The Case for Enlarging the House of Representatives

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

https://www.amacad.org/sites/default/files/publication/downloads/2021_Enlarging-the-House.pdf



When the framers of the U.S. Constitution laid out their plans for the federal government, the House of Representatives was designed to be the chamber closest to the American people. The House was by far the largest part of the government and its representatives were the only federal lawmakers elected directly by the populace. Hence the chamber’s nickname: “the People’s House.”

Fundamental to the House’s status as the most purely democratic part of the government were the relatively small sizes of congressional districts. Congressmen (and at the time they were all men) were meant to serve in Washington while also remaining intimately familiar with the issues facing their constituents. To maintain this representativeness, the House grew as the nation grew, from just 59 members in 1789 to 435 in 1913.

In 1929, however, an act of Congress stopped the expansion of the House. Over the last century, this often-overlooked measure has resulted in a House of Representatives that has become less and less connected to the voting public. The average number of constituents per congressional district has exploded: from around 35,000 constituents per dis- trict in the 1790s to 210,000 in the 1910s to 762,000 in 2020. Within the next few decades, the average congressional district may boast nearly one million Americans. This trend poses a series of challenges to American government. Congresspeople are meant to represent all of their constituents. It is much more difficult for representatives to connect with a significant percentage of their constituents when they represent so many people, and it is much more difficult for constituents to feel that their voice—and their vote—matters when they are just one of 762,000. Congress, too, has more respon- sibilities than ever before, leaving representatives

overburdened and overscheduled. Many Americans—such as veterans and, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, small business owners and employees—need regular assistance from congressional offices, which are currently inundated with requests from massive constituencies. A smaller supply of seats also intensifies the advantage certain types of congressional candidates have over others. Large districts favor incumbents as well as wealthy and well-funded candidates. Large districts also make it harder for a wide variety of challengers— including racial minorities and third-party candidates—to be elected. The size of congressional districts, then, has helped result in a Congress that falls far short of representing the country’s ideological and demographic diversity.

If the House of Representatives is to live up to its role as the People’s House, something needs to change.

*snip*

[Bernardo de La Paz]

1. Would making House smaller or larger make it harder to gerrymander?

[tritsofme]

2. I wouldn't think much of an impact.

They don’t seem to have much trouble gerrymandering their state legislative districts.

[Wounded Bear]

3. This also represents a form of gerrymandering...

as blue states increase in population, their proportional representation shrinks vis-a-vis smaller states like Wyoming and frankly half of the red states.

It shows particularly in the Electoral College, where blue states get capped, while red states put a stranglehold on Congress.

[dsc]

4. with the exception of India

our representatives represent, by far, the most people per representative of any democracy. Canada, with one tenth the population, has a parliament that has 338 members, Germany with a population about one fourth of ours has 738 seats. UK with about one fourth or so of our population has 650. We should, at least, have 1001 members with our population. that would give us about 350,000 (a bit less) per seat.

[bottomofthehill]

5. I agree, congressional districts should be drawn so that the one seat states

Are the baseline for representation. All congressional districts should be close to the size of the smallest state.

[Freddie]

6. The Wyoming Rule

If the lowest population state has, say, 400k residents, then there should be 1 congressperson per 400k residents everywhere.

[GregariousGroundhog]

7. This would mean a state gets one representative for every 581,075 people

Assume we always round down; California, Texas, and Florida would get 68, 51, and 37 representatives respectively and there would be 552 representatives altogether.

I'm wondering if republican senators from large states would vote to change the law regarding apportionment. Rubio and Cruz would probably oppose it, but I'm curious of people like Cornyn would support it knowing that Texas would get more influence in the presidential elections and in the House.

[bottomofthehill]

8. Thats it, it makes sense to create more equil representation.