US population in 1911 ... 92 million. Why does that matter?

[SoCalDem]

Because in 1911, the House of Representatives' congressional "number" was frozen at 435. It briefly went up to 437 in 1959 (to include AK & HI), but was ratcheted down to 435 again & has stayed that way.

It was supposed to have NO MORE THAN 30K people represented by any one congressional seat.

Looking at the French parliament's "numbers" the other day on their retirement vote, you would notice that each "side" was a 500+ . This is FRANCE...little France..

And here, with 300Million (give or take), we just keep rearranging those musical chairs, and pretend that representation is fair.

The polarization we have now, can be largely blamed on having too FEW congresspeople. If you have one pie & 6 people, everyone gets a satisfying slice, but with that same sized pie & 30 people, expect a fight..

[Hannah Bell]

1. knr -- but then we'd have to pay them.

[SoCalDem]

2. Agreed, BUT with more representation , we might also get our money's worth

and we might actually get to a place where people "served" & then went back to their lives...like the founders intended:)

I would like to see the congressional pensions changed too. NO pensions for them. That might encourage them to serve & leave:)

[melm00se]

3. that formula would

require 10,000 representatives which would, IMO, be an nonfunctional body.

[Hannah Bell]

4. like this one is functional?

[melm00se]

21. so make change from one, as you see it,

nonfunctional body to a much larger and potentially even more nonfunctional body.

That, my friend, is change just for the sake of change and that rarely comes to a good conclusion.

As to making a 10,000 member body functional:

arendt,

your proposal has many interesting points, but it lacks an understanding of 1 key fact:

Bureaucracies and their knowledge, no matter how despised or ridiculed, are absolutely critical to the functioning of any complex, organized society.

Historically, all the societies that grew past a certain point/size and thrived had some sort of bureaucracy in place to handle many of the day to day aspects necessary for that society to function. Egypt had them (in the form of the priesthood), China had them (scholar gentry system), Rome had them (this is the closest example of a modern day bureaucracy) and India had/has them (the Brahman caste) to name a few.

Their function is based upon their longevity in their position. They understand how to make the "machine" work, how to maintain it and fix it (in a tactical way). Churning them out every 2 years would disrupt the continuity that they (must) provide.

do bureaucracies have their flaws? Of course, they do, however, without their role, the society and it's structure, especially when the society reaches a certain size (usually beyond the city/state level), begins to crumble and decay.

================================================================================================================

The funny thing that I love to sit back and watch is people running around and saying we need to change this or change then when it comes to the foundations of this nation. The Founding Fathers did an outstanding job (either through wisdom or luck) to cobble together 13 almost individual nations (only really held together by a common language) into one cohesive functioning group/nation.

The framework laid down is flexible enough to scale across a continent and across 4 centuries (18th, 19th, 20th and 21st for those who want to quibble); function in the face of an increase of population by more than 2 orders of magnitude (2.5million to 300 million); unheard of technical innovation and through 1 Civil War (and multiple inter-state skirmishes).

yet, even with that wonderful functionality, there are people who will poke and prod in an attempt to "fix" what they percieve as broken. They never seem to get:

- when you start poking at the foundation, even when being very very careful, you run the risk of bringing the whole house down.
- forging together the 1st 13 states was a monumental struggle and damn near didn't happen
- bearing the above point in mind, it is highly unlikely that a new Constitution could be drafted and ratified (just imagine the battle over abortion - do you really think that a right to guarantee that would not be a deal killer? The nation is split and a 2/3's majority would be unlikely for unrestricted access to abortion - anything less the forces of pro-choice wouldn't accept and they make up 36% of the population)

BTW, if you are one of those that think the world would be a better place with a broken up USA, just imagine yourself on the wrong side of the border when the lines are drawn and the borders established and being stuck in "Jesusland" with the "United State of Canada" not accepting any immigrants.



This country has flaws and things could be much different (and, in some cases, better) but ripping down the house (or gutting the 2nd floor) in hopes that the new one will be better is a bigger risk than most people would be willing to take.

[SoCalDem]

6. With communication systems being what they are, a lower number would do

but definitely more than the current 435.

Why not use zipcodes?...and no more gerrymandering.

[NYC Liberal]

7. If we used zip codes we'd have roughly 40,000 reps.

But I hear what you're saying. I don't think it needs to go up by a significant amount, but we should increase the size of Congress.

There's a proposal called the "Wyoming Rule." Basically, the state with the smallest population would get one representative, and that state's population would also serve as the basis for the size of Congressional districts. Under that, you'd get about 569 Representatives.

http://fruitsandvotes.com/?p=51

It really makes little sense that a state should gain population (citizen or non-citizen) yet lose House seats, as Michigan and other states did after the 2000 census.

We are one of the few democracies in the world that does not periodically adjust the size of its lower (or sole) house. There is nothing set in stone about 435. It is just in federal law. In fact, we used to increase the size of the House periodically as population increased. We could do so again. Look at this graph:



You can see two things here:

1. The US used to keep its House size just below the cube-root of its population (as Rein Taagepera’s model predicts), but has not done so since its population was under 100 million (in 1912!).

2. The US House is one the smallest in the world among established democracies with over around 60 million residents (citizen or otherwise).

So, why not make the House even a little bit bigger? We don’t have to go all the way up to 600 or so (which would still leave us below the cube root) all at once. We could just make long-term adjustments with each subsequent census (say 480 next time, then 500, and so on), thereby not depriving Michigan and other states of existing congressional districts.

[SoCalDem]

8. It would also be nice to have 3 senators from each state

1 dem
1 repub
1 other

[arendt]

14. Thanks for the interesting link.

And, repeating my shameless plug,

see my website: http://www.poly-ticker.org

[arendt]

12. You CAN make 10k reps functional...

see my website:

http://www.poly-ticker.org

-----------------------------------

SUMMARY OF KEY IDEAS

* One legislator per 30,000 voters, which implies, for the current population of the United States:
o Over one hundred 100-member legislatures , each focused on a narrow set of issues, like today's congressional committees
+ These "specialized legislatures" organized into a pyramidal hierarchy
+ This large number of legislators performs tasks currently done by un-elected officials
# I.e., Congressional staff and Cabinet Department Officials.


* Each voter votes for a small number of specialized federal legislators(e.g., 3) and cabinet secretaries (e.g., 5)
o That is, there is a "political division of labor". Voters are specialized, like legislatures
o National proportional representation for federal issues
o Geographical representation for city/state level issues


* Legislatures are connected to/influence only a small number of other legislatures
o Based on the kind of "parliamentarian" referrals of bills found in today's Congress


* Direct election of cabinet secretaries
o Each secretary is the apex of a pyramid of legislatures (a "prime legislator")


* New Cabinet Department: Department of Constitution Protection


* Formation of government by coalition formation between cabinet secretaries to elect a prime minister/president

[melm00se]

22. see post #21 (n/t)

[krkaufman]

24. Then again, could the lobbyists afford to buy ...

... 5,000 representatives? (though I suppose everything would scale)

[rucky]

5. This is a big deal.

The more I think about how to stop corruption without the corrupt Congress ever reforming itself, the way we're represented (districts, federal/state authorities & powers, etc) plays big into it.

In order to fully corrupt the government, you'd only really need to buy off about 300 people. With billions pouring into the effort, we can see how well its working.

We either need more reps at the federal level, or give a hellova lot more power to the states (I can't believe I just said that) - but the more spread out the power is - and the closer the representation is to you - the more influence we can have and the harder it would be to corrupt the system overall.

[RC]

10. Correct. The more representatives we have per population then the more money it would take

to bribe buy corrupt influence them.
Then maybe we could get rid of this corporations as persons BS and become a real country again.

[arendt]

13. Exactly my thinking...

see my website

http://www.poly-ticker.org

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. The power at state level is an important factor

and the USA already has powerful states in comparison to most of the countries named on the graph in #7. And that's one reason why there may not be a need for a national representative with far fewer constituents than the US currently has - because for most of the 'personal' issues, a citizen may be better working with their state rep.

As someone in the country with the highest number of reps (the UK, currently at 650), I don't see it as a particular advantage. But, since the British system (for those of us in England, anyway) has no level of election between national and county, and the county councillors have little power (there are national standards for things like education they have to follow, they can't pass laws, a lot of their budget comes from national taxes apportioned to each county, and the national government puts limits on how much they can raise local property taxes, so they have few fiscal choices to make), we have to limit the number of constituents per MP or we'd be ridiculously remote from any form of representation.

If you did have a significantly larger parliament, you get the problems of how much debate time you have - either party hierarchies control who speaks, which holds just as much potential for corruption, or you have to allow a huge amount of time for debate. It's true that backbench British MPs probably aren't worth bribing, but that doesn't mean that those with the real power suddenly become honest and responsive to voters.

[melm00se]

16. a significant increase in representatives

would have an immediate impact on corruption as the relative power of each representative would be severely diluted.

[depakid]

9. The geographic distribution of electoral votes is also interesting to compare and contrast

over time.

Here's the election of 1852 (Franklin Pierce):

[Ghost Dog]

15. "Little" France?

How dare you?

;)

[SoCalDem]

17. population-wise

:)

[The2ndWheel]

18. Maybe you can't adequately represent 300 million people under one government

No matter how you slice the pie.

[SoCalDem]

19. That is probably true, BUT we have to have something, or we end up in real trouble

I don't know what the solution is, but we have to try something soon, or it may just fall apart:(

[The2ndWheel]

23. It's always falling apart

I think it might be part of the reason that the structure hasn't changed. It's all we can do to just keep what we have together(and the longer you wait to change it, the tougher it gets to do so), let alone add to it, or change it, or whatever. That's probably why it takes a collapse, or revolution, or something like that to be able to do something different throughout history. Then there are who knows how many factors that come into play after that.

Look at the countries around the world. Some of them have larger populations, and are ok. Some have large populations, but aren't all that great. Some have small populations, and work out fine. Some have small populations, and don't work at all. Why? Some of it depends on where those countries are I'm sure. Some depends on culture, others may not. It may depend on how many and what kind of resources those countries have, sometimes it doesn't matter either way. The history of each country can come into play as well. Who won wars, who lost them, how they won, how they lost, etc. Who drew the borders, who didn't. Who wrote laws. Who made this decision or that. The policies of other nations can even have a say in what a nation can do and what it can't, or won't, or doesn't want to.

Either way, it won't be a boring century.

[Ghost Dog]

25. Maybe you're just too big? Maybe freedom for California

would be a good place to start?

Maybe you could just begin to start to try to learn to, like, just get along with the neighbors?

I know, it's a lot to ask...

Edit: Please forgive my mood today. I've just re-watched Eastwood's "Letters From Iwo Jima". Preparing myself for what's foreseeably coming down the road ahead, you understand. :(-

[Bucky]

20. Madison's theories on the value of large districts envisioned ~10,000 voters per.

On the other hand, you don't want to have too big an assembly, either. Madison would have agreed with Hamilton's assessment: "Even a thousand Socrates would still be a mob."