My last diary was about amending the Constitution in such a way as to improve the voice of the people in their government and to stop the Supreme Court appointee wars. These amendments have been criticized by various folks and that is pretty normal. If someone else were to suggest amendments I would probably disapprove of their particular amendment(s) because we each see the problems differently. Each individual has his or her golden fleece that would make the USA a better place to be. Mine just happens to be a desire for a closer relationship between the congressional representatives and the people they represent. And then I think about Citizens United and I know that the problem doesn't end with better representation of the people in THEIR House of Representatives. The Senate has proved to be a very crippled institution that is crippling the entire government. But alas, this diary is about the House of Representatives and the problems we face due to its small size.
The immediate reaction of most people is to dismiss a call for a larger House membership out of hand. The reasons run the gambit from "It will cost to much", to "The House Would Never Be Able To Get Anything Done", and others. But the one discussion that really matters is about the size and shape of Congressional districts. The objective of a larger membership is not increased bodies for the sake of any suggestion that more is better. The larger membership could be problematic if not handled appropriately (current House rules are probably adequate to handle this enlargement, as is). The objective is smaller congressional districts and I have been asked to defend my proposition that smaller districts are better for the middle class and the common people.
The overall observation is that the smaller the union of citizens to be represented, the more intensely the group will be represented. I can't prove that is true any more then I can prove that water is wet. But in smaller groups it is much easier to replace a person that is NOT representing the group. This is most especially true when we consider the total remuneration to a US House Representative. Many people would be extremely pleased to represent their constituents and would do so in a heartbeat if they could just get elected. And this is where the smaller districts and more of them really enter the picture. The larger the electoral base to be addressed, the more costly the campaign. Again, this is a "water is wet" proposition based on anecdotal example: The Presidency costs a lot of money because it encompasses all the whole nation. Senate seats in populated states are very expensive for the same reason. Congressional seats are less expensive because they are limited in bounds. What you would find is that rural seats are much easier to defend than urban seats. This is because the people being addressed are bunched more closely in the city, and town hall style meetings and picnics are the best avenue to campaigning; press the flesh. Radio and TV advertising works best in sparsely populated rural areas. In Wyoming the congressional district is the whole state. In Los Angeles or any other major city, the ground game works a lot better. Local people wanting solid representation will work to make that representation happen. In smaller districts, Joe doesn't get elected because Joe is a Democrat or a Republican. Joe gets elected and stays elected because he represents his constituents.
And that is the basis for my claim that smaller congressional districts are better. The smaller "square" districts dramatically improve the relationship between the representative and the people. And these smaller districts are much less susceptible to being bought by media advertising. The House of Representatives probably would not need campaign finance reform if the districts were a lot smaller. But assuming that is the approach of choice, there will be less tendency to stray outside the confines of public financing if the districts are small.