Political Monopoly Power (idea to increase size of House of reps)

[SnyderShrugged]

Interesting perspective on the size of the house of representatives from Walter Williams

Political Monopoly Power

The Federalist Papers, written by James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, is the document most frequently referred to when trying to get a feel for the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. One such intention is found in Federalist 56 where Madison says, "...it seems to give the fullest assurance, that a representative for every thirty thousand inhabitants will render the (House of Representatives) both a safe and competent guardian of the interests which will be confided to it."

Excellent research, found at http://www.thirty-thousand.org/index.htm, shows that in 1804 each representative represented about 40,000 people. Today, each representative represents close to 700,000. If we lived up to the vision of our founders, given today's population, we would have about 7,500 congressmen in the House of Representatives. It turns out that in 1929 Congress passed a bill fixing the number of representatives at 435. Prior to that, the number of congressional districts was increased every 10 years, from 1790 to 1910, except one, after a population census was taken.

We might ask what's so sacrosanct about 435 representatives? Why not 600, or 1,000, or 7,500? Here's part of the answer and, by the way, I never cease to be amazed by the insight and wisdom of our founders: James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, argued that the smaller the House of Representatives relative to the nation's population, the greater is the risk of unethical collusion. He said, "Numerous bodies ... are less subject to venality and corruption. " In a word, he saw competition in the political arena as the best means for protecting our liberties. If Madison were around today to see today's venal and corrupt Congress, he'd probably say, "See, I told you so!"

In addition to venality and corruption, restricting the number of representatives confers significant monopoly power that goes a long way toward explaining the stranglehold the two parties have and the high incumbent success rates. It might also explain the power of vested interest groups to influence congressional decisions. They only have to bribe, cajole or threaten a relatively small number of representatives. Imagine the challenge to a lobbyist, if there were 7,500 representatives, trying to get a majority of 3,813 to vote for this or that special privilege versus having to get only a 218 majority in today's Congress.

Another problem of a small number of congressmen, with large districts, has to do with representing their constituents. How in the world is one congressman to represent the diverse interests and values of 700,000 people? The practical answer is they don't and attempt to be all things to all people. Thus, a congressman who takes a principled stand against the federal government exceeding its constitutional authority -- whether it be government involvement in education, business welfare and bailouts and $2 trillion dollars worth of other handouts -- is not likely to win office.

Appealing for the votes in a district of 700,000 is a more difficult challenge than appealing for the votes in a district of 40,000 or 60,000 people. Larger sums must be raised requiring a congressman to be wealthy or raise money from vested interest groups. Who is going to give a congressman money and not expect something special in return?

One should not be optimistic about increasing the size of Congress to make it more representative of the American people. There are powerful forces that benefit from the status quo. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lobbyists get Congress to look the other way. Hundreds of other lobbyists get Congress to rig the market, or confer special privileges, to benefit one class of Americans at the expense of another class. I guarantee you that the vested interest groups, who now have a strong grip on Washington, at the detriment of the nation's well-being, wouldn't as easily get their way if they had to scrounge for 3,813 votes as opposed to 218.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/08/PoliticalMonopolyPower.htm

[SnyderShrugged]

this is something that I didnt realize.

"in 1804 each representative represented about 40,000 people. Today, each representative represents close to 700,000. If we lived up to the vision of our founders, given today's population, we would have about 7,500 congressmen in the House of Representatives. It turns out that in 1929 Congress passed a bill fixing the number of representatives at 435. Prior to that, the number of congressional districts was increased every 10 years, from 1790 to 1910, except one, after a population census was taken."

[Redskins Diehard]

Did I miss his answer to "why 435"? It certainly seems that our system is out of whack. I really think that smaller districts would significantly alter, if not completely eliminate, the 2 party system

[SkinsHokieFan]

The House should be doubled, at a minmum

Will made this argument a few years ago

[SnyderShrugged]

Did I miss his answer to "why 435"? It certainly seems that our system is out of whack. I really think that smaller districts would significantly alter, if not completely eliminate, the 2 party system

That is a very good question. I honestly dont know the rationale for the 435 limit either.

shf, I also hadnt heard that Will (George, right?) proposed this before either. good to know

[FanboyOf91]

7000?

Imagine the salary and health insurance implications. Representatives make 169000 a year.

[Larry]

Actually, I've been advocating for some time for something that a Professor once explained to me in a class called proportional representation.

Observe that the US Constitution doesn't mandate that Congressmen be selected on the basis of winner-take-all districts (which are drawn in openly partisan fashion for the specific, stated purpose of getting the maximum representation in Congress for whichever party holds the slimmest majority in a state). It merely specifies the method of determining how many Representatives a State has.

I use the example of Florida, which currently has (I think) 26 Representatives.

In a proportional system, there are no districts. Instead, in Florida, the Republican Party puts 26 names on a list. (And so does every other Party.)

The voters vote for their

Party

.

Each party then gets to send a number of people determined by what percentage of the people voted for the Party.

If 60% of Florida voted Republican, then the GOP sends the top (60% * 26) = 16 names on their list. If the other 40% voted D, then the Dems send the first 10 names from their list. All 26 then represent Florida.

Now I know the concept of voting for Party rather than individuals sounds really scary, but here's the effect that such a system has.

It eliminates the "entry costs" for third parties.

To use the example of the Libertarian Party, under the existing system, in order for the LP to get one person in Congress, they have to get 51% of the vote in one district. (A district which was deliberately designed to favor one particular Party.)

But under a proportional system, all the Libertarians have to do, to get a toe-hold in DC, is to get 4% of the vote in Florida. 3% would likely be enough. (And if they can get 7% of Florida, then they get two seats in Congress.)

Because of this, countries that use proportional voting have a lot more Parties. (He mentioned one country that had over 40 Parties in their legislature.) Many of these Parties have very similar platforms. I have no doubt whatsoever that if Florida had such a system, that there would be a "We're just like the Republicans, but we're pro-choice" Party. And a "Democrats opposed to gun control" Party. And dozens of others.

IMO, one effect of such a system would be to eliminate the personal smear from the campaign landscape, and require people to vote based on Party platforms.

Another effect would be that voters would have dozens of perfectly viable choices on election day instead of the current "one, maybe two choices" system.

It would also eliminate the current phenomenon of the abandoned election: One where, when Party X gets 56% of the vote, both Parties abandon the district. Under proportional system, whether your Party has 60% of the vote or 4%, your Party is always just another 4% (or possibly 2%, depending on rounding) away from gaining (or losing) another seat.

(I also would HOPE tha it would cut down on pork so much. At the very least, the Florida delegation would be steering money to Florida as a whole, rather than targeting the NE area of Jacksonville.)

(And I really like the idea of the Libertarians getting 2-3 seats in Congress, and playing "tie breaker" on a lot of 50-50 issues.)

[88Comrade2000]

I'm all for it.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Larry, that may be one of the most brilliant ideas ever.

Somewhere though I am sure there is a catch. But allowing many parties would be terrific

[Fergasun]

I like these ideas...

[PokerPacker]

I don't believe in voting for parties, but I would prefer it if we truly did have proportional representation in that we vote for a bunch of reps at one time and they get office based on votes individuals received. this winner-take-all bull**** just ensures the Republicans and Democrats keep their chokehold on our political system.

[PeterMP]

I believe the 435 is the number of people that fit into the HR chamber in the capitial (that's what I was told once by a teacher).

I have personally believed we should up the number of people in the HR for a while.

[Larry]

Sorry. When I think of increasing the number, what I imagine is four thousand, Congressmen, all of them demanding pork in their districts.

[MurrayH81]

I agree that we need more congressional representatives.

I think it would be much more difficult for them to stuff in pork, because with smaller consitutencies, they would hear more from people and I don't believe most people want pork.

As far as the party idea above, I think what would happen if that was in play is that you would see the smaller parties get hijacked by the Dems/Reps to put their own people at the top to get elected. Back in the 1800's we had somewhat a similar situation where politics were controlled by local party bosses and machinery. I think that the suggestion would simply bring a return to that model.

[SnyderShrugged]

Sorry. When I think of increasing the number, what I imagine is four thousand, Congressmen, all of them demanding pork in their districts.

I'd tend to agree with williams in that the job of a lobbyist would be much tougher to accomplish. More mouths to feed to get their pet programs and pork passed.

[Larry]

I agree that we need more congressional representatives.

I think it would be much more difficult for them to stuff in pork, because with smaller consitutencies, they would hear more from people and I don't believe most people want pork.

As far as the party idea above, I think what would happen if that was in play is that you would see the smaller parties get hijacked by the Dems/Reps to put their own people at the top to get elected. Back in the 1800's we had somewhat a similar situation where politics were controlled by local party bosses and machinery. I think that the suggestion would simply bring a return to that model.

1) As I understand it, in a proportional system, the people elected are required by law to vote according to the platform of the party they ran under.

2) If, say, the "Democrats who don't like gun control" party gets "taken over" by the Democrats, and the guys they send get to Washington and vote in favor of gun control, then there will be a new "Democrats who don't like gun control" party in the next election.

If the barriers to entry created by the "winner talk all" system are removed, then Joe the Plumber can start his own Party (and have a chance at winning). Parties aren't monopolies any more.

[JEQuidam]

... In a proportional system, there are no districts.

A proportional system would make the problem (that Walter Williams is referring to) even worse. Please read his article.

Currently, the average district size is 700,000 (and growing). As a result, the Representatives must raise millions of dollars every two years in order to finance their reelection campaigns. Of course, it is far easier for an incumbent to raise those amounts than it is for a challenger. Because of this barrier to entry, incumbent Representatives are assured of 90%+ reelection rates.

If the cost of campaigning to over 700,000 people is expensive, imagine how costly it would be to campaign to millions of people in a statewide election! That is what would happen if you eliminated single-representative districts. Believe me, the Founding Fathers knew what they were doing.

The incumbents are already beholden to numerous powerful special interests for their financial and political support; these groups comprise the Representatives' primary constituents. The citizenry has become the Representatives' secondary constituency.

If we reduced the population size of congressional districts from 700,000 to a much smaller size, such as 50,000, it is easy to see why the citizens would once again become the Representatives' primary constituents. It would no longer require millions of dollars to seek election in a district of 50,000. In fact, if an incumbent were not held in high esteem by his/her constituents, then any competent citizen could mount an effective challenge at no more expense than the cost of several pairs of walking shoes and several thousand photocopies.

[JEQuidam]

... It certainly seems that our system is out of whack. I really think that smaller districts would significantly alter, if not completely eliminate, the 2 party system

Exactly right!!!

Since I'm interloping in your forum I should introduce myself. I'm the founder of Thirty-Thousand.org (the organization referenced in Walter Williams' article). An omniscient force (Google) let's me know when "Thirty-Thousand.org" pops up in a forum and, time permitting, I'll jump into the discussion just long enough to add my 2¢ worth. (I won't hang around long.)

If you have any interest in this subject, please read the 15 Questions & Answers on TTO's home page.

Thirty-Thousand.org is a non-partisan and non-profit 501©(3) organization.

[SUSkinsFan]

I've been arguing that this should be done for years. I think the HOR should be around 700-800 members.

[Larry]

A proportional system would make the problem (that Walter Williams is referring to) even worse. Please read his article.

Because it's very tough to reach 51 percent of the voters.

But in a proportional system, you only need to reach 4 percent of the voters.

Heck, the Libertarians could to that now, without changing a thing. (Only reason they don't get 4% right now is the "they can't win, so my vote would be wasted" factor.)

[Hubbs]

Interesting suggestion. I wouldn't be opposed to increasing the number of members, but the suggestion that there should be thousands seems like it would create a very unwieldy result. I could be completely wrong, but when I think of a national legislature with several thousand members, I feel like it would be a miracle if they ever got anything done.

And Larry, you're dead-on with the proportional representation thing. I mean, hell, there's a reason for my sig.

[Thiebear]

With a thousand of them being changed out every 12 years at MAX...

169,000 can be dropped back down to what it should be:

Free room and board, cafeteria, dry cleaning, and 50k in funds.

[Raub]

We would need the Galactic Senate chamber from the Phantom Menace.

Very interesting read though.

[JohnLockesGhost]

I've always been interested in proportional representation, but don't know if I'd endorse it for the House of Representatives. I've always thought maybe we could turn the Senate into a proportionately representive body, (100 Senators makes the math really easy) and keep the House as direct agents of the people. I would like to see the institution of a run-off system though requiring at least a majority to be elected. No more plurality-takes-all junk.

[Kilmer17]

2 points.

One- we need more. The reason it was limitted to 435 is simple, those in power got the idea to vote themselves MORE power. And the sheople allowed it.

Two- Proportional is a bad idea. It gives the parties the ability to name the reps, and as a result, they will choose the most hardened, extreme party loyalist.

With an increase in the number, we would get the same result as the proportional system, but without the extremists.