If Only We’d Smaller Political Units Than Congress. We’d Need A Lot, Though, Perhaps As Many As We’ve States.

Posted on | November 3, 2014 | 69 Comments

by Smitty

I get a kick out of the people getting all fretty about expanding the House, the size of which has been frozen in time since 1910, emphasis mine:

I tend to rebel against the idea of adding even more members of Congress. Having nearly 700 of them squabbling over everything from major national policy to what to call the french fries in the cafeteria just gives me the willies. But I suppose there might be some benefits to consider. There are currently more than 700,000 people in each district on average. That’s a lot of folks to convince if you want to run for office, and competitive House races can get nearly as expensive as Senate races, which narrows the pool of people who can realistically take a shot at it. It’s also hard to make your voice heard to the representative when shouting from a crowd that large. And, at least in theory, the races would be more competitive.

The problem isn’t so much the inter-state and international policies that seem so contentious with Congress. Rather, all the social engineering nonsense brought in by the Progressives.

The explicit value of expanding the House of Representatives is to make it more representative. You know: its job. All of the difficulties in building consensus with an unwieldy number is a feature: we’re likely to move in the direction of a more Parliamentary-style House (and aren’t Europeans held up as an exemplar for us?). That is, our purported “two party” system (Progressives and Other Progressives) would face intellectual competition. That competition would force the House to focus on truly interstate and international issues, and leave the individually targeted (vote-buying) issues at the state level, where those casting votes are more accountable to those taxed to pay the bills.

The implicit value of expanding the House would be in affording employment to all of the federal civil servants, so they have something to do with themselves as we cheerfully whack all these deadwood federal agencies (e.g. the Department of Education) in the glorious future of conservative reform. OK, I’m in my happy place now.

Category: Uncategorized

Comments

69 Responses to “If Only We’d Smaller Political Units Than Congress. We’d Need A Lot, Though, Perhaps As Many As We’ve States.”

If Only We’d Smaller Political Units Than Congress. We’d Need A Lot, Though, Perhaps As Many As We’ve States. | That Mr. G Guy's Blog
November 3rd, 2014 @ 10:46 am

[…] If Only We’d Smaller Political Units Than Congress. We’d Need A Lot, Though, Perhaps As Many As …. […]
Finrod Felagund
November 3rd, 2014 @ 10:48 am

One of the original 12 amendments to pass the First Congress had as its intent to limit congressional districts to 50,000. (The other eleven became Amendments 1 thru 10 and 27). It was never ratified by the states because of a typo that made it ineffective.

I think this is a great idea, with the caveat that looking down the road of population growth, it might be a good idea to make that cap be approximately the square root of the population once this would require there to be more than 50,000 Representatives.
smitty
November 3rd, 2014 @ 10:58 am

How, exactly, you’d go about scaling up the House would be critical. I like the idea of a robust, publicly available algorithm for calculating districts. Move the bun fight to how the data are gathered and validated. I’d also set a target representation value, and have actual size increases occur at the mid-point between Census takings, and also limit the increases to, say 5% at a time.

This is a problem that needs fixing, but fixing it rapidly would be a problem in its own right.
RS
November 3rd, 2014 @ 11:34 am

These ideas are spawned in the minds of people who with to dilute the separation of powers, most specifically between/among the states and federal government. The purpose here is not to make the government more representative, but to accumulate power in those areas with large, progressive populations. The 17th Amendment destroyed the States’ representation in Congress. The cry for eliminating the Electoral College is the same, as is the the desire to increase the number of members in the House. Don’t fall for it. We are not a democracy; we are a republic of (ostensibly) limited powers.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
November 3rd, 2014 @ 11:40 am

I would only agree provided every congress critter only gets a secretary and one staffer.
Adobe_Walls
November 3rd, 2014 @ 11:47 am

This would have to be “fixed” via article five if at all. Surely we don’t trust anyone in currently in DC to have any hand in it.
Now that I think of it I’m not sure I trust having any current state government people having any hand in it.
Upon further reflection I don’t think I feel any better about county government officials than I do about fed and state officials.
How do we keep the fifty plus something percent who voted for Obama out of this process? One might suspect a theme developing here.

I have no idea if increasing the size of the house would/could make anything better. I am positive there’s only one or two ways to do it correctly. I’m reasonably confident we’ll find one of the others.
Adobe_Walls
November 3rd, 2014 @ 11:51 am

So you’d ”discriminate” against the new, improved and certainly more ”diverse” representatives of the ”people”?
Adobe_Walls
November 3rd, 2014 @ 12:01 pm

Limiting the growth rate is generally the preferred method of dealing with parasites.
K-Bob
November 3rd, 2014 @ 12:58 pm

We could do with a few more states, I think. With possibly the lone exception of Detroit, the urban areas control (or at least, massively influence) their entire states. Placing them in their own state would restore a little balance.

Until the next out-of-balance moment.

Maybe the number of states should be limited to 80 (or some multiple of the overall population), and we should have state re-apportionment (boundary wars!) every 100 years.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
November 3rd, 2014 @ 1:13 pm

Yes, most definitely!
Evi L. Bloggerlady
November 3rd, 2014 @ 1:13 pm

I would also cut their office budgets by about 90%.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
November 3rd, 2014 @ 1:14 pm

It works with cancer treatment too.
smitty
November 3rd, 2014 @ 1:21 pm

I don’t see where rejiggering state borders adds value above tweaking Congressional districts after each Census, if we factor out gerrymandering.
Adobe_Walls
November 3rd, 2014 @ 1:25 pm

How will they find the time to fund raise?
Adobe_Walls
November 3rd, 2014 @ 1:27 pm

Isn’t gerrymandering court approved? Minority set-aside districts certainly are.
Adobe_Walls
November 3rd, 2014 @ 1:33 pm

That would create islands of poverty surrounded by relative prosperity. I question why many cities exist at all, or at least at their current sizes. There’s no way Detroit or Greater Los Angeles or even New York will ever produce/attract enough jobs for their populations.
K-Bob
November 3rd, 2014 @ 2:39 pm

Most of them are already islands of poverty. But they get to vote, and they vote for more of the same, which means outstate voters end up sending money into the cities to line the pockets of the aldermen, ward heelers, council members, mayors, etc. Let them control their own area, and not everyone else’s, just because they built vertically.
kbiel
November 3rd, 2014 @ 2:43 pm

1. Repeal the reapportionment act of 1929. Comparative Effort: Easy, Effect: Give congress back the reins on size.

2. Amendment to fix the ratio to 1 rep for every 30,000 (open to quibbling on size). Comparative Effort: Amendments are hard, Effect: Makes the apportionment less political and makes each rep more responsive to their constituents.

3. Repeal the 17th amendment. Comparative Effort: Probably near impossible as this is anti-populist, Effect: Give the states greater power in stopping or slowing power concentration in Washington.
K-Bob
November 3rd, 2014 @ 2:46 pm

Well a’ course. Gerrymandering cou-int possibly come into play in state boundary disputes, anyway. Why it’s practic’ly obsolete at the state level.

We’re all just dreaming here, so what the heck, I’m dreamin’ like a u-dopian for a change!

I think we should randomize state laws every twenty years. Take the entire state code and drop it in a big bin, then pull one out at random for your state. Suddenly, California’s all open carry and Alabama gets Chicago’s gun laws. That would be fun to watch.
Walter Mow
November 3rd, 2014 @ 2:53 pm

“anarchist” he is heard to hiss as he exits stage left…

Any thing new in the Convention of States???
Evi L. Bloggerlady
November 3rd, 2014 @ 2:53 pm

They seem to be amazingly resourceful when it comes to that: love will find a way!
K-Bob
November 3rd, 2014 @ 3:05 pm

Heh.

I’ll be hitting it hard again sometime. I got clobbered at work pretty hard this year, so I haven’t kept up.

Next year there will be more activity on it, all over the place. It’s definitely catching on.
Alan Grayson’s Wife: ‘Alan Wants Us to Starve Quickly’ | Regular Right Guy
November 3rd, 2014 @ 3:56 pm

[…] If Only We’d Smaller Political Units Than Congress. We’d Need A Lot, Though, Perhaps As Many As … […]
NeoWayland
November 3rd, 2014 @ 4:43 pm

Don’t put limits on the staffers.

Just make the states provide all office expenses for their Congressmen, including staff.

Can you imagine a U.S. Senator submitting expense reports to the state legislature?
Finrod Felagund
November 3rd, 2014 @ 5:39 pm

Limiting the size of congressional Districts was an idea that the Founders had, in the First Congress. More Representatives means any one Representative has less power, not more.
Fred4d
November 3rd, 2014 @ 6:00 pm

I would have a few fixes, expand the house to 1001 members. Give DC to Maryland. Require congressional districts be compact. Give territories one voting member each. Set the delegates for the Electoral College to 1 per house district elected by the district, 2 state wide to the overall winner in each state. Although more house seats drives the Electoral College closer to a popular vote, making each delegate be from each district removes the big cities in the big states dominating the process
Quartermaster
November 3rd, 2014 @ 7:09 pm

The preferred method of dealing with parasites is the infliction of death with extreme prejudice.

Yes, I am prejudiced against parasites. Sue me.
Quartermaster
November 3rd, 2014 @ 7:12 pm

Court approved gerrymandering is approved.
Quartermaster
November 3rd, 2014 @ 7:16 pm

By going back to what the founders set for the population size of house districts, the House would not be able to meet in one place. With the innerwebz, that’s now workable, and would also tend to cut down on the back room dealing that goes on now. Taking power from morons like Pelosi and Boner is a very good thing as well. I also like the suggestion of having the states pay for the offices and staff of Congresscritters, House and Senate.
Adobe_Walls
November 3rd, 2014 @ 8:02 pm

Staffers are a large part of the problem now. They write the legislation and have their own relationships with the lobbyists. Many of them remain there moving from one rep to another, showing the new comers ”how things are done”.
Adobe_Walls
November 3rd, 2014 @ 8:19 pm

All of the arguments favoring having smaller districts with more house reps never fail to remind me of the scenes from Star Wars depicting their senate. The problem with our current legislators isn’t that they represent too many people, it’s that most of them are wholly owned by special interests and don’t represent their constituents. Having more crappy house reps makes as much sense as harnessing more dead horses to one’s wagon to increase horse power.
Adobe_Walls
November 3rd, 2014 @ 8:23 pm

Parasites can’t be eliminated that’s why they’re still here.
NeoWayland
November 3rd, 2014 @ 8:26 pm

If all staffers are paid by their respective states and not by the FedGov, how many do you think the state legislatures would be willing to pay for?
Quartermaster
November 3rd, 2014 @ 8:26 pm

Nuke ’em! Nuke the whales while you’re at it, along with the Dimocrats. Don’t let any parasite have a moment’s peace.
Adobe_Walls
November 3rd, 2014 @ 8:29 pm

I’m not suggesting that ”containing” islands of poverty, as one would for instance Ebola, would be a bad thing, I just don’t think we could make it happen.
Adobe_Walls
November 3rd, 2014 @ 8:42 pm

Hundreds. Up to a point more staffers for your now diluted house rep means more power. More reps means more committees, more staff enables any given rep the ability to serve on more committees. One of the reasons having 40 or 50 different job training programs spread over 4 or 5 (maybe more) different agencies survives being exposed is that it gives more committees jurisdiction over job training.
NeoWayland
November 3rd, 2014 @ 8:53 pm

The states won’t pay for hundreds of staffers per Congresscritter.

They won’t even pay for dozens.

I promise you that is one line item in the state budget that would get VERY close attention.
Adobe_Walls
November 3rd, 2014 @ 9:09 pm

Dreamer.
Adobe_Walls
November 3rd, 2014 @ 9:27 pm

The solutions lie in devolving power back to the states as this post’s title suggests. Making congress bigger will only make government bigger. The more anybodies we have ruling us the more creative they have to be in finding ways to bugger us, for their entertainment and to fill their time. In Madison’s vision, after a time congress would have very little to do other than over-site. That’s the hard work of government not legislating.
Adobe_Walls
November 3rd, 2014 @ 9:29 pm

Perhaps not hundreds, I’ve been told a billion times not to exaggerate.
Adobe_Walls
November 3rd, 2014 @ 9:30 pm

Idle hands are the devils workshop.
Daniel Freeman
November 3rd, 2014 @ 9:33 pm

The goal of increasing the number of representatives would be to decrease the number of people each one represents, back closer to the original vision, hopefully to the point where they would be better off talking to constituents than fundraisers.
Daniel Freeman
November 3rd, 2014 @ 9:43 pm

The problem with our current legislators isn’t that they represent too many people, it’s that most of them are wholly owned by special interests and don’t represent their constituents.

The two are related, as long as there are so many constituents that it’s more efficient to beg for ad money than to just talk to people.
gyrwan
November 3rd, 2014 @ 10:18 pm

Repeal the Constitution. Reinstate the Articles of Confederation.
Adobe_Walls
November 3rd, 2014 @ 10:26 pm

It will always be more efficient to beg for ad money. Doubling the number of house reps won’t increase the number of people who are paying attention, it cuts it in half per house rep. The problem with the ”structure” isn’t its size, it’s that the material used to build it has rotted. Adding a massive cantilever on each side won’t make up for that deficiency.
Daniel Freeman
November 3rd, 2014 @ 11:53 pm

I’m also in favor of a Constitutional amendment to fix money in politics, which would address the problem more directly. Something along the lines of wolf-pac.com although TYT really pisses me on a regular basis otherwise.
Adobe_Walls
November 4th, 2014 @ 12:14 am

So money’s not speech? The Social Democrats and the Republicans are basically equal in outside spending so that’s a wash. It certainly isn’t surges of ideological spending around election time that’s corrupting politics. Both parties and outside groups have spent about one billion dollars on this campaign. Americans spent 2.2 billion on Halloween candy this year. Far better if those numbers were reversed. It’s the day in day out lobbying that is corrupting the political process. The key to getting ”bad” money out of governing is closing the ”Special Favors R Us” store on Capital Hill. The key to that is an informed electorate who votes out the crony fixers. Your amendment will never pass, not because the Super Pacs will kill it, but because the lobbyists will. The History of ”Campaign Finance Reform” has been about giving preference to progressive media (corporations all) and Social Democratic institutions like unions and progressive NGO non-profits. It’s not random chance that conservative non-profits were targeted by the IRS.
Daniel Freeman
November 4th, 2014 @ 2:09 am

You say that as if I see a difference between Super PACs and lobbyists — and no, money is not speech. The most comical part of that multi-decade sequence of Supreme Court rulings was the part where Kennedy said that there would not even be an appearance of corruption, and then subsequent polls have found that “perception” (which is correct) to be overwhelming, over 90% (accurately) perceiving corruption.
Adobe_Walls
November 4th, 2014 @ 2:13 am

Just because you don’t see a difference doesn’t mean there isn’t one.
Daniel Freeman
November 4th, 2014 @ 2:17 am

That is true, and I appreciate your perspective. What would you say is the difference?