To survive in the land of the crazy, a sane man must act insane.
What would happen if the membership of the House of Representatives were to be raised from 435 members (a 1:700,000 ratio) to 1240 members (a 1:250,000 ratio)? Like all things political, no one can say for certain. But, we can look at historical trends and make assertions. Do not be surprised if some of my assertions contradict each other: that’s the price one pays for lack of omniscience. The following questions are the objections to increasing the size of the House I hear most often.
Would raising the House’s membership level just lead to more of the same gridlock and animosity that exists today, only on a larger scale?
Initially? Probably. The two major parties now in control of the state legislatures, the republican and democrat parties, already have in place the infrastructure to run campaigns at the level we’re discussing. In all likelihood, persons having lost in the most recent of primary elections (Republican and Democrat) would be the most likely to run for any newly created seat. And, since the Republican and Democrat parties also control Congress, albeit cyclically, they’re in a position to set a date for expansion that best suits their needs: they can cooperate with the state legislatures to maximize any benefit their party will receive from gerrymandering. So, for the first election cycles, perhaps eight or ten years, the two major parties would continue to dominate the House.
But, and this is important, the tendency both parties have to nominate fringe candidates would be reduced. Again, it is statistics that intervene. Statistically, predicting group behavior is less difficult than predicting individual behavior. The larger the group, the easier it becomes to predict how the group will behave, because the larger the group, the more likely one will find many individuals who exhibit similar behavior: tribes or classes, if you will. Or, political parties. The whole point of gerrymandering is to insure that “my” candidates have the best chance of winning a given population in the general election, by dividing the voting population along tribal, class, or political lines. If I get to draw the district lines around one million people of my choosing – in this case: people who vote - I can design a district populated by individuals whose behavior I can easily predict. Consequently, if I am limited to working with half that population or less, say 250,000 people, I have more difficulties creating an ideal environment for an extreme, that is to say, fringe candidate. So, if an additional 800 people were to be added to the House, it is highly likely that people of moderate political beliefs would make up that majority. To be sure, the new membership would have its share of “crazies”; but because smaller groups tend to exhibit exclusionary behavior towards what the group considers radical, moderation would rule the day.
What of the Electoral College? Won’t it need to be re-designed?
No. Article II, Section 1 of our Constitution reads: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.” So, as the whole number of each state’s House delegation increases, the number of electors allocated increases. To be elected President, a candidate would still be required to receive the vote of the majority of electors which, if you increase House membership to 1240, becomes 673.
Won’t more politicians just mean more corruption?
Not necessarily. A larger population of Congress means anyone wanting to unduly influence its actions (or inactions) will need to acquire the cooperation of more representatives. Remember, the goal is to make Congress too big to buy. Also, if a smaller group is less likely to allow deviant behavior, and a group of 435 people considers honesty to be deviant, then to thwart that group one needs to overwhelm it with people who view honesty as the norm. Remember, the rule: The more votes one needs to win, the more money one needs to spend.
Won’t creating a need for more campaigns create a need for more campaign contributions?
No, it won’t. The inverse of the aforementioned rule applies: The fewer votes I need to win, the less money I need to spend. Oh, there’ll be exceptions, to be sure. But for the most part, there exists a correlation between votes needed to win a campaign and money spent in a campaign. Smaller districts require fewer votes to win, so they require less money.
Consider: today, a typical Congressional district is comprised of 700,000 people. Typically, about two-thirds (450,000) are eligible to register to vote, of which fifty-percent (225,000) actually register. Even though a candidate in such a district must garner just 112,001 votes to win, the district, the typical district, is so spread out from gerrymandering it is almost impossible to canvass the entire district effectively without media purchases, which just so happen to comprise the largest expenditure of a campaign. Small districts alleviate the need for large media purchases for the simple fact that the population is relatively condensed. An added bonus: the candidate can actually meet, perhaps even get to know, more of the people they are supposed to be representing.