While the United States Supreme Court struggles over the issue of gerrymanders, a corrupt practice which I agree is undemocratic and harmful, let’s not forget the other electoral reform we need. The House of Representatives is far too small. In the past I have documented that the United States has far fewer representatives per capita than the United Kingdom, Germany, France, or other representative democracies.
Seats in the House floated with the population until the Apportionment Act of 1911 when they were fixed at 435. Present law means that the number of persons represented by one Congressional representative now exceeds 750,000, clearly far too many. If each representative represented 100,000 people, much closer to the average among OECD countries, we would have about 3,300 representatives.
It’s high time we start contending with the problems of a country as large as the United States rather than pretending we’re the size of France. A House of Representatives with a capped membership is as undemocratic and corrupt as gerrymandering if not more so.
Wont happen, at least for now. Would mean small and rural states losing a lot of power. However if we did it, wonder if it might really mean the emergence of third and fourth parties?
Steve
In the short term probably yes. In the long term probably no. I think it’s probably true that winner take all systems like ours tend to trend to two parties.
I don’t believe that small or rural states losing power is the greatest barrier. Most states aren’t red or blue but purple. Without gerrymanders and extremely large districts Congress would be more likely to reflect that. That would tend to decrease the power of the more extreme factions in both party caucuses.
I wrote about one proposal to expand the size of the House of Representatives several years ago.
I agree that it is an idea we ought to at least consider, especially when you take into account the fact that the House of Representatives is more than 200 seats smaller than the British House of Commons even though the population of the United Kingdom is roughly 1/5th that of the United States.
Decreasing the number of people per district could have other beneficial effects as well. The average age of legislators in the House of Commons, the Bundestag, and Assemblée nationale is much lower than the average age of House members and none of them are as highly skewed towards attorneys. They’re much more diverse in many ways.
I believe that smaller districts would make the House more diverse, too, not just in politics, age, and occupation but in terms of gender, race, and religion.
To satisfy concerns of the smaller states, we could increase the size of the senate to 3 senators per state by constitutional amendment. Then increasing the House by 50% would maintain the ratio of senators vs representatives and not skew the electoral college towards big or small states.
Actually the US is pretty unique in that 3rd parties never win in Congress. All the parliamentary democracies that use first past the post (uk, Canada, Australia, India) have 2 dominant parties but very viable 3rd/4th parties. The other Presidential democracies (France, Brazil, Mexico) don’t use first past the post for their legislature and have viable 3rd parties. I think it’s a result of being a Presidential system that uses first past the post at all levels.
Wonder if it might make money less important in Congressional elections? Hard to tell I am thinking. One of the things I have learned from our lobbyists is that in elections at the state level, relatively small donations are still very significant. You get a huge amount of attention from a state rep or senator if you offer to take them out to a nice dinner and donate $500.
Steve
CuriousOnlooker: this is not a criticism of your proposal just an observation. As you note increasing the number of senators per state would require a constitutional amendment. Increasing the size of the House would not.
Also, you could get about the same effect by increasing the number of states by dividing some of the larger states up. That, too, would be more democratic. Even more democratic: adopting a procedure that would automatically divide states. Yet again more democratic: abolish the Senate. I see little reason for the Senate once you start electing senators by popular vote.
Another difference between our system and that of other OECD countries: the present form of our representative democracy is older than those of most. Things tend to get entrenched over time.
steve:
The amount of money in politics could be reduced using one simple rule which could be imposed without constitutional amendment by both houses of Congress. Ban contacts between legislators and non-constituents other than other senators or House members as a breach of ethics.
<blockquote>The average age of legislators in the House of Commons, the Bundestag, and Assemblée nationale is much lower than the average age of House members and none of them are as highly skewed towards attorneys. They’re much more diverse in many ways.</blockquote>
One reason for this, of course, is the fact that the Constitution states that one has to be at least 25 to be a member of Congress. In the UK anyone 18 or over can be an MP, and I presume the rule is the same in the other nations limited.
That being said, there isn’t that much difference in the average age according to what I found via a few quick Google searches:
— According to this report, the average age of the House of Representatives in the 114th Congress (the most recent for which I could find data) was 57
— The average age for the current House of Commons as of the 2017 election is 50
— The average age for the Bundestag is just under 50
— The average age for the French National Assembly is 48
So some difference, but not all that different really.
We’re not talking about the age of the universe here, Doug. In human lifespan terms seven years younger on average is an enormous difference. It’s basically the difference between the Chairman of the Board and a senior executive. Or a C-level executive and a junior.
Why do you think the Congressional leadership are, by and large, a bunch of pensioners? Seniority rules, gerrymandering and large districts, and the average ages of the respective bodies.
Doubling the size of the House would be a good first start. I don’t think rural states would be hurt that much.
By my rough calculations, 4 states would not get another representative: Alaska, Vermont, Wyoming, North Dakota.
Another option is to peg the number of representatives to some multiple of the least-populous state. So for example, if you wanted each state to have at least two representatives, then you’d take the population of the least-populous state (Wyoming, about 580k people) and divide that in half – 290k. So districts would be divided nation-wide with this number in mind. This would ensure that each district will represent the same number of people.
Also,
Trying to keep money out of politics is like trying to crush jello with your hands – all it does is make it a big, worse mess. It’s time to stop incentivizing “third parties” to control most political money – remove the limits on individual contributions to candidates and make those contributions transparent and public.
My suggestion is if the small states object because it dilutes their power in the electoral college for President.
I would note from the first census of 1790 until now, the number of representatives per senator has been between 3.5 to 5 and currently stands at 4.35, right in the middle. Its not a written rule but probably reflects an agreeable balance of interests between the small states vs big states.
The other note on increasing the size of Congress is there’s an upper limit before it becomes size becomes too burdensome. The European Union parliament at 750 is the biggest democratically elected legislature – and no other legislature goes over 700 (Germany is supposed to be 600 but can go over 700 depending on how people vote).
The Congress has been burdensome since the very beginnings of the Republic.
If you run an organization the same way now as it was run in 1790, you’ll face the same limitations they did in 1790. Technological change means that Congress doesn’t need to sit in the same room in order to meet as was the case in 1790. On a daily basis I meet with people in five different time zones all at the same time.