Interesting discussion over at
this diary, regarding a more democratic (small 'd') House of Representatives. The Boston Glove's Jeff Jacoby
started the ball rolling:
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 [...]
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.
Talk about a fresh idea, and one that seems, on paper, to have some merit. But we wouldn't even have to triple the size of the House to make it more demoratic. In the diary discussion, people suggest a "Wyoming rule" that would make CDs the size of the Wyoming seat:
Using the 2000 census numbers, if you increase the size of the house until the number of people per rep. equals the population of Wyoming (495,304), the size of the house is 569 (California = 69 members)
I think the UK House of Commons had 651 MPs most recently (this is supposed to shrink by six in the next Parliament because of boundary changes in Scotland). A 651 member US house would have a ration of 1 rep per 432,295 people and California would have 78 members and 80 electoral votes.
That would make the system more fair, but we'd lose out on some of those benefits Jacoby discusses -- a more intimate relationship between Rep and constituent, the lessening of money in the process, as TV would be less important in a race targetting 100,000 people, and a more socially and culturally diverse legislature.
Of course, would Congress ever redistict itself in a way where existing legislators would lose power? Unlikely. And how do you fit 1,300 reps in the capitol? The solutions are out there, but they'd be a handy excuse to keep the status quo.
But even if the debate remains theoretical, it's an interesting debate nonetheless.