Turn Off Ads?
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 58

Thread: Enlarge Congress?

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    The Bush Leagues
    Posts
    9,158

    Enlarge Congress?

    I've been for this for a long time.

    Boston Globe

    A bigger, more democratic Congress
    By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | January 13, 2005

    IRAQIS GO to the polls on Jan. 30 to choose the first truly democratic government in their nation's history. If all goes well, the election will result in a new National Assembly of 275 members, drawn from different political parties roughly in proportion to the share of the vote each party receives.

    The distance Iraq has come in less than two years is remarkable. In January 2003, all political power in the country was concentrated in the hands of a single sadistic dictator. He represented, and answered to, no one but himself. Today, 7,200 candidates are campaigning for the privilege of holding office in a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. If that isn't progress, nothing is.

    It is thanks to the United States, of course, that Iraq is about to join the ranks of the planet's democracies. Ironically, the moment the new National Assembly is seated, Iraq will surpass the US Congress in one key measure of democratic legitimacy: the ratio of elected lawmakers to citizens.

    Divide Iraq's 25 million people by the number of members in the new parliament (275), and the result is one legislator for every 91,000 people. That will make Iraq's government almost exactly as representative as Great Britain's -- each member of the House of Commons also represents, on average, about 91,000 citizens. Other democracies are comparable. The ratio for Italy's Chamber of Deputies is 1 to 92,000. For the French National Assembly, 1 to 104,000. For Canada's House of Commons, 1 to 105,000. For Germany's Bundestag, 1 to 136,000.

    But in the US House of Representatives, each lawmaker represents, on average, a staggering 674,000 citizens. That makes the "people's house" in Washington one of the least democratic bodies of its kind in the world. No wonder so many Americans feel alienated from Congress. The vastness of their constituencies has turned too many representatives into distant careerists, political moguls with bloated staffs and bloated egos who are more closely attuned to their campaign war chests than to the lives of the people they are supposed to represent.

    Term limits would help reconnect members of Congress with their districts, as would an end to blatantly partisan gerrymandering. But there is an even better way to make Congress more democratic: Make it bigger.

    Preposterous? It shouldn't be. When the Framers drafted the Constitution, they fully expected that as the American population grew, so would the House of Representatives. "I take for granted," James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 55, "that the number of representatives will be augmented from time to time in the manner provided by the Constitution." He was writing to rebut charges that the proposed House was too small to be democratic and would turn into an oligarchy. He repeated the point in Federalist Nos. 56 and 58, noting that the purpose of the decennial census was to facilitate the growth of the House.

    And growth there was. From 65 seats in 1789, the House grew to 105 after the 1790 Census tallied 3.9 million Americans -- putting the ratio of representatives to citizens at 1 to 37,000. After the 1800 Census, the House was enlarged to 142, then to 186 after the 1810 Census, 213 after the 1820 Census, and so on for more than a century. The increase in House members always lagged behind the increase in population, so the number of citizens per member of Congress steadily rose.

    Still, it was 1860 before the ratio went over 1 for every 100,000, and not until 1910, when the House expanded to 435 members, that it surpassed 1 for every 200,000. But in the years since, the number of House seats has remained fixed at 435, while the population has more than tripled. The result is today's swollen congressional districts, each of which now contains more people than most states did when the Constitution was ratified.

    Enlarging the House to around 1,300 members -- triple its current size -- would doubtless take some getting used to. But the benefits would more than outweigh any inconvenience.

    Among them: Congress would be enriched by a great infusion of new blood and new ideas. Congressional staffs could be sharply reduced. Smaller districts would promote greater political intimacy -- elections would be more likely to turn on personal campaigning and local ties instead of costly mass-media advertising. No longer would states have to lose seats in Congress even though their population had grown, and with fewer votes needed to get elected, the House would be more likely to reflect the nation's social and political diversity.

    As the number of people grow, the "people's house" should grow. On this as on so much else, the Framers had it right.
    The widow is gathering nettles for her children's dinner; a perfumed seigneur, delicately lounging in the Oeil de Boeuf, hath an alchemy whereby he will extract the third nettle and call it rent. ~ Carlyle

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #2
    Smells Like Teen Spirit jmcclain19's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    6,490

    Re: Enlarge Congress?

    Jacoby has always been an interesting outside the box kind of guy, and this is my favorite idea of his yet.

    Although I wouldn't go so far as tripling it, doubling or even a 66% increase would go a long way.

  4. #3
    The Lineups stink. KronoRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    West N. Carolina
    Posts
    55,673

    Re: Enlarge Congress?

    It needs to be larger, if they need to build a bigger building then get it done.
    Go Gators!

  5. #4
    A Little to the Left Redsfaithful's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Bexley, OH
    Posts
    7,466

    Re: Enlarge Congress?

    It should happen. Probably won't, but it should.
    We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
    --Oscar Wilde

  6. #5
    Big Red Machine RedsBaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Out Wayne
    Posts
    22,834

    Re: Enlarge Congress?

    I have really thought about the proposal, but my initial reaction is that a House made up of 1300 members might lead to more gridlock. However gridlocks has its virtues.
    "Hey...Dad. Wanna Have A Catch?" Kevin Costner in "Field Of Dreams."

  7. #6
    RZ Chamber of Commerce Unassisted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    13,450

    Re: Enlarge Congress?

    Enlarge it? Nahhh, reduce it, and give the money to support enlarging state and local government representation. It makes me crazy that the city council districts here have 150,000 people in them.
    /r/reds

  8. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    The Bush Leagues
    Posts
    9,158

    Re: Enlarge Congress?

    "The cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy" -- Andrew Jackson
    The widow is gathering nettles for her children's dinner; a perfumed seigneur, delicately lounging in the Oeil de Boeuf, hath an alchemy whereby he will extract the third nettle and call it rent. ~ Carlyle

  9. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Huntington WV
    Posts
    622

    Re: Enlarge Congress?

    who are more closely attuned to their campaign war chests than to the lives of the people they are supposed to represent.
    Hardly, a 98% incumbency rate gives more than enough job security. After six years they don’t even have to run, as long as the pork is coming in. This is the lynchpin of his argument and in my mind speaks more to rhetoric than to actual observation, unless he intended to say Senate… then there might be a case.

    Increased size = increased scope

    Enlarge it? Nahhh, reduce it, and give the money to support enlarging state and local government representation. It makes me crazy that the city council districts here have 150,000 people in them.
    Exactly, national stuff is far sexier but local stuff is far more important in everyday life.

    But, if Congress is increased should it be done while the Repubs control Washington?
    Last edited by MuEconRedLeg; 01-13-2005 at 06:38 PM.

  10. #9
    Please come again pedro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    portland, oregon
    Posts
    14,746

    Re: Enlarge Congress?

    That's an interesting article.
    Get your nunchucks and the keys to your dad's car. I know where we can get a gun

  11. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Huntington WV
    Posts
    622

    Re: Enlarge Congress?

    "The cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy" -- Andrew Jackson
    Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic.
    - Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

  12. #11
    Smells Like Teen Spirit jmcclain19's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    6,490

    Re: Enlarge Congress?

    I've always been a fan of Term Limits, and polls show that America typically is as well, except when it comes to their own congressman.

    It's another amusing figure, that most people are against pork, as long as it doesn't take away money from their district.

    Smaller districts, combined with states having independent panels who do the districts, not the gerrymandered politicized way its done now in most states (Hello California and Texas), would go a long way towards curbing some problems.

  13. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    The Bush Leagues
    Posts
    9,158

    Re: Enlarge Congress?

    Smaller districts would probably mean some more third party reps and that's can't be bad thing.
    The widow is gathering nettles for her children's dinner; a perfumed seigneur, delicately lounging in the Oeil de Boeuf, hath an alchemy whereby he will extract the third nettle and call it rent. ~ Carlyle

  14. #13
    Smells Like Teen Spirit jmcclain19's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    6,490

    Re: Enlarge Congress?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rojo
    Smaller districts would probably mean some more third party reps and that's can't be bad thing.
    Amen to that. Which is probably the chief reason that, outside a direct public referendum, it'll never happen.

  15. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Huntington WV
    Posts
    622

    Re: Enlarge Congress?

    Smaller districts would probably mean some more third party reps and that's can't be bad thing.
    It would also create more fighting over resources, or the need for more resources (i.e. taxing).

  16. #15
    Where's my chair? REDREAD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Posts
    21,081

    Re: Enlarge Congress?

    IMO, we already have enough politicians. Most of them are completely useless.
    Double the size of congress, and you'll have double the corruption and double the waste.

    If nothing else, it's a good chunk of change to put another 200 of them on the payroll and pay for all their perks.

    It would lead to small feifdoms, but no improvement.

    Heck, if anything, they should reduce the size of congress, IMO.

    If you want more independents.. that's not going to happen without some big changes to the system, and the two parties in power aren't going to let that happen.


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25