Is it time for this constitutional amendment? Make it an issue now?

[9119495]

The House of Representatives is currently set at 435 members. Is it time to call for the addition of Say 50 or so) members to better represent the shift to urban areas?

After all Wyoming voters receive so much more power per voter than people in California, New York and other places. Those are meaningful electoral votes in a close election. I know alienating rural voters would be bad, but wouldn't this help cut into the Republican power base and better reflect the wishes of the electorate (that tend to support the positions of the Democratic Party)?

Should candidates be talking about introducing this in '04?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

1. This would probably mean an extra seat for Montana

[helleborient]

2. Very interesting point...

The requirement that each state have at least one representative does mean there is disproportionate representation. Small states have greater representation than large in the house of congress that is meant to reflect population accurately. This also means small states have an even greater disproportionate representation in the electoral college. Electoral votes = #of Senators + Representatives. Since each state is equal in the Senate...it throws things even more out of wack.

While we're at it...why don't we visit the issue of NO representation for those who live in our national capital which is also disproportionately Democratic territory.

Some of this disproportionate representation is exactly why Al Gore could win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote.

[Ediacara]

3. I would suggest one house member for every 250,000 people

2 house seats in Wyoming, 4 in Montana, 20 or so in Washington etc...

(and yes, I know it would be around 1200 Representatives, but christ, build a bigger building or get small desks)

[nocreativename]

9. I love rocks

sorry I had to comment on your thin section.

[Padraig18]

11. You want a HOR with 1200 people?????

Good Lord---talk about unwieldy!

[Ediacara]

4. duplicate post

ignore me please

[RobertSeattle]

5. Wouldn't it be simpler to abolish the electoral college

And just go with straight plurality for who wins the Presidency?

I'm very worried that for a 2nd Time Bush is going to win the Presidency but lose the popular vote.

[Ediacara]

6. but the House would still exist

although I agree re: the Electoral College.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

10. The Electoral College is one of the basic building blocks of the

Federalist system. And just like you'll never see France give up it's veto power at the UN, you'll never see the small states go along with abolishing the Electoral College.

[goobergunch]

7. It wouldn't require a constitutional amendment

Just a simple change in the law would be needed.

[9119495]

8. Are you kidding?

I had no idea. SOunds like a good bill to write and submit to the right legislator.

[burr]

12. I have a better idea...

Increase the number of Senators to 435, and have them be statewide representatives...and each state would have the same number of Senators as Representatives. The difference...Senators would still represent the state as a whole, Representatives would still be elected from districts.

Finally, include in the constitutional amendment that the districts will be drawn up by the courts and U.S. census bureau...and all politicians and party members will be disqualified from helping to draw districts!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

13. Why would small states want to do this?

[helleborient]

14. And keep Senate terms lasting 6 years and staggered...

Keeping the entire government from being overturned every 2 years was the point the founders were making in having the different term lengths.

[leyton]

15. Wouldn't that dilute the stage?

One thing you have to consider:

There aren't nearly as many prominent Representatives as Senators. Yes, the Senate is the upper house, but the fact that there are only a hundred Senators gives each one a chance to stand out from the crowd. However, in the House, with 435 people, only a few are heard about often because each individual congressman wields a fifth the influence of each Senator. As a result, the average political junkie knows a lot more about members of the Senate than about members of the House (I can name four times as many Senators as Representatives off the top of my head...).

I guess what I'm saying is that with a huge Senate, we wouldn't hear from the likes of Harry Reid as often because there would be a gazillion other congressmen in the way.

Not sure if that was coherent enough to make any sense.

[burr]

17. Senators have TWO much power!

A state like Wyoming or Nevada should not have the same number of Senators as does California or New York. The Senate was established to give each state representation in the legislative process, as opposed to the House which was established to give regional districts representation.

But we allow states to elect representatives in the Senate, then the number elected from each state ought to be based on population. Secondly, the census ought to be done every 5 years so that the districts in the House and number of Senators for each state can be adjusted more frequently.

We should support allowing Washington D.C. to elect Representatives and Senators based on population. Finally, I do support having these "Senator's" terms staggered. But I also support having instant recalls for Senators and Representatives based on statewide petitions. We should also amend the Constitution to allow for a the instant, national recall the President.

[leyton]

18. I respectfully disagree

I think one house of legislature with proportional representation is enough. Besides, you said it: the Senate was established for state representation. Not popular representation, but state representation.

But you're right, Washington D.C. should have Representatives and Senators. It's no longer just a federal city; it's got plenty of civilians and non-governmental activities.

As for the recall - the idea of instant recall of any elected official makes me uneasy. Is there to be a recall as soon as someone's approval rating dips below fifty percent? In that case, would Clinton have ever made it past two years in office?

[burr]

19. I didn't say the Senate was not established for popular representation.

Although originally, when the Senators were selected by the state legislatures...this was the case. But in 1913 the Constitution was amended in recognition of the fact that the principles of popular representation and state representation were not in conflict. This is why the people now elect their Senators from each state.

However will still have much to build on. The people in the state of Alaska are over represented in comparison to the people of California. The solution? Allow the state of California to elect 52 Senators to represent them and Alaska only one senator. Georgia would have 13 and Arkansas would have 4.

Each state would still elected their Senators statewide and Representatives in regional districts, but now both Houses could be based on popular representation. One House working for the popular interests of local affairs and the other working for the popular interests of state affairs. And both would work in conjunction for the national interests of the American people.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

20. But really, why would Alaska ratify such an amendment?

I don't even agree that it's a good idea, but if it was, what would the incentive be for Alaska to decrease its representation?

[beyurslf]

21. The Senate

was designed so that States would be represented equally. The House was designed to represent the peeople based on population. It was a comprimise with big statea and little states. So, CA and KS have the same number of Senators even though KS has fewer people than Los Angeles does (and maybe fewer than San Fran does). But, CA gets 50+ in the House while we get 4.

If CA had 50 some Senators and 50 some House members, they could just steamroll everyone from the small states. It would take all the heartland states to override what CA wanted.

I do agree we need more House members. I think 250k is a little low. That would make Wichita (the city I live in) be in 2 different districts. What about 400k?

[burr]

22. and guess what?...California is also most populated state in the Union.

The only way for them to steamrole anyone would be if their 52 Senators were united on a single issue.

Secondly the founding fathers meant for the elites in the states to be represented in the Senate, this is why Senators were originally appointed not elected.

As for representing each state equally, in the 18th century Virginia had the largest state population..and Georgia was the smallest.

The differences between state populations was not as radical as they are today! And this is what makes the Senate criminal in our system of government. Why should a state which has less people than Santa Clara County California, have the same level of representation as all of the counties in California?

On your question about increasing the number of representatives, I would increase the size to include representation for DC. But no more, the House really doesn't need more Representatives...but the Senate certainly does. That is where the real disparity in democratic representation lies!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

23. Please answer my question.

WHY would Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Idaho, Vermont, etc., ratify an amendment that decreased their influence?

[9119495]

24. I don't think they would but if goober g is right

it wouldn't need to be an amendment. Just the law could be changed. I don't think we'll ever have proportional representation of senators.

The point of my original post was to argue that its time to represent urban areas more (and rural areas might hate this but the current system is not fair or equitable). Let's get closer to one person, one vote.

[leyton]

25. They would still need to vote for the law...

There are far more small states than large, and I bet a lot of Senators from large states wouldn't vote for it either, knowing that their individual power and influence would decrease.

Plus, if both houses had proportional representation, there's no need for a bicameral legislature at all, and we can just go back to the original Virginia plan.

[9119495]

26. Agreed. I was trying ot bring it back to the original point

which was only changing the House. The senate would remain a place for small states to flex muscle but the larger house would make the true will of the people more clear as urban, and large states would finally get more say.

In this manner, we might get the votes to pass it. Would we definetly? No, but the issue would be out there and Republicans representing urban districts may be forced to vote for it along w/ dems from urban areas. This would be a bi-partisan bill with people from both sides approving and rejecting.

*edited for type-o

[Feanorcurufinwe]

27. And I agree with your original point as well.

Other than DC residents, Montana residents are the most under-represented in the House.

ONE representative for over nine hundred thousand people.

[leyton]

29. Due to rounding?

Is this an instance of rounding down? (As in, with 900,001 people, they'd get another congressional seat?)

[goobergunch]

28. Changing the Senate would require a constitutional amendment

Changing the number of representatives would not.

[cryofan]

16. time to scrap whole system for proportional representation

Which btw Dennis Kucinich supports.....