever bound up to what a small group of wealthy American gentry wanted. They gave us the power to amend the Constitution.
And you talk about attention paid to the people in small states but what attention? All it is is an very occasional stop there. In fact, has Obama ever been to Idaho? I checked and he visited Idaho once during the primaries. I can not find any evidence he has visited it as President. And Obama only visited Boise. So for all intents and purposes in the general election Idaho does not exist for Democrats. And an Idaho Democrat has zero reason to vote for President.
I can respect your desire to continue tradition, I also respect your absolutely correct assessment that the chances of amending the Constitution are bupkis (for now). But tradition and reality don’t make it right. For years the election has been coming down to Ohio and Florida, not Delaware and Idaho.
talkradiosucks.com // Jan 24, 2011 at 10:52 am
“Are you really claiming Republicans will spend time in NY or LA to vote gather?”
Of course they would. In fact, they would tailor and even change their policies to allow them to do so.
Why? Because in a straight pop vote election, the optimum strategy is to pander to large population areas. Even if the R candidate still lost those areas to the D, the R would have more potential to add gains to his/her total in the cities. Because that’s where the people are!
This already happens at the state level. Ask someone who lives in the Berkshires of western MA, or upstate NY, or rural California, how often they get any attention paid to them by state-wide office seekers.
“most importantly voters will no longer be disenfranchised.”
Ah, the “disenfranchised” myth. First of all, you aren’t “disenfranchised” simply because your vote isn’t pivotal — nobody guarantees that. Second, for every allegedly “disenfranchised” voter under the current system, there would be at least one in a straight popular vote system. Starting with everyone who lives in a small state or a rural area.
“And the electoral college does not benefit small states as far as having any attention paid to them.”
This is a bald assertion with nothing to back it up, and in fact the data disagrees with you. The electoral college is the only reason presidential candidates care about small states at all. Go to straight popular vote and they’ll never set foot in places like Iowa, New Hampshire or Maine again.
pnumi2 // Jan 24, 2011 at 11:29 am
Is the argument to keep the electoral system one of economic benefit to the small rural states who would not get the ‘boots on the ground’ campaigning of the national candidates and the television expenditures that follow in their train, if we had a popular vote for the presidency?
Or is it that the two extra votes per state that the electoral college awards all states redounds to the benefit of the supporters of the American Republic, the Republicans, and to the harm of the supporters of the American Democracy, the Democrats?
Or is this a tale full of sound and bupkis, signifying nothing?
jg bennet // Jan 24, 2011 at 11:43 am
Several months ago I started researching why the GOP wants to change the 14th amendment and I discovered the below link. The fact is, the “browner” a state gets the more blue it becomes over time and Illegal immigration not only redistributes seats in the House, it has the same effect on presidential elections because the Electoral College is based on the size of congressional delegations.
http://www.cis.org/articles/2003/back1403.html
January 06, 2011……Four Republican lawmakers introduced legislation Thursday that would end automatic granting of American citizenship to children born in the United States to illegal immigrants, arguing “birthright citizenship” is an incentive for illegals to race for the U.S. border. Automatic citizenship is enshrined in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which was drafted with freed slaves in mind and ratified in 1868.
Reapportionment based on non-citizens
As the number of US House seats is fixed at 435, reapportionment means that if a given state gains a House district, another state must lose one. If (illegal alien non-citizens are counted in the decennial Census upon which districts are apportioned, then states with larger illegal alien populations are likely to end up with more districts and therefore more representation in the House. This effectively dilutes the votes of citizens in states having relatively low populations of illegal aliens.
Similarly, congressional districts in those states with proportionately higher numbers of illegal aliens end up representing a large illegal alien, non-citizen, non-enfranchised population.
Illegal immigration has the same effect on presidential elections because the Electoral College is based on the size of congressional delegations. Indeed, the presence of all foreign-born persons in 2000 (naturalized citizens, non-citizens, and illegal aliens) redistributed 16 seats, up from 12 seats in 1990.
For example, in Southern California, several districts contain less than half of the eligible voters found in districts in other states. Indeed, 43 percent of the population in California’s 31st district is made up of non-citizens, while in the 34th district, 38 percent are non-citizens. In Florida’s 21st district, 28 percent of the population is non-citizen, and in New York’s 12th district the number is 23 percent. The presence of illegal aliens in other states caused Indiana, Michigan, and Mississippi to each lose one seat in the House in 2000, while Montana failed to gain a seat it otherwise would have. In addition, the presence of all non-citizens in the Census redistributed a total of nine seats.
Carney // Jan 24, 2011 at 12:03 pm
This article is persuasive.
lessadoabouteverything // Jan 24, 2011 at 5:55 pm
talkradio, as I pointed out Obama has only been to Idaho once and that during the primaries.
“Go to straight popular vote and they’ll never set foot in places like Iowa, New Hampshire or Maine again.” But you are ignoring Primary season. Candidates practically live in Iowa and New Hampshire prior to the primaries, once the General election time comes about they have little reason to. Again,
I also don’t know why it is so important to have Presidential candidates pander to small town or rural voters? These states have 2 Senators and at least one Congress person.
As to that link, the data showed that all of the attention was paid to big swing states not in the solid red or blue column. Iowa and New Hampshire only prove that during primary season are these states paid attention to, so no, the data does not back you up at all. Seriously, Google how many times has Obama been to many of the small red states during the general election season or his Presidency.
And disenfranchised means having your vote not counted, I expanded that to include having your vote be utterly worthless, as a Republican’s vote is in California or a Democrat in South Carolina. But a voter in a rural community’s vote will be 100% equal to that of a person in a big city.
Look, this is all theoretical as it makes no difference in reality so you have already “won” the debate. But as a person from a swing state that gets a lot of attention (PA) I truly don’t feel the need to be coddled. Although I have to admit it is kind of nice that my son met and shook Joe Biden’s hand (Biden stopped by his elementary school) this kind of paying attention does not really matter.
And as I showed way above, the winner of the popular vote also not winning the Presidency is extremely rare, and only once in modern times. The fact is Ohio and Florida are the two states that matter most, and neither are exactly “small, rural states.”
Finally, I don’t imagine you would disagree that the impetus to rid ourselves of the electoral college would be overwhelming (especially from Republicans) if the Democrats start to win Texas, and if Arizona succeeds in driving hispanics out of Arizona into Texas it might happen sooner than people realize.
“And the electoral college does not benefit small states as far as having any attention paid to them.” You claim this is bald assertion but honestly google how many times Obama has been to these red rural states after the primaries. Yet prove to me that these states are in any way ignored as to federal spending under the Democratic 111th Congress with a Democratic President (which is really the crux of the matter)
pnumi2 // Jan 24, 2011 at 7:56 pm
lessado
Thank youfor the correct spelling of bupkis. Earlier, I meant ‘full of sound and fury, signifying bupkis.’ my bad.