A professor of mine wrote a book. Impressed? Neither was I. But my professor, Larry Sabato ("the most quoted guy in politics" his term not mine) wrote a book about rewriting the constitution. He argues since the founding we have had only 17 amendments in our 200+ years (remember 10 of the 27 came with the original), the 'living document' hasn't been living at all, and our American Democracy has fallen behind. He literally calls America to a new constitutional convention, and give 23 proposals that if adopted would radical change the course of America. For better or worse...that's for us to debate. I present my new
Sabato in the book (Called 'A More Perfect Constitution') states a disclaimer that I have amended here:
The purpose of this post is to spark debate on proposed amendments to the constitution. The fact that I posted them is NOT an endorsement of the topic. I disagree with several ideas, but that should not stop discussion. Each proposal is stated, with possible Pros, Cons, and a breakdown of the likely hood of passage. The overall goal of this series is to bring back that idea of a Living Constitution, that we can change the document to better reflect our society and ideas, that the only thing the founder's had in mind was that what they wrote was meant to be changed.
First a brief social studies lesson: Amending the Constitution, or pulling a rabbit out of your but and convincing 3/4 of states to do the same.
First rule-changing the constitution is hard. This is a fact. An amendment needs to either be proposed by 2/3 of both congressional houses, or by 2/3 of the states calling for a national convention (fact:there has never been a national convention)
Second Rule-Getting states to agree is hard. If you get congress to propose (or by some miracle figure out how to do a national convention) its only partly done. Now the states have to ratify the proposal. Either 3/4s of state legislators, or 3/4s of state conventions can do this. It means getting 38 states to agree, not easy. Only 1 amendment has ever passed with state conventions, the 21st returning the right to drink.
That's the basics. Now the proposal:
Resolved: Expand the House Of Representatives From 435 members to 1000 members.
Pros: The HoR is supposed to be the "people's house". Where lawmakers would have to have the most direct contact with their constituencies and be a strong voice to challenge the "states" oriented senate. Over the years as the population grew, the number of seats failed to keep pace. Today by law, a congressman represents approx. 693,000 people. By increasing the size of the HoR to 1000, we would cut in half the people a congressman represents. In theory they would be able to meet and correspond with more voters, better represent the interests of more compact districts. Also add a more "local" element to elections, allowing candidates to be able to get messages across to higher % of their district (don't people always complain about rich people winning big districts?). Also, more avenues for third party and independent lawmakers. And on the Hill, 1000 members means more highly specialized committees and task forces.
This amendment would go far in resorting the "People's House".
Cons: To many congressmen today, would more than doubling the fish in the tank lead to more confusion, more needless legislation and pork spending? By doubling the number of congressional districts, are we not double the chance of gerrymandering (def: drawing district lines to isolate or break up undesirable voting groups). Maybe the solution to the 'do nothing' congress is not to pack more people in it. Sure there needs to be changes to redistricting, and maybe the committee and seniority structures in the HoR, but a large change like this could also have unforeseen consequences.
Chances of Passing: (this is my personal analysis) Slim-To-Nil. Lets remember the civics lesson at the top. It has to pass both the senate and HoR by 2/3s (lets ignore the national convention idea for now). I honestly think congressmen and women would be opposed to doubling the house. Less pork, campaign dollars, and committee chairs for them. That said, voter opinion got the senate to pass an amendment making them directly elected, so its not impossible for congress to pass a change against their own interest.
But there is the other brick wall, 3/4 of states. As said before 38 state agreements are hard, very hard. Oh sure getting 33-35 states may not be a problem. But 13 states can logjam the rest of the nation. More congressmen would certainly favor areas with high density of people, or in Rush Limbaugh code, those liberal urban commie death holes of cities. Sure each congressman would now represent about 300,000 people, but highly compact areas would get more representation. Today 51% of congress is controlled by 17% of the population. Those 13 really red states (especially those with 1 congressman) are not going to give their over sized piece of the pie away to blue states. I don't see this amendment getting anywhere near the 38 states it needs.
Food For thought: that's my two cents, whats yours. Disagree with a pro, or con? Think of better pros and cons, or tweaks to the proposal? Maybe a better analysis of the road to passage? Or just want to discuss it, that's great. Have fun with the comments.
And keep a look out for the next post, another amendment for
A More Perfect Constitution