A "People's House" or an oligarchy?

Thirty-Thousand.org ^ | JEQuidam

[J. E. Quidam]

Many people do not realize that our total number of Representatives in the U.S. House has been limited to 435 ever since 1913...

[J. E. Quidam]

Many people do not realize that our total number of Representatives in the U.S. House has been limited to 435 ever since 1913 (except for a four-year period when it was temporarily increased to 437).

In 1929, this number (435) was made permanent by an act of Congress. During the debates preceding that act, Missouri Representative Ralph Lozier stated: "I am unalterably opposed to limiting the membership of the House to the arbitrary number of 435. Why 435? Why not 400? Why not 300? Why not 250, 450, 535, or 600? Why is this number 435 sacred? What merit is there in having a membership of 435 that we would not have if the membership were 335 or 535? There is no sanctity in the number 435 ... There is absolutely no reason, philosophy, or common sense in arbitrarily fixing the membership of the House at 435 or at any other number."

The challenge posed by Representative Lozier in 1928 is still valid: is 435 a sacrosanct number or should it be subject to debate?

Many of those who framed and ratified the Constitution & Bill of Rights expected that the population of congressional districts would never exceed 50,000. Today their average size is 700,000; by 2100 their average size will be 1.3 million. As a result, it is no longer possible for federal Representatives to faithfully and honorably represent the diverse interests of their constituents. This could be the root cause of why our government has become "broken" and, in any case, violates the principle "That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed" (from the Declaration of Independence).

Related to this matter is the fact that the very first amendment proposed in our Bill of Rights was never ratified. As proposed by the House, "Article the first" was intended to ensure that the district size never exceeded 50,000 people. While this amendment was in the Joint Committee, a subtle error was somehow introduced into it that rendered it inexecutable. It is not known when this error was eventually detected, but the amendment was ultimately ratified by all but one state. This very interesting and important story can be found at TownHall.com: http://enlargethehouse.blogtownhall.com/default.aspx

[Dilbert San Diego]

Well, as a practical matter, if you had congressmen repressenting only 50,000 people, then the House of Reps. would grow to 6,000 congressmen. Imagine a roll call vote in the House (do they still do those?). Even though Congress does so much work in committees rather than on the House floor, even the committees would have hundreds of members.

[NTHockey]

>>Well, as a practical matter, if you had congressmen repressenting only 50,000 people, then the House of Reps. would grow to 6,000 congressmen. Imagine a roll call vote in the House (do they still do those?). Even though Congress does so much work in committees rather than on the House floor, even the committees would have hundreds of members.

On the plus side, 6,000 Congressmen could employ 100,000 or more people.

On the negative side, they would accomplish 1% of what they do now.

Wait a minute, I just realized the positive and negative sides are reversed.

[al_c]

[J. E. Quidam]

There is no need for roll calls. It is not even necessary that they assemble in one location. The committees would not need to be any larger than required to do the work of the committee. As for me, I have little desire for my Representative to be on a committee, I am more interested that he/she spend time becoming intimately familiar with the concerns of his/her constituents, and carefully read what comes out of the committees, and vote according to his/her constituents' best interest.

[vpintheak]

Well, if we want to grow government, then lets add some more! More critters sucking off the government tit! More critters with a lifetime pension without paying social security! More pork! More backroom deals! More lobbyists! Wooooooo-Hoooooooo!

[J. E. Quidam]

Regarding employing more people, or the cost of a larger federal House, please consider this argument:
Q8: Wouldn’t it be costly to add all these Representatives?
at http://www.thirty-thousand.org/index.htm#Q8

And regarding what they would accomplish (assuming that they accomplish anything now), please read this link:
Q9: How would that many Representatives get anything done?
at http://www.thirty-thousand.org/index.htm#Q9

Also, on that latter point, consider these two quotes:

"That government is best which governs least." ― Thomas Paine (?)

"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the Legislature is in session." ― Judge Gideon Tucker, 1866

[J. E. Quidam]

I believe that reducing the size of our congressional districts (and increasing the number of federal Representatives) would ultimately reduce the overall cost of government. If you are interested in that argument, please read Question & Answer #8 on the TTO home page:
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/index.htm#Q8

I apologize for providing links, especially since you have to cut & paste them, but if I copied the information from the web page it would make this post way too long.

I only ask that you maintain an open mind and consider the arguments that I am making.

[J. E. Quidam]

I wonder how many times I listened to my little boy read “In a People House.”

[j-damn]

How many did they have in the old Soviet “legislature”—something like 1,000 right? I guess if we’re going to emulate them in all other ways we might as well go this route, too.

[J. E. Quidam]

Regarding 1000 Soviet "representatives", remember that they all belonged to a single party! And I say that if you like the two-party system, then you would love a single-party system.

As for me, I believe that a much larger federal House (in a NON-totalitarian government) would result in a multi-party system where most citizens are not affiliated with any party.

[vpintheak]

I will check it out later, right now I canot begin to understand that argument. More congress critters = reduced government spending? I guess I will have to see.

[J. E. Quidam]

>> More congress critters = reduced government spending?

That is counterintuitive but, whether or not you agree with the assertion, you will probably find the argument to be a reasonable one, so please do read Question 8 (on the home page).

The first person to make this very argument was Melancton Smith during the Constitutional ratification debates in the NY convention: “The man who would seriously object to this expense, to secure his liberties, does not deserve to enjoy them. Besides, by increasing the number of representatives, we open a door for the admission of the substantial yeomanry of our country, who, being possessed of the habits of economy, will be cautious of imprudent expenditures, by which means a greater saving will be made of public money than is sufficient to support them.”

Melancton Smith's point is no less valid today despite the growth in population (e.g., the bridge to nowhere).

[al_c]

I wonder how many times I listened to my little boy read “In a People House.”

Possibly as many times as I've read it to my daughters. I could recite the thing from memory ... cover to cover.