Should the congress or senate be bigger?

[Dr.3D]

Or increase the number of congressional members and pay them a military salary.

Then the lobbyists would have even less trouble buying them off.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Every time this comes up I have to wonder if people are any good with fractions.

1/435 is the same as 10/4,350 is the same as 100/43,500.

I fail to see what good increasing the number of representatives will do, unless you are assuming that we, the liberty movement, are just going to be able to grab up all these new seats and suddenly turn the tables. We seem to be making better progress trying to get a chunk of the current 435.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Every time this comes up I have to wonder if people are any good with fractions.

1/435 is the same as 10/4,350 is the same as 100/43,500.

I fail to see what good increasing the number of representatives will do, unless you are assuming that we, the liberty movement, are just going to be able to grab up all these new seats and suddenly turn the tables. We seem to be making better progress trying to get a chunk of the current 435.

Absolute numbers aren't the issue (the total number of reps). It's reps relative to the population. This concept is one of the reasons Americans severed ties with the British Empire ("taxation without representation").
This article is dated by a few years, but still relevant:http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2009-11-15/news/0911130079_1_districts-ideal-size-plaintiffsWill a recent lawsuit result in Congress' biggest upheaval in almost 100 years? Probably not, but that's the hope of the parties who brought the case. They think that the House of Representatives is unconstitutional in its current form and that the only solution is to drastically increase its size.
This effort, while quixotic, is not thoroughly misguided. The House should, in fact be larger - but a lawsuit is the wrong way to reach that goal.

The plaintiffs, citizens of Delaware, Mississippi, Montana, South Dakota, and Utah, argue that the House's 435 seats are not fairly distributed among the states. Their own home states, in particular, have much larger House districts than the national average of 650,000 people. Montana's one district, for example, contains more than 900,000 people, compared with just 500,000 people in Wyoming's.
Even more curious than the plaintiffs' suit is their suggested remedy. They hope the court will order the House to be increased to either 932 or 1,761 representatives. Either size, in their view, would "offer a significant improvement over the current system ... by reducing the level of over and under-representation."
The plaintiffs' case is pretty weak. While no court has rejected their exact argument, the Supreme Court came close in a pair of 1990s apportionment decisions. In a 1992 case, the court observed that "the need to allocate a fixed number of indivisible Representatives among 50 States of varying populations makes it virtually impossible to have the same size district in any pair of States, let alone in all 50." In a 1996 case, the court similarly noted that "the Constitution itself ... make it impossible to achieve population equality among interstate districts."
The plaintiffs' own suggested remedy confirms that interstate differences in district size cannot be eliminated. Even if the House's membership were quadrupled, districts would still deviate from the ideal size by about 10 percent total. And even if all House districts could somehow be equalized at the start of each Census cycle, their sizes would still be different at the end, thanks to varying rates of population change. In the 1990s, for example, both Nevada's 2nd and Maryland's 7th congressional districts began the decade at 600,000 people, but they ended it, respectively, at more than 1 million and less than 550,000.
While the plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail in court, they are not crazy to be concerned about the size of the House. New seats were added to the House every decade from 1790 (when there were just 69 members) until 1910. But after Congress deadlocked for political reasons in 1920 and 1929, the House's size froze at 435 members and has remained frozen even as the U.S. population has more than tripled. According to University of Connecticut political scientist Jeffrey Ladewig, the House is now smaller, relative to national population, than any other Western country's legislature. A more appropriate size would be about 670 representatives.
Political scientists predict that a larger House would produce representatives who are more accessible to (and better liked by) their constituents. The smaller the district, the more contact politicians can have with the people. More House seats would also mean more representation for minorities of all sorts. Racial and ethnic groups, women and candidates with unusual views would find it easier to win in districts that are smaller and more varied. And a House with 600-700 members would still be manageable. The British House of Commons, for instance, has 646 seats and functions at least as well as Congress.

A larger House, lastly, would cause the Electoral College to better approximate the popular vote in presidential elections. States are assigned as many electors as they have representatives and senators combined. So if the House were substantially bigger, the impact of each state's two senators would be (properly!) overwhelmed by all the new representatives. In 2000, Al Gore would have squeaked out a narrow Electoral College victory had the House consisted of 630 representatives (the number then appropriate).
The plaintiffs, then, would be well advised to abandon their lawsuit and to switch their efforts to the political arena. No court is likely to give them the relief they seek. But Congress has repeatedly increased the House's membership in the past, and there is no reason why it cannot do so again. Grass-roots organizing and backroom lobbying may not be as satisfying as filing suit - but they are the only way this battle can be won.
Martina E. Vandenberg (mvanden [email protected]) is a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Jenner & Block LLP and a member of the firm's election law and redistricting practice. Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos ( [email protected]) is an associate at the firm specializing in election law.

 

[VIDEODROME]

Senators were indirectly elected before amendment 17. The advantages of having proportional representation in the house are more gridlock (preventing them from doing so many foolish things). I'm surprised to see self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" here disinterested in proportional representation in the House. If you believe that the Federalists meant what they said, Congress should be much bigger now in order to more accurately represent the districts. As long as we're doing the Constitution thing, I say expand the house and return to indirect election of senators. JMHO.

I just feel like a huge Congress is more likely to be inept and that any big committee is just good at making more red tape and rules. Also, imagine a group of say 5 Libertarian Congressman. In a smaller Congress they would be more powerful.

I also want to lean more toward a smaller government based on Representation. I think the State Senator could represent the Governor/Legislature and the Elected Senator be petitioned by the people or additionally County Officials.

The other path of increasing representation seems like it's heading toward Democracy. I think that might work in a smaller nation like Switzerland, but I'm not sure having a Stadium Capital Hill will do anything good and placing hope in government inefficiency doesn't fill me with confidence.

 

[adams101]

I could not think of a worse thought than increasing the size of the federal government. Too much power in one place is a pox doomed to failure. Our federal election process is corrupted beyond any hope of repair. Billions in lobby money pour into the political campaigns guaranteeing crooks will retain power. Subverters of the criminal activity will be bought, corrupted or removed.

Changing politicians at this point is as sensible as changing your socks expecting to get different feet.

Nothing will ever change until we start decentralizing the federal government and moving as much spending/taxation back to the states and communities. The states are bound by balanced budget agreements meaning any passed has to have directly attached to the bill where ALL the money will come from to fund it.

As everything is moved back the states will sort through what they want and can afford. The remaining totally UNFUNDED programs and their spending will be exported to a needy socialist country to expedite their bankruptcy. Once we remove the ability for the politicians and people to vote themselves money on the back of future generations things will come to a very sobering reality of what we can afford and what we cannot.

After the "money junkies" are removed from their "extortion" process we can settle into some semblence of reality and our future generations won't have to be born into tens of trillions in debt to support people they will never know who are dead.

This decentralized government was the only defining difference between Europe and America.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I could not think of a worse thought than increasing the size of the federal government.

Nothing will ever change until we start decentralizing the federal government and moving as much spending/taxation back to the states and communities. The states are bound by balanced budget agreements meaning any passed has to have directly attached to the bill where ALL the money will come from to fund it.

As everything is moved back the states will sort through what they want and can afford. The remaining totally UNFUNDED programs and their spending will be exported to a needy socialist country to expedite their bankruptcy. Once we remove the ability for the politicians and people to vote themselves money on the back of future generations things will come to a very sobering reality of what we can afford and what we cannot.

After the "money junkies" are removed from their "extortion" process we can settle into some semblence of reality and our future generations won't have to be born into tens of trillions in debt to support people they will never know who are dead.

This decentralized government was the only defining difference between Europe and America.

I'm down for that, but it ain't "Strictly Constitutional".

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I just feel like a huge Congress is more likely to be inept and that any big committee is just good at making more red tape and rules. Also, imagine a group of say 5 Libertarian Congressman. In a smaller Congress they would be more powerful.

I also want to lean more toward a smaller government based on Representation. I think the State Senator could represent the Governor/Legislature and the Elected Senator be petitioned by the people or additionally County Officials.

The other path of increasing representation seems like it's heading toward Democracy. I think that might work in a smaller nation like Switzerland, but I'm not sure having a Stadium Capital Hill will do anything good and placing hope in government inefficiency doesn't fill me with confidence.

The alternative is to decentralize everything and only leave a handful of duties and "powers" to congress...which is the better way to go assuming we accept the Constitutionalists' presuppositions.

 

[adams101]

The alternative is to decentralize everything and only leave a handful of duties and "powers" to congress...which is the better way to go assuming we accept the Constitutionalists' presuppositions.

Totally agree.
Decentralizing brings us back to a Free Republic. A Democracy is nothing but a fancy word for "mob rule". It is not in the Constitution and is purposely avoided as a form of government. It is about as logical as letting your 3 children run the family finances simply based on there being 3 of them and only 2 parents. In a Democracy there is no distinctions between dependents/parasites and supporters/hosts. Majority rules and the parents are reduced to financial slavery.

The founders only let educated land owners vote because they knew the lower class would simply vote to empty the treasury, ruin the credit, destroy the currency then chase everyone with a dollar more than themselves out of the country.... sound familiar?

It is a given and history since before Rome bears that out over and over. You cannot connect the people with the credit line.... PERIOD. You cannot let the word UNFUNDED exist in government.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Totally agree.
Decentralizing brings us back to a Free Republic. A Democracy is nothing but a fancy word for "mob rule". It is not in the Constitution and is purposely avoided as a form of government. It is about as logical as letting your 3 children run the family finances simply based on there being 3 of them and only 2 parents. In a Democracy there is no distinctions between dependents/parasites and supporters/hosts. Majority rules and the parents are reduced to financial slavery.

The founders only let educated land owners vote because they knew the lower class would simply vote to empty the treasury, ruin the credit, destroy the currency then chase everyone with a dollar more than themselves out of the country.... sound familiar?

It is a given and history since before Rome bears that out over and over. You cannot connect the people with the credit line.... PERIOD. You cannot let the word UNFUNDED exist in government.

Glad we agree on that. The problem is...getting the political clout to amend the Constitution in such a way that decentralizes everything-traditionally, TPTB are loathe to let go of power, and will gladly kill thousands of men, women, and children to keep it.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Guys, isn't the idea that we REDUCE the scope of the federal government? If so, isn't the preceding discussion heading in the wrong direction?

I want to take away power from the federal government; hell ALL government. I most certainly do not want to pay for more people in government.

It sounds counter-intuitive, I know, but it isn't really.

You'd have thousands of congresscritters, all at odds with one another, "gridlock" would be the norm, and very little growth of government would be possible.

NH is arguably the most free state in the country and it has one of the largest legislative bodies in the world, per capita.

All unpaid BTW.

 

[AFPVet]

It sounds counter-intuitive, I know, but it isn't really.

You'd have thousands of congresscritters, all at odds with one another, "gridlock" would be the norm, and very little growth of government would be possible.

NH is arguably the most free state in the country and it has one of the largest legislative bodies in the world, per capita.

All unpaid BTW.

Now that would be grand... no more career politicians... just statesmen who come in, vote, and go back to their real jobs.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I can't keep track of your evolution, hb. It seems to change quite frequently.

Actually, it doesn't. I wasn't a "pure" anarchist very long at all. I've held my current position for a few years now(2 or 3, I think. I lost count). I just don't use a label for it. I find labels generally too confining. People from all sorts of backgrounds come up with useful ideas-Randians, Misesians, Jeffersonians, etc, etc. I just pick and choose what I personally find best and most rational/practical/moral.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

It sounds counter-intuitive, I know, but it isn't really.

You'd have thousands of congresscritters, all at odds with one another, "gridlock" would be the norm, and very little growth of government would be possible.

NH is arguably the most free state in the country and it has one of the largest legislative bodies in the world, per capita.

All unpaid BTW.

Thanks for chiming in, good sir.

 

[Chester Copperpot]

there should be 8000 more people in the house... we dont get represented because we dont have enough representatives..


thats part of the problem... this freeze on the congress members.. happened circa 1913 like all the other problems

 

[Lucille]

The country's too big. Bust it up!

America Is Too Big To Be Free
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/128162.html

"Whenever something is wrong, something is too big."
--Leopold Kohr

"Small is Beautiful."
--E.F. Schumacher

Rule 3: Small is beautiful, but it is also efficient.

The most stable country in the history of mankind, and probably the most boring, by the way, is Switzerland. It's not even a city-state environment; it's a municipal state. Most decisions are made at the local level, which allows for distributed errors that don't adversely affect the wider system. Meanwhile, people want a united Europe, more alignment, and look at the problems. The solution is right in the middle of Europe -- Switzerland. It's not united! It doesn't have a Brussels! It doesn't need one.

 

[Confederate]

I say abolish both houses of Congress and merge them with the Presidency.

 

[nobody's_hero]

I say abolish both houses of Congress and merge them with the Presidency.

You mean that hasn't already happened? Then someone should tell Congress that they still have a role.

 

[Confederate]

You mean that hasn't already happened? Then someone should tell Congress that they still have a role.

I just think it should be made official. At least that way it could end some confusion among the general public that the separation of powers is still in existence.

 

[nobody's_hero]

I just think it should be made official. At least that way it could end some confusion among the general public that the separation of powers is still in existence.

Separation of powers? We're now governed by a giant blob, lol. But yeah I think some people are still confused.

 

[Uriah]

I would prefer the 'state of Lincoln' (google it)

I don't think breaking up Texas is a good idea, because it's impossible to draw a good map. I think the same problem exists with California, although there are a few possibilities. I'd be more interested in giving Nevada some parts of Cali - like Inyo, and the parts that border Washoe.

http://www.phrelin.com/3Cals/Sitemap.htm