Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69
Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70
I find it appropriate that on Constitution Day (“happy” 222nd) there is a story about a lawsuit seeking to expand the House in the name of fairness for voters across the nation. Of course, I am in favor of expanding the House but let’s look at this lawsuit summed up in two paragraphs:
The most populous district in America right now, according to the latest Census data, is Nevada’s 3rd District, where 960,000 people are represented in the House by just one member. All of Montana’s 958,000 people likewise have just one vote in the House. By contrast, 523,000 in Wyoming get the same voting power, as do the 527,000 in one of Rhode Island’s two districts and the 531,000 in the other.
That 400,000-person disparity between top and bottom has generated a federal court challenge that is set to be filed Thursday in Mississippi, charging that the system effectively disenfranchises people in certain states. The lawsuit asks the courts to order the House to fix the problem by increasing its size from 435 seats to at least 932, or perhaps as many as 1,761.
The disparity between the size of various House districts, not to mention the sheer size of all the House districts, is a great reason to expand the House. I hope that the plaintiffs win this lawsuit and get the House expanded. Once that happens it might loosen the door to get a Constitutional Amendment passed specifying that Congress can regulate the ratio of voters to Representatives, but not the absolute number of House Representatives directly.
Let’s look at what that would mean. I’ll use the examples from the paragraphs cited above and show the extremes by using a maximum district size much higher than I would prefer – one that would have the house size of about 650 representatives – I’ll use 500,000 as the maximum number of people that a Congressman could represent. The way things would work is that Congress specifies that no district can have more than 500,000 people and allocates enough representatives per state to make that possible. In that case, Montana would have two representatives each serving approximately 479,000. Nevada would have 6 representatives each serving around 450,000. By contrast Wyoming would have 2 representatives each serving 262,000. That’s still virtually half the size of the largest districts but Rhode Island would only have 3 districts serving 353,000 each which is much closer to the largest districts.
So long as the maximum district size barely gives a second seat to the smallest state we would have nearly a 2:1 ratio between the largest and smallest districts, but if the ceiling were set lower – say 250,000 it would be even closer. Wyomings 3 districts would serve 175,000 each while Nevada’s 12 would serve only 240,000 and Montana’s 4 would serve 239,000. The point is that there would be much more parity between districts in various states and each representative would be much better able to know and serve their constituents in the now-smaller districts.
21 replies on “How and Why to Expand the House”
The figure of 960.000 people doesn't make a distinction between "people" and" legal citizens". Later you talk about voters, which is another distinction. I would assume that the number of voters is smaller than the number of people living in the state of Nevada.I have to take the words for what they are, which mean that 960.000 people is inclusive of illegal aliens. Nevada has always had a high number of illegal aliens but that number has been increasing in recent years, probably due in part to the troubles in California. If you were to take the words for what they are- making no distinction between legal and illegal citizens, then essentially this bill would grant increased rights and representation to illegal aliens. If the number as stated does not include illegal aliens, then the language is dangerously sloppy- or worse- intentionally vague. One danger in that is that illegal aliens are not required to pass a written exam demonstrating knowledge of the United States constitution.
I agree that the wording has to be tightened up so that it is more well defined, but I think that the intent of what I said was fairly clear – that the same criteria would be used in each district and state to determine the number of citizens that would be represented in each district.As for the danger of illegal aliens not being required to pass a written exam – natural born citizens are not required to pass any exam either. Even if you were generous enough to argue that a public education was sufficient (which would be a pathetic argument to make) natural born citizens have no education requirements whatsoever – they could drop out of school after preschool and still be allowed to vote. I'm not arguing that illegal aliens should be able to vote, but the argument that they have not been required to take a written test does not hold water.
The House is already based on population size but there is a cap on the total size of the House. After reading the entirety of the New York Times article I found that although the article mentions Nevada, a state that leads the nation in the number of illegal in the work force, the Times never mentions illegal populations even as it specifically brings up Nevada’s third district including Las Vegas, also with exceptionally large illegal population. I do not trust anything to do with census taking in these corrupt times – but it is good news that the Census Bureau decided not to use Acorn to do the Census, and that Congress has now voted to completly de-fund Acorn and that California is following suit- All thanks to Fox News and Talk Radio and two young independent journalists “stirring people up”, Without them, Acorn would still be slated to conduct the census on which the size of districts is based. Lets get rid ofcorruption before making such changes.
As for natural citizens not passing an exam- that is the fault of our educational system- Why not teach the principles of the constitution in grade school? – Why not offer courses on The Federalist Papers in high school? Then, when students are confronted with the vogue for Marxism in our university system, they would meet it with a background of the political philosophy of our founding fathers. Natural born citizens have the best education- they are raised in a free society-, which is why it is not so easy to take their freedoms away- as we are currently witnessing in the Tea Parties, Town Halls, and demonstrations. These groups are also creating groups that meet to educate and discuss our constitutional principles.BTW, one of Glenn Beck’s principles for the re-founding of America is to stop all legislation until after we clean up Washington.
The cap on the size of the house was imposed by Congress specifically to maximize the power of Congress by limiting its numbers. No longer do Representatives represent districts of a size where they can know the concerns of their constituents, nor can they effectively communicate with their constituents or be available to their constituents when those they "represent" have concerns regarding the legislation they are voting on.While I agree that teaching students about the Constitution and other founding documents would be beneficial I can't accept that natural born citizens have the best education on our government. What education they have is severely lacking when they have – at best – only a vague idea of how the government works or what the purpose of government is. They do not live in a truly free society and they do not even understand what it means to be free.Also, I'd like to know how we can re-found America without any legislation to reinforce the re-founding.
Interesting idea! I can see a better ratio of people to reps with your plan but what about having so many reps? Additional staffs, and if 435 can’t accomplish much what would improve with 650? I think one issue that would clearly have to be solved is the notion of representing the districts rather than individual rep political interests.
Honestly the 435 accomplish too much if you think about it. If 650 slow them down in their race to spend our country into the poor house then the extra staffs will be well worth it. Also consider that special interests will have to spent at least 150% as much to influence legislation in a larger legislative body.
The founders designed a system where the various interests of different areas would compete – having smaller districts where the voters have better access to their reps should make it much easier for the voters to hold their reps accountable to the interests of their own districts.
Good points. It made me stop and think that more would probably slow the legislative process down, which I think is necessary.
It makes more sense that geographically smaller districts representing a smaller number of people will actually be more representative as those geographic groups will tend to be more aligned in the issues impacting them. What this also opens up is a better understanding of the influence (probably unconstitutional) of special interest groups as those groups cut across the geographical spheres of representation without the electorate making the decisions as to who represents them.
This brings me to a different conclusion with respect to representatives. You may already be there, but my conclusion is the elimination of PACs and other special interest groups altogether.
I’ve considered the implications of getting rid of PAC’s and special interests and my conclusion was that not only was it unlikely and impractical but it is also probably undesirable and destructive of liberty.
I believe that the idea looks good on paper but it is like trying to get rid of earmarks in the budgeting process – in the end it is actually a red herring that obscures the real problem and distracts our attention from the real solution.
PAC’s and special interest groups represent real people who have rights to free association and free speech. Of course those vehicles can be abused (and are abused) in the current system, but removing them does not remove abuse, it just forces it to change form.
The real solution on the budgeting is to quit filtering virtually all our government spending through Washington – that which is spent at a local or state level should be levied, collected, and allocated at those levels. Likewise, PAC’s and Special interests that cut across geographic regions should be able to make their appeals to Congress.
The solution is not to remove the vehicles through which they find their voice (because the special interest will still exist regardless of the form of political entity they take) but rather to get our representatives on a shorter leash. Let the special interests appeal to Congress but make sure that each representative is accountable and responsive to their own constituents. The special interest groups might even discover in such a system that it is more effective to speak directly to the representatives of areas where they have the most strength (in other words where they most represent the constituents) rather than trying to appeal to Congress as a whole.
I do agree that PACs have an important role in the system. Unfortunately, I believe their influence seriously exacerbates the problem of unleashed representatives. And I know that getting rid of them is like 99.99% impossible. As you point out, the real issue is bringing accountability to the equation. And that, I am a total loss on how to do. Unless a congressman or senator does something totally illegal, the incumbancy rate is astronomical.
I look at my favorite Nevada Senator and see that he has a very low approval rating in his own state. He is the Senate Majority leader and yet Nevada ranks 50th in stimulus funding (those are a couple of debates for another day, but it serves as a relavant metric). Yet, the ability to find someone to run against and, more importantly, defeat him is staggering. The “less-than” Honorable Harry Reid has access to serious political money and knows how to play the Re-election game better than most. That is frustrating to me and a similar situation with a powerful republican might be just as frustrating to a democrat citizen. Harry does not represent me or the state. He is beholden to the party and the current party’s leader.
Maybe it takes more interaction by the citizens, yet I send a letter to Senator Reid about once a month. He recently wrote back to me on health care to address my concerns by telling me he was working for me to get the Obama Plan passed. Hello Senator, I am vehemently opposed to that plan–did you even read my letter? That is extremely frustrating.
The way to bring accountability back into the equation is to shrink the size of House districts until the citizens can rein in their representatives – I can’t give a number on that, but I think that a good measure would be that the size is right when footwork – meaning going among the people of the district and connecting with them – can trump money in elections.
By the way, I can tell you from experience that having a Republican senator who knows how to play the re-election game is frustrating even for this Republican.
If your not already, you would make a great Philospher !
The reason natural born citizens are the best education is because their education is living= Living in a society where rights such as free speech- the right to assemble- the right to ptotest one's government ( and other freedoms) are taken for granted. If you say this is not a truely free society, then name one that is. Every generation owes their freedom to the generation previos and has to protect freedom now and for the future generations. There are always those that will try to transform that freedom into their own personal power.Every member of this society has a role to play in preserving our freedoms including the private citizen. We are currently wittnessing the effect that the private citizen can have when they exercise theirconstitutional freedomThe same movement that is assembling to protest the government is also educating themselves on our constitutional. To my knowlwdge, you are not a participant in that movement and so you do not have direct experience of it.
I don't think I could safely claim that any current society is appreciably more free than ours – I claim our less than truly free status in comparison to our past (say 100 years ago).I know you'll take exception to this as the subject of Tea Parties is one you seem defensive of but we have not yet seen any substantial effect from what private citizens are doing to exercise their Constitutional rights. That's nothing against the movement – we could not expect any such movement to have substantial effect against so much momentum in so little time. I'm still hopeful that over time this rising awareness among the participants will result in real change in Washington.I may not be a major participant in a local Tea Party organization but I have been associated closely enough to have an idea of what is going on and the education in Constitutional principles that is taking place for many gives me great hope.
Just because I am not drawn to that particular movement personally does not mean that I'm not rooting for the same kinds of positive change. I've been studying the Constitution and exercising my Constitutional rights since long before there was a tea party movement – I'm not ignorant of what is happening even if I'm not committing myself to The One True Conservative Movement. I've never been one to identify with any particular movement.
I didn't know there was a one true conservative movement- that you would equate such a omnipotent and singular view to the Tea Parties and Town Halls underscores my point- which, I believe you will understand when you directly experience the people's movement- which, I concur, share your own interests. Contrary to the tales spun by Pelosi, this is not “astro turf movement" any more than it is a “one true conservative movement”. It is the voice of the people- who are American individuals – not a collective mind.
I disagree that we have not seen any concrete effects of the people's movement. The Town Halls changed the course of "health care reform". Why do you think Obama wanted a vote before the August break? Contrary to much of the media spin there was constructive dialogue as well as emotional reactions and I believe both were necessary to get across to Congress that they represent us- and the message did get across. Congress knows that if they fail to heed the voice of the people it may cost them when elections come around again. My Senator is Olympia Snowe. She has made the comment that she does not want to be the lone Republican voting for Obamacare. Maine voters are very upset with the way that Snowe has voted and we are not going to let up. She was ensconced in Washington during August but two of our tea parties met with her on 9/12 and delivered our letters in person and we continue to send her email and snail mail in volume!
I don't see any course change in health care reform. Obama has said that he can sign a bill without a "public option" but the bills being pursued are still highly suspect at best. None of them actually addresses the real problems in the system, nor is any of them limited to those things that the Constitution stipulates as a function of government.We both know why Obama wanted a vote before the August break – he knows that the longer the process drags on the more opportunity people will have to actually read and dissect the bill.I'm glad that there is a strong and active Tea Party working to educate and convince Senator Snowe – she's likely to be crucial to the senate being able to pass any version of the bill – and once it passes anything can happen in conference behind closed door between the bills. Good luck stopping her.
The very fact that Obama would pay lip service to a bill without a government option is a course change that occurred in direct response to the Town halls. There is talk that the administration and Congress will use the unconstitutional “nuclear option” to pass a bill that the public has clearly sent the message that they do not want in it’s present form and without further serious consideration. However many question that it is possible to pass such a bill even using the nuclear option as they do not know that it can get fifty votes on those terms. The unified public voice plays a large role because Congress cannot ignore that the cost of giving the administration what it wants could cost them their jobs.
Lip service and a course change are two very different things. So far all we have seen is lip service. That does not mean that the town halls and tea parties will not bring about about a real course change, only that we have not actually seen such a change yet. Talk is cheap and every politician knows how to talk about being responsive to Constituents. I've seen them play to the crowds before. I won't call it a course change until I see more than talk about a new direction.
You go David !!!!!