Ace of Spades HQ

December 23, 2010

Hey, Let's Add 100 Congressmen
— Ace

Except for the small bump in overall costs, it's a good idea, as Congressmen now represent so many people they're sort of insulated from them. Plus, having so few Congressmen produces more hard calls. For example, last time we reapportioned, either Utah or North Carolina, but not both, was to pick up an additional seat; the difference between one seat getting it or the other came down to something silly like 500 people's worth of difference in total state population. I think Utah lost, after a court fight, contending its high number of missionaries serving overseas were not counted in the census. Too bad. They still lost out.

Anyway, with more Congressmen, the pain of just missing out like this is lessened.

535 is a good number to shoot for, or even up to a round 600.

Good idea I think. This has nothing to do with either partisan advantage or state clout: Neither would be much affected.

I think this would be great, just because it would improve most people's representation qualitatively. Quantitatively, though, the benefits are not so evident. I think the folks who have discussed this idea are confused on a number of levels. For one thing, Wyoming is not the most overrepresented state -- by a long way, that distinction goes to Rhode Island, with its two districts, average population 528,000. (As we'll see in a moment, you could add 100 seats to the Congress and Rhode Island, with two seats, would still be overrepresented.)
Second, their discussion seems to suggest that an enlargement of the House would benefit Democrats because it would add clout to larger states like California. This is incorrect. In fact, it would probably make little difference for either party. And large states like California and Texas are the least likely to benefit (or suffer) greatly from a change in the House's size. Their large numbers of districts guarantee that they are always close to mean representation, no matter how large the House gets, because they can add them at smaller increments without upsetting the average too badly.

In other words, over- or under-representation is mostly about the cut-offs, the rounding, if you will, and neither smaller states nor larger states, nor Democratic ones or Republican ones, ever know how they're going to fare with respect to rounding/cut-offs after their exact population is put through a strict mathematical formula. Might come out better in this ten year window; might come out worse in this one. It's unpredictable and therefore fair in that respect (as is the current system -- but with fewer Congressmen, there's more unfairness, as it hurts more to just miss that cut-off).

Posted by: Ace at 01:36 PM | Comments (125)
Post contains 453 words, total size 3 kb.

1 500.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at December 23, 2010 01:38 PM (SJ6/3)

2 Let's go for broke and shoot for 666.

Posted by: Y-not at December 23, 2010 01:39 PM (IDL9N)

3 Easy. We can pay for it with a 30% reduction in their bloated staffs.

Or better yet, go to 1000 of them, and have them telecommute for debates, votice, and committee meetings.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at December 23, 2010 01:39 PM (Jdtsu)

4 Um. No. And repeal the 17th amendment.

Posted by: tangonine at December 23, 2010 01:40 PM (x3YFz)

5 I think 666 seats would be more appropriate. Seriously another hundred idiots dreaming of what new aspect of our life needs regulation? No, thank you.

Posted by: CoolCzech at December 23, 2010 01:41 PM (tJjm/)

6 I'll second tango's motion on the 17th.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at December 23, 2010 01:42 PM (Jdtsu)

7 Agree with comment #4

Posted by: that guy at December 23, 2010 01:42 PM (hBNpq)

8 @14: I'll see your 14, and raise you 19!

Posted by: CoolCzech at December 23, 2010 01:44 PM (tJjm/)

9 Plus! District re-drawing would occur under GOP state legislatures, in large part.

Posted by: rdbrewer at December 23, 2010 01:45 PM (PIYw/)

10 More pigs at the trough to ask for more money for more pet projects. Thanks anyway.

Posted by: Boxy at December 23, 2010 01:46 PM (Y4Fu0)

11 I say go to a thousand, that would shut people up about the electoral collage as well. Also if districts were half the size they are now it would be so much easier to get good conservative/libertarian in.

Posted by: epv at December 23, 2010 01:47 PM (7n5AK)

12 CoolCzech - throw in the 16th and the 26th, and you have a deal.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at December 23, 2010 01:47 PM (Jdtsu)

Congressfucks and their staff cost money.

Posted by: Lemon Kitten at December 23, 2010 01:48 PM (0fzsA)

14 Except for the small bump in overall costs

Why should it have to cost more? They'd be doing less work _{^{(if that's possible)}}, so should deserve a pay cut. Split whatever they all get paid now by the new total number.

Posted by: Wishful Thinker at December 23, 2010 01:50 PM (gfNFa)

15 Oh great, increase the # of electoral votes of states with big cities.

Posted by: PaleRider at December 23, 2010 01:51 PM (dkExz)

16 Old

Posted by: Andy at December 23, 2010 01:51 PM (veZ9n)

17 No, no, no. And no.

A hundred extra criminals and traitors with their hands on the checkbook and the ability to offer up and pass insane laws?

Nuh-uh.

Yes, in theory closer representation sounds good. But when has anyone in Congress actually represented a normal, unconnected, non-donating citizen? Not in living memory. We can't afford the price.

Once the power of Congress to wet its beak in business, the private lives of citizens and the very air we breathe is pulled back to the levels the Founders intended, such an idea might be discussed.

If, that is, the costs -- perks, freebies, staff, pensions, health care, travel and so many others -- are pared down substantially.

As for the 17th Amendment: I'm not ready to see repeal. Right now, the soldati can vote for Senators. I think things would be much worse if the Dons selected their capos.

Posted by: MrScribbler© at December 23, 2010 01:51 PM (Ulu3i)

18 I think that formula is an unnecessary step. If we're going to add seats why not simply do so during the same process as post Census reapportionment. Which I don't necessarily know, but I figure it's along the lines of
1)Divide each state's population by the target number of population per seat.
2)Truncate.
3)For the leftover seats assign in descending order of the fractions just truncated.

In any case I think the more important reform is to undo the mutant gerrymandering. Maybe a federal law requiring districts to be concave (a line segment between any two points must lie entirely within the district). I don't see any good coming from "safe" districts for either party.

Posted by: Methos at December 23, 2010 01:52 PM (Ew1k4)

19 Methos: "In any case I think the more important reform is to undo the mutant gerrymandering. Maybe a federal law requiring districts to be concave (a line segment between any two points must lie entirely within the district). I don't see any good coming from "safe" districts for either party."

A border concave to a district will be convex to the adjacent district, wouldn't it? Draw me a picture if I misunderstand.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at December 23, 2010 01:55 PM (Jdtsu)

20 Yeah, Republicans would be drawing the district lines... This time. Next time? Who knows?

Posted by: Secundus at December 23, 2010 01:56 PM (W54uI)

21 o/t but I have seen the crazy today. I saw people getting into a fist fight over produce bags. Why anyone could think that throwing punches over bags to put their tomatoes in is a good idea makes my mind boggle

Posted by: The Dude at December 23, 2010 01:57 PM (Ig1Wo)

22 The more representatives there are, the more it's like having one. Know what I mean? More of anything is more average. And the "political class" average is in the Hillary/Romney range (a very small range), so if we bloated the House, we'd wind up slightly more speedily boned than we're gonna be anyway.

So yeah. Do it. Let's rock.

Posted by: oblig. at December 23, 2010 01:57 PM (x7Ao8)

23 Fuck this noise. I'm calling for a tax holiday!

Posted by: Barbarian at December 23, 2010 01:58 PM (EL+OC)

24 I have to disagree. When a patient is being bled to death by too many bloodsuckers, less, not more, is the preferable course.

Posted by: Marinaman at December 23, 2010 01:58 PM (x3HmA)

25 If we're gonna do this, it should be done right: Have the max number be a floating total. Take the total US population, divide it by the population of the least populated state, and thats the size of the House. That'd give us 548 for the next decade. Assuming growth stays at exactly the same rate for both the least populated states and the US as a whole (huge assumption, one which would result in Vermont being the smallest state instead of Wyoming), that'll give us 526 for the 2020s, since many of the the smaller states are growing faster than the country as a whole.

Posted by: Chris at December 23, 2010 01:58 PM (GT1x2)

26 How about instead of more Congressmen, we make the ones we've got obey the Constitution? That would solve everything right there.

Posted by: some1 at December 23, 2010 02:00 PM (0F7Xm)

27 And Supreme Court Justices. We need more of those too.

Posted by: FDR at December 23, 2010 02:02 PM (QKKT0)

28 how about less congressmen? jeez ace...have you gotten into the egg nog early or what?

Posted by: phoenixgirl at December 23, 2010 02:02 PM (eOXTH)

First, repeal the 17th...

THEN add more House seats, with the caveat that the redistricting will be done on straight geometric, not political, lines...

ie... you start at the top of the State and make districts from a set number of voters... easily done with a decent computer program...

It always amazes me that the Courts of the US, use Racial Quotas, to reapportion House districts... talk about wrong...

Posted by: Romeo13 at December 23, 2010 02:02 PM (AdK6a)

30 Until (and that might be forever) politicians can pull back from the trough it would just add more chirping birds to the nest.

At the moment it has a lot of granularity to it, but that is not going to get fixed that much with a small bump. --At least when Texas picks up seats it is evident that people are abandoning the policies in blue states to seek refuge elsewhere.

Posted by: AE at December 23, 2010 02:03 PM (kSfPT)

31 And let's add 100 more states, too, while we're at it. How about we pick 1 person at random out of the phone book and they can do all the work that Congress was going to do. Can't be any worse than it is now.

Posted by: cali grump at December 23, 2010 02:03 PM (hL0k8)

32 A border concave to a district will be convex to the adjacent district, wouldn't it? Draw me a picture if I misunderstand.

Drawing is going to be difficult. If you've got borders that are fairly straight, like major roads, it's doable. Ideally the districats would all be squares. There might need to be some wiggle room, like if you build districts by gluing voting precincts together (which isn't what happens since anyone who's been an election judge can tell you what a pain a split precinct can be), then you might make the restriction some maximum number of exterior precincts that any line segment can traverse.

I'm just brainstorming the process. Mainly my interest is getting rid of the districts that snake around others just to guarantee one outcome or another.

Posted by: Methos at December 23, 2010 02:04 PM (Ew1k4)

33 How about this?

"Except where prevented by a state line, national boundary, or body of water, all congressional districts shall have four (4) sides, connected by four right angles."

Allow different sizes for population, but squares and rectangles only. Watch the heads explode...

Posted by: Secundus at December 23, 2010 02:07 PM (W54uI)

34 19: Sorry to be a math Nazi here, but your idea (although I've seen it proposed before) is that each district must be a convex set. (This may sound strange since convex sets, like filled-in circles, have concave borders). But 20, this can work. The law would say "If two points are in the same district, all points in a straight line between those two points, AND ALSO IN THAT STATE, must also be in that district." The practical effect of this is that if a state (like Rhode Island) has two districts, the only thing the legislature would get to pick is the angle of a straight line though the state. (Once the angle is picked, the requirement that each side of the line has the same population would determine its position). If a state has three or more districts, they have more leeway, but are still very constrained in that all internal district borders (those against other districts as opposed to other states) must be straight lines.

Posted by: waiting at December 23, 2010 02:07 PM (YLqOu)

35 Even more government bloat? With even more staff? Just embiggen the potential corruption and real bureaucracy?

Pass.

And what tangonine said.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at December 23, 2010 02:07 PM (swuwV)

36 1 Rep per 30,000 would be good. More local representation (don't you be disenfranchisin' me!) and leaves 10,000 Congressmen to bribe.

Posted by: t-bird at December 23, 2010 02:08 PM (kho+0)

I propose a new amendment.

Salary increases of Congressmen shall be determined by the people during elections. Also elections are to be changed from Early November to the third Tuesday of April.

Its time we re-emphasize to these fuckers that they work for us and we are their bosses not the other way around.

Posted by: buzzion at December 23, 2010 02:09 PM (oVQFe)

38 Sure, add a bunch more conniving, income thieving, whoring, freedom killing, above the laws the rest of us have to live with, politicians.

What could possibly go wrong?

Posted by: Unclefacts, Confuse A Cat, Ltd. at December 23, 2010 02:09 PM (eCAn3)

39 34 Not sure it is possible to satisfy your requirements and equal representation.

Posted by: waiting at December 23, 2010 02:09 PM (YLqOu)

40 Why on earth would you want more people to misrepresent the populace?

It's not bad enough NOW??

Posted by: irongrampa at December 23, 2010 02:10 PM (ud5dN)

41 We should be talking about getting rid of some gerrymandered districts and term limits.

Posted by: SurferDoc at December 23, 2010 02:10 PM (o3bYL)

42 @37

Vote Secundus for Congress! Illinois 99th--from here, to the tree, and down to the Dairy Queen across from the movie theater. I'll look out for you!

Posted by: Secundus at December 23, 2010 02:10 PM (W54uI)

43 (35)Sorry to be a math Nazi here,

Heh. I'm sure you know math always gets us in trouble on this blog. As for the rest of your idea, yeah, that's pretty much what I'm looking for. And much better worded.

Posted by: Methos at December 23, 2010 02:11 PM (Ew1k4)

Something doesn't look right with the chart that distrubutes the new 100 seats.

Hmmm.

Posted by: journolist at December 23, 2010 02:11 PM (LwLqV)

45 Also, If we double the number of Congressmen, I don't see why this needs to cost anything, or even need more office space. Just reduce the number of staff. Keep the number of people working for the House constant, just require that more of them are actually elected.

Posted by: waiting at December 23, 2010 02:12 PM (YLqOu)

46 How about 20 amendments? You know, just to make the Wise Latina have to explain why they are all trumped by the Commerce Clause?

Posted by: CoolCzech at December 23, 2010 02:13 PM (tJjm/)

47 Vote Secundus for Congress! Illinois 99th

Yours is the one that got all the Stimulus funds, right?

Posted by: Methos at December 23, 2010 02:13 PM (Ew1k4)

48 How about we pick 1 person at random out of the phone book and they can do all the work that Congress was going to do. Can't be any worse than it is now. Posted by: cali grump at December 23, 2010 06:03 PM

I'm callin' this the smartest idea of the day!

Posted by: MrScribbler© at December 23, 2010 02:13 PM (Ulu3i)

49 @40

Probably not. Just an idea. The point is to restrict gerrymandering. I'm sure legislators could do some really sketchy stuff, even within those limits.

Posted by: Secundus at December 23, 2010 02:13 PM (W54uI)

50 Another thought that occurs to me, if we're going to add a shitload more representatives, don't do it by population, do it by those states that are fiscally responsible. Give preference to those that can be responsible enough to vote in politicians that put fiscal sanity before government handouts.

Do you really want more representatives from NY and Cali?

Posted by: Unclefacts, Confuse A Cat, Ltd. at December 23, 2010 02:14 PM (eCAn3)

51 waiting: "Just reduce the number of staff..."

Which Congress is going to support that? We know that this doesn't happen.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at December 23, 2010 02:14 PM (swuwV)

52 @48

Yes. We created or saved between zero and one billion jobs in the Illinois 99th alone! And they were all green!

Posted by: Secundus at December 23, 2010 02:15 PM (W54uI)

53 haha....add the seats and make them divide current salaries.......

Posted by: phoenixgirl at December 23, 2010 02:16 PM (eOXTH)

54 and make them sit with their own statesmen at lunch.....ca sits with ca etc....

Posted by: phoenixgirl at December 23, 2010 02:17 PM (eOXTH)

55 serve them prison food

Posted by: phoenixgirl at December 23, 2010 02:17 PM (eOXTH)

56 and give them bus passes

Posted by: phoenixgirl at December 23, 2010 02:18 PM (eOXTH)

57 I also say we put Congress on 1099s. Just for fun.

Posted by: Secundus at December 23, 2010 02:18 PM (W54uI)

58 How many of those extra seats would be set asides from the Voting Rights Act, besides a "black seat", "hispanic seat" , "gay seat", "muslim seat" etc, etc

If they'd like to cut back on the number of congresscritters, no complaint from me

Posted by: kbdabear at December 23, 2010 02:18 PM (vdfwz)

59 More thugocracy? Sweet.

Posted by: Frankenstein Government at December 23, 2010 02:19 PM (GOG1H)

60 How about this?

"Except where prevented by a state line, national boundary, or body of water, all congressional districts shall have four (4) sides, connected by four right angles."

Allow different sizes for population, but squares and rectangles only. Watch the heads explode...

Posted by: Secundus at December 23, 2010 06:07 PM (W54uI)

They should be able to use state county lines too. In fact, that might be best to be a requirement that counties not be split haphazardly

Posted by: Oldcat at December 23, 2010 02:19 PM (z1N6a)

61 kd.....if a ghey black muslim gets elected will that eat up three seats?

Posted by: phoenixgirl at December 23, 2010 02:20 PM (eOXTH)

62 If we double the number of Congressmen, I don't see why this needs to cost anything, or even need more office space. Just reduce the number of staff. Keep the number of people working for the House constant, just require that more of them are actually elected. Posted by: waiting at December 23, 2010 06:12 PM

Yeh, that'll happen

Posted by: Reality at December 23, 2010 02:20 PM (vdfwz)

63 why squares? how about triangles!!!!

Posted by: phoenixgirl at December 23, 2010 02:20 PM (eOXTH)

64 Great...and we can build a new *&^%ing Capitol Building to hold them.. If we add more, I suggest we also have an open season on them...at least during the Lame Duck season.

Posted by: Kasper Hauser at December 23, 2010 02:20 PM (PzF+K)

65 I think they'd take the money and run.

Posted by: Billy Mack, a detective down in Texas at December 23, 2010 02:21 PM (le5qc)

66 @65

I think, for reasons of thrift, this new second Capitol should be made of reinforced concrete. And for security reasons, it should be surrounded by a fence, topped with razor wire.

Hmmmmmm.

Posted by: Secundus at December 23, 2010 02:23 PM (W54uI)

67 62 kd.....if a ghey black muslim gets elected will that eat up three seats? Posted by: phoenixgirl at December 23, 2010 06:20 PM

Hard to say. Does anybody know if Keith Ellison is in the closet?

Posted by: kbdabear at December 23, 2010 02:23 PM (vdfwz)

Per the article, the objective followed was the so called, "Wyoming Rule" a rule that looked at smaller populated states as having an inordinate amount of repesenttion as compared to larger states. And the author says that the district number of 579K would equate to the redistribution of 100 new representatives however, in the same article the author goes on to claim that adding additional reps to largely populated states would "least likely benefit."

So here we have a stated objective to bring parity for those pesky small states whose small population gives them "more" representation verusus larger states.

But then in the same breath the chosen method of redistribution admittedly will not benefit the larger states.

This article is flawed.

Posted by: journolist at December 23, 2010 02:24 PM (LwLqV)

69 Who is going to pay for all those extra pikes?

Posted by: Saint Vlad Teppich at December 23, 2010 02:25 PM (SJ6/3)

70 Who is going to pay for all those extra pikes?

Posted by: Saint Vlad Teppich at December 23, 2010 06:25 PM (SJ6/3)

We can stack some of them two per pike.

Posted by: Oldcat at December 23, 2010 02:26 PM (z1N6a)

71 Uhm ace, the last time I checked conservatives just got back to our original platform of SMALLER GOVERNMENT doing less. It was kind of a big theme this last election.

Posted by: robtr at December 23, 2010 02:26 PM (hVDig)

72 Going by the article's criteria, shouldn't we have 150 Senators now?

Posted by: kbdabear at December 23, 2010 02:28 PM (vdfwz)

73 Uhm ace, the last time I checked conservatives just got back to our original platform of SMALLER GOVERNMENT doing less. It was kind of a big theme this last election.

Posted by: robtr at December 23, 2010 06:26 PM (hVDig)

The new 100 congressmen must be shorter than 5'10'' tall.

Posted by: Oldcat at December 23, 2010 02:28 PM (z1N6a)

74 Bad idea. The problem isn't so much that we don't have enough CongressCritters, its that so many are representing gerrymandered districts where what they say and do doesn't matter much at all.

Make them run every other election at large. Then the fringe Critters of all sorts would likely get weeded out.

Even better, make those who get pork and earmarks have their districts pay a flat rate surcharge for that pork or earmark. This would get everyone's attention.

Posted by: drfredc at December 23, 2010 02:31 PM (/+GW9)

75 No, I suggest we open a hunting season on them. Two per year. Don't have to worry about term limits then.

Posted by: Andrew at December 23, 2010 02:31 PM (CzDAD)

76 If you can figure out where you're going to put office space for 100 or more extra congressmen, and can figure out how to cover the costs of 100 or more staff and Member salaries, and can come up with a plan to not have those extra 100 members dilute the committees or the body, and can tell me why exactly we should dilute the influence of small states in the electoral college (considering that the system was set up in part to ensure they were equal in at least one house)...then by all means, go ahead. But you won't be able to do at least two of those things.

Posted by: Demosthenes at December 23, 2010 02:32 PM (NYG4s)

77 Instead perhaps we should adjust some other things. 1) Congress meets once per year and for three months. 2) Taxes and fees and anything else that raises income for the Government must pass with a 3/4th majority in both Houses and only fewer than 30 days before an election. 3) Amend the Constitution to clarify the Commerce Clause. 4) Abolish all Cabinet positions, agencies, and departments created post 1960. Just to start.

Posted by: eman at December 23, 2010 02:34 PM (XXyJt)

78 100 more assholes in congress. great idea.

Posted by: dan in michigan at December 23, 2010 02:38 PM (9jRMu)

79 I think Freddoso blindly overlooks the point of his own quotation from Federalist #55.

Sixty or seventy men may be more properly trusted with a given degree of power than six or seven. But it does not follow that six or seven hundred would be proportionably a better depositary. And if we carry on the supposition to six or seven thousand, the whole reasoning ought to be reversed. The truth is, that in all cases a certain number at least seems to be necessary to secure the benefits of free consultation and discussion, and to guard against too easy a combination for improper purposes; as, on the other hand, the number ought at most to be kept within a certain limit, in order to avoid the confusion and intemperance of a multitude. In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever character composed, passion never fails to wrest the sceptre from reason. Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.

In other words, the absolute size of the House itself is also a consideration. 435 is already large for a parliament. As Madison says and Freddoso idiotically quotes in support of a larger house, six or seven hundred is no gain at best, and at worst starts to verge on mob territory rather than on deliberation and reason.

Also, adding members past a certain point dilutes their individual power more than suggested by mathematical division. Decreasing their individual national influence and increasing their national anonymity only makes them more dependent on party structure and leadership for campaign funds, infrastructure and reelection. This could more than offset any gains from Reps being a better fit individually for smaller districts, if they are then more dependent on big parties and less on personal influence or small caucuses to get anything done.

Posted by: Dave R. at December 23, 2010 02:39 PM (+pxoP)

80 4) Abolish all Cabinet positions, agencies, and departments created post 1960.

I'll bite. What did we get in 1960 that's worth keeping? I think the Department of Defense/War predates WW2 (a quick wikipedia search indicates it does rather dramatically).

Posted by: Methos at December 23, 2010 02:40 PM (Ew1k4)

81 Cut them to 250. We cannot afford what we have now!!!!!!!!

Posted by: David Sherman at December 23, 2010 02:42 PM (PU38z)

82 72 Uhm ace, the last time I checked conservatives just got back to our original platform of SMALLER GOVERNMENT doing less. It was kind of a big theme this last election.

Well, for some of the chumps anyway.

Posted by: Jim Badass DeMint at December 23, 2010 02:47 PM (EL+OC)

83 NO, NO, A Thousand times NO.

The damage they do is infinite.

The law of Unintended Consequences applies in Spades.

Look where this stupid f'ing idea originated.

This would just give them more excuses to bloat Federal Budgets bigger.

They MUST BE STOPPED. All of them.

Drive toward Zero. Repeal, Repeal, Repeal.

Knock over a few Federal Buildings too while we're at it.

Posted by: Jimmy Doolittle at December 23, 2010 02:47 PM (vwh8M)

84 If we add more, I suggest we also have an open season on them...at least during the Lame Duck season.

Posted by: Kasper Hauser

Rabbit Season! And term limits!

Frankly if we actually ARE interested in more responsive representation, I think this absolutely has to go along with term limits. We have term limits in Ohio for the Assembly and Senate, and there have been a few real strange consequences of that, but it now means we turn over the reps more often, and I actually know several people who ran in the primaries this year due to the populist direction this is going in.

Term Limits and more representation.

Rabiit Season!

Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch, with grimy overalls. at December 23, 2010 02:55 PM (sJTmU)

85 Howzabout an increase in Congresscritters but this comes with an end to the winner-take-all (plurality) election results on a State basis. This would more accurately reflect representation of each party, as desired by votes in the electorate.

Posted by: notpoliticallycorrect at December 23, 2010 03:01 PM (WUxVR)

86 with an end to the winner-take-all (plurality) election results on a State basis.

Because we aren't a nation, but a union of states, and we like the Electoral College just fine, TYVM.

Posted by: Methos at December 23, 2010 03:07 PM (Ew1k4)

87 The House of Representatives wasn't always set at 435 seats. It grew in size through 1911, when its size was fixed at 435. An attempt to keep seats from going to the cities actually killed the 1920 census.

When the House was set at 435, the body's size pretty much fit the cube root rule that historically has set the size of legislative governments worldwide. Were today's House size set by the cube root rule, there would be 676 seats - or about 1 per 457,000 people.

Posted by: cinyc at December 23, 2010 03:08 PM (RAVYq)

#32 - How about we pick 1 person at random out of the phone book and they can do all the work that Congress was going to do. Can't be any worse than it is now.

I have advocated this for quite some time. Why is a Republic only representative if someone votes for the reps? Isn't the point of a Republic to Represent the cultural member of society and thus it's mindset as to acceptable collective action?

How do scientists find a representative sample? They randomly select within a large group to be studied.

Radomly select a person over the age of 18, with the appropriate restrictions as to mental status and criminal background like a jury member. Let them serve 2 years and then forever be banned from government office. No more self serving elitists telling us what to do. No vote buying scams. AND no more political parties to divide the country into self interest groups. Just being a citizen of their respective State is special interest enough.

If liberals have proven anything it is weakness of Democracy because with the proper propaganda you can bambozzle anyone telling them what they want to hear with no intention of delivering or meaning what you say. E.g. Barack Obama

Posted by: dscott at December 23, 2010 03:11 PM (NGe7F)

89 Uhm ace, the last time I checked conservatives just got back to our original platform of SMALLER GOVERNMENT doing less. It was kind of a big theme this last election.

Posted by: robtr at December 23, 2010 06:26 PM (hVDig)

#74 - The new 100 congressmen must be shorter than 5'10'' tall.

Yeah, just what we need, a hundred more with Napoleon complexes.

Posted by: dscott at December 23, 2010 03:15 PM (NGe7F)

Posted by: dscott at December 23, 2010 07:11 PM (NGe7F)

Yes oligarchs, kings, emperors, dictators were never bamboozled at any time.

Posted by: Oldcat at December 23, 2010 03:22 PM (z1N6a)

91 I have a hard time believe that it would be a good idea to have more of these buffoons.

Posted by: gm at December 23, 2010 03:23 PM (ABUrf)

92 Actually, if we had a part time House with a membership of about 100, and no funding for staffers, they wouldn't have enough time to craft multiple 2000 page bills designed to impoverish and chain their subjects ... err... constituents.

Posted by: gm at December 23, 2010 03:25 PM (ABUrf)

93 Meh. Just give Rhode Island one representative that can cast 1.41 votes (or whatever). Same thing for other states. No more rounding errors!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Comrade Arthur at December 23, 2010 03:29 PM (kvU6P)

It worked well for Athens and I personally think we should also adopt their process of ostracism. A couple members of Congress and the Media immediately come to mind.

Posted by: CT at December 23, 2010 03:30 PM (56lYi)

95 Except for the small bump in overall costs, it's a good idea, as Congressmen now represent so many people they're sort of insulated from them.

Yes and no. The bump would be small if you are just looking at their compensation, staff, etc. Where you get real numbers is that's 100 more piggies adding earmarks and other forms of pork for their district. If their were some way we could get 100 more budget cutters, then you'd be on to something.

I suppose if you get the size of the district down small enough where it would be impossible for them to get away with their crap, maybe that would work. But, I don't think 100 more would do it. At the founding of our nation, it was something like 30K constituents per rep. To match that, based on a population of roughly 300 million people, we would need a house of 10,000 seats.

That might be worth doing just for the entertainment value it would bring to CSPAN.

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at December 23, 2010 03:32 PM (DsU01)

96 There are 535 + staff too many of those fu(kers.

Hell NO!

Posted by: Nora Trane at December 23, 2010 03:33 PM (IWKf7)

97 Well, well! ACE finally comes out of the closet - a big government guy after all! Look ACE, we now have 535 politicians writing 100 of laws monthly, and that doesn't include the idiots at the state and local level. I bet that you can't go through a typical day without breaking 20 laws on the books. So now you want 100 crooked politicians more to write additional laws? This is one of your dumbest ideas ever. Stop reading that idiot David Freddoso. We should go with lower representation and a part time Congress. Doesn't seem to hurt Texas to have a part time legislature.

Posted by: HSTAD at December 23, 2010 03:33 PM (e0+7F)

Yeah, because 500,000 per congressman is sooo much better than 700,000 per congressman.

Howabout instead we limit the amount of time Congress can be in session. Say, we only allow them to screw us for 6 or 8 weeks out of the year, the rest of the time they can't meet and do us harm.

Posted by: Doug at December 23, 2010 03:34 PM (gUGI6)

99 Enlarging the number of Represatives would help in making the Congress less able to act - a definite bonus. The more bodies in the House, the less actual work. Make it a part-time body like the Texas legislature and cut their staff. It is because the Congress has 435 members and large staffs that allows for legislative mischief. We don't want an "efficient" legislature - look what "efficiency" did to the German government when Hitler became Chancellor.

Posted by: Longwalker at December 23, 2010 03:36 PM (GkYyh)

100 The representative-to-citizen ratio as idealized by James Madison was around 40,000 people to one representative. This would put today's Congress at 7500 to 8000 members. The advantage is that you as a typical working stiff are much more likely to have access to your representative (hell, the city I live in would alone be represented by ten different people).

Furthermore, it would be much more difficult for interest groups to bribe a majority of 8000 legislators into passing preferential legislation than it is to bribe a majority of 435. And yes, we would finally see Libertarians in Congress, but also Communists and Greens. Nancy Pelosi would still be an insufferable fucktard representing the idiots in San Francisco, but she would be reduced to a tiny shrill voice among thousands.

And yes, repeal the 17th Amendment. Sentators were intended to be the representatives of state governments, not the people.

Posted by: LoveSteakHateHippies at December 23, 2010 03:37 PM (5PYQ3)

101 I gotta say, the 435 cretins we've got there now are so effin bad, I don't want to think about how bad the junior varsity (the next 100 wannabes who couldn't make the varsity) would be. If you're not good enough to be part of the clown circus serving now, why would we want to make space for you?

Posted by: rickinstl at December 23, 2010 03:49 PM (XuSLR)

102 And yes, repeal the 17th Amendment. Sentators were intended to be the representatives of state governments, not the people.

Posted by: LoveSteakHateHippies at December 23, 2010 07:37 PM (5PYQ3)

I don't see how making one house of Congress even less responsive to popular will constitutes "reform"

Posted by: Oldcat at December 23, 2010 04:10 PM (z1N6a)

103 As long as they only meet for 90 days every two years.

They have to volunteer - No salary, no pension, No HEALTH BENEFITS. All that stuff would come from their real jobs.

Posted by: TexBob at December 23, 2010 04:14 PM (7cXE7)

104 Wyoming, my home is the least populous state and we don't rate a congressman based on the 435 division. Take our population, 550,000 give or take and divide the nation's population by that number and you get around 560 seats in the house. Works for me.

Posted by: Svenster at December 23, 2010 04:47 PM (hauCN)

105 Are you nuts? Not only do you have the direct expense of housing 100 new royals with office styaff expense budgets and sor forth, you have 100 new people figuring out how to screw us over for money regulate our lives and promote themselves. Nope! not a good idea. We have enough royals, even if it's just royal pains in the ass.

Posted by: Ohio Dan at December 23, 2010 04:47 PM (UfHgE)

106 87 Because we aren't a nation, but a union of states, and we like the Electoral College just fine, TYVM Your pompous statement aside, Maine and Nebraska, and maybe Colorado, are on the right track. They appoint two votes for the winner, with the remainder of their congressional districts apportioned according to the voters results. Electoral votes by true representation by the state's voters. Novel concept to you, apparently, but one whose time has come!!

Posted by: notpoliticallycorrect at December 23, 2010 04:50 PM (vXagV)

107 535 is a good number to shoot for, or even up to a round 600.

Problem is 600 is not divisible by 57.

Posted by: TennDon at December 23, 2010 04:59 PM (o6Yv2)

108

I don't see how making one house of Congress even less responsive to popular will constitutes "reform"

Posted by: Oldcat at December 23, 2010 08:10 PM

This "Repeal the 17th" wheeze is popular among those who think every word the Founders wrote was inviolable and somehow divinely inspired.

They did not take into account the transformation of politics into a combination career and lifestyle. When they were planning the Republic, they didn't envision individual states becoming little banana-republic nations of their own.

Would you want the legislatures in California, Illinois, Massachusetts and New York (to name only a few) to consolidate their power by picking Senators?

It's all happy and wonderful in theory, but a nation of theories cannot stand.

Posted by: MrScribbler© at December 23, 2010 05:00 PM (Ulu3i)

109 Adding 100 or 200 will do little. We need to think about starting with 1000 and work up from there.

The progression seems to be towards more bigger badder central government and 600 representatives is too few to make the laws for 310,000,000. So we have a thousand or two, hell, we wouldn't even need to send them all to DC. Just have them vote from the state capitols, transmit voting results electronically. Easy peasy. Front benchers would serve on committees, backbenchers stay back home with their constituents. Holy shit, reps representing? What an idea! Front bench committeemen could be chosen by state legislative leaders such as the speaker of the state house, state senate pres. pro tempore, lt. gov. and governor among others every session of Congress. Oh my God, it's like a new check and balance! United States Speaker of the House is always the head of the majority party, so that's taken care of. Majority/minority leadership would be harder to determine, but that's party nonsense and I don't care enough to consider it.

Then we boost the Senate. Only two per? How about Six? Four chosen by popular vote and two appointed by the states. Or six popularly elected, but I kinda like my hybrid elected/appointed system. That's 300 Senators. Still much more exclusive than the House, but more likely to be representative. Would have to tighten the rules for debate a bit, though.

Then we boost representation in the state houses. Hell, Texas has 25,000,000 people and only 150 representatives in the State House? 600 there would be great, certainly.

There's also this thing I heard of called Federalism, I think we need to give that a shot.

Posted by: Robert at December 23, 2010 07:00 PM (4q6A5)

110
Is this how they're going to create the bogus CD's mentioned in the porkulus spending as having existed?

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at December 23, 2010 07:02 PM (BDH94)

111 It might be a good way to increase the odds that at least a few of them would actually read the stupid fucking bills they pass. But on second thought, there would probably just be even more bills none of the motherfuckers would ever read, so I think I'll pass on that little suggestion.

Posted by: ThePaganTemple at December 23, 2010 08:26 PM (87oTs)

112

A larger Congress would just increase the number of hard calls you'd have to make. More seats = more states coming close.

It would dilute the advantage smaller states have in the electoral college, since electoral college votes = # senators + # representatives.

If you only raised the number of reps to 500 it wouldn't significantly reduce the size of the constituency. The more you try to reduce that size, the more the two problems above come into play.

There are already lots of politicians with much smaller constituencies. They are called city councilmen and state legislators. Shitloads of people couldn't even tell you who their state legislator or city councilman is. Having a large constituency actually makes the stakes a lot higher, so that more people pay attention.

Posted by: Obama's Ego at December 23, 2010 08:28 PM (jlVt1)

113 Ace, I keep forgetting how young you are. That is not a conservative idea. The conservative default position is always: "If it works don't fix it otherwise you might fuck it up even worse."

Posted by: PatC at December 23, 2010 09:08 PM (zCto6)

114 I like the idea. It would be much better than dealing with the staffs of the 535, who are NOT accountable to the people.

Posted by: Taxpayer at December 23, 2010 09:31 PM (NpmCe)

115 Oops, I meant 435.

Posted by: Taxpayer at December 23, 2010 09:33 PM (NpmCe)

116 The asics running is a hot seller this year.The new asics gel shoes is on hot sale.

Posted by: asics shoes at December 23, 2010 09:59 PM (Uw8og)

117

The answer isnÂ’t quantity Â– its quality.

As it stands now, the only people who can run for congress are egotistical millionaires or people with nothing to lose. No one who isnÂ’t independently wealthy can maintain two residences and support a family on a middle-manager wage.

If you want to save hundreds of billions each year, increase congressional pay to a base of $500,000 per year. Establish a bonus plan that allows each congressman to earn an additional half million each year if federal spending is lower than a baseline plus 90% of inflation, constantly lowering the overall share of the GNP the fed spends. On top of that, provide each congressman with a Net Jets card in proportion to their distance from Washington.

These people are responsible for spending trillions of our money. By allowing the job of congressman to be financially viable and attractive, along with giving personal incentives to be prudent with the taxpayerÂ’s money, a better quality of politician will be possible.

(Note: This needs to be enacted along with a campaign finance reform bill that would allow unlimited fundraising for the challengers, but provide federal money matching the highest candidate in a district for the incumbent. Sitting congressmen would be strictly forbidden from taking any campaign donations while in office.)

Posted by: jwest at December 24, 2010 02:44 AM (qeYI9)

118 I don't care how many there are, but make them stay in their home states and legislate out of the state capitols. This permanent ruling class in DC is fucking things up royally.

Posted by: kansas at December 24, 2010 05:42 AM (4FGpb)

119 The UK has 650 members of Parliament. They are every fucking where, sort of like county commissioners.

Did I mention the UK is mighty small?

Posted by: Kemp at December 24, 2010 08:18 AM (JpFM9)

120 "sort of insulated from them". No problem. Have congress meet for two 3-month sessions in DC. The other six months must be spent in there state or district meeting with their constituents. Problem solved.

Posted by: CNC at December 24, 2010 09:24 AM (uhH73)

121 What is really needed is not more of the same sort of Congress critters. What is needed is a third legislative body. This body would have the power to repeal legislation and to remove members of the other two houses, the courts, and the executive. One member per state. Simple majority repeals or removes. Something like the Roman Censors (without the public morality part) or Chinese Censorate.

Posted by: ManeiNeko at December 24, 2010 11:02 AM (TiE76)

122 A hundred more? OK, as long as someone will tell me what comes after a trillion and then what comes after that..........

Posted by: steelman77 at December 24, 2010 05:10 PM (ySiBp)

123 Repeal, most importantly, Public law 62-5. It will change everything and it does not require a constitutional convention. It will go a very long way to getting the corruption and lobbyists out of the house.

Posted by: Den1313 at December 25, 2010 09:05 AM (RFUJJ)

124

"535 is a good number to shoot for,\..."

435 is a good number to shoot at!

Posted by: Leonard E Lynch at December 26, 2010 05:53 PM (QlMfm)

125 Uhm. What do you call the adding of another seat in Congress?