The people are certainly under-represented. At over 720,000 constituents each, it is no wonder the contest for many seats is a brutal cage-fight. Most reps cannot possibly reflect these large and diverse groups.
My earlier point is that the Framers were far more concerned with finding a way to elevate not only the best men to the Presidency, but to make sure they didn’t owe political debts either.
This might make a nice rebuttal essay or talk radio piece to counter liberals talking about how Hillary Clinton "won the popular vote." In the case of Clinton, it might not make the point since we all suspect the excess votes come from illegal voters in California. However...
If we were to add, say, another 100 Representatives to Congress, increasing the Electoral College to 635, and reapportion the extra 100 Electoral College votes across the states, how would that look? What's the case for 150, 200?
Set aside the logistical arguments re: room in the Capitol, housing for staff, etc., and focus on the change in dynamics. How would a national narrative evolve?
First, the problem statement might be the under-representation of voters as evidenced by the split in popular vote versus Electoral College vote. The proposition is not to eliminate the Electoral College, but to increase it to properly represent the 235% increase in population since the 1910 census that was used to cap the House of Representatives at 435.
Next, the topic of apportionment must be addressed. Is it simply a matter of adding x% to each state based on their current allocation of the whole? Would that change the current "swing state" dynamic if we simply inflated the numbers equally? Could less populated large states make the argument that they are "owed" districts because the federal government took lands from them that limited their ability to grow, permanently relegating them to minority House (and by extension, Electoral College) status? After all, they still have to care for this land; maybe this could open up the debate over ceding this land back to the states and whatever results from that.
After that, the "what-ifs" can begin.
What if, on average, each state received two more Congressional districts? What about four more? How would they determine those districts? This opens up the gerrymandering debate currently heading to SCOTUS. Do states have enough wiggle room to hide these new districts in snake-like geographies that boggle the mind, or would this force some calls for "fairness" in the setting of Congressional districts going forward?
What if 100+ more Representatives meant a dilution of "talent" in Congress, like with expansion teams in professional sports? Can something grow beyond the limits of the population to generate qualified participants? I think the latest class of Representatives offers opportunities: if the newest Reps who swung the House to Democrats was good enough for Pelosi, then why would even more "regular people" in the House be a bad thing? After all, they're just representing the local nature of the people of their districts, right?
What if 100+ more Representatives meant a threat to the current incumbent power structure? How would current leadership wield power over 50 or more "country bumpkins" from flyover country who suddenly showed up with the mandate from their districts? Can their be a critical mass beyond which the current leadership can no longer threaten their caucus into acquiescence? Naturally, a new order would emerge; would this be multi-party or would it be a rise of the "normals?" At some tipping point, the "elite" class would be overwhelmed by numbers by the rest of us.
What if 100+ more Representatives meant an opportunity to argue for restoring the Senate back to state appointment? Could people be convinced that the current disfunction in Congress is the result of a Senate that lost its way, and reconnecting it with their states while increasing the people's representation in the House was the solution?
These are just a few ideas for national discussions that could arise from the Electoral College discussion, if framed properly as a long-overdue growth in representation in the House of Representatives. I'd love to hear what others think a debate would look like, and how even just discussing this might put fear in our politicians.
-PJ