Article link
The House of Representatives grew consistently from 65 members in 1789 up to 435 in 1911. Now nearly 108 years later we are still stuck at 435 members, which represent an average of 750,000 Americans compared to the 200,000 about a century ago. Increasing the membership of the House of Representatives to 593 would get the U.S. more in line with modern democracies and give our elected officials more manageable sized constituencies. It would cost more in terms of tax dollars, but if money were spent more efficiently the problem could be solved. One potential benefit of this change would be fewer problems with the electoral college producing results different from the popular vote.
Discussion Questions
1. Is it time to increase the size of our House of Representatives?
2. Would this proposed change solve more problems than it creates?
3. What if any impact might this have on polarization?
4. Would Democrats or Republicans be more likely to approve this plan?
5. Do you see this proposal leading to more gerrymandering or a way to resolve past gerrymanders?
Yes we must expand the house of representatives to be more proportional, and to mitigate the damage done by the electoral college, we need a dynamic political situation, not a Florida stagnation. This proposed change would only cause short term problems while solving a long term ailment. While yes, redistricting is difficult, especially across all states, laziness cannot be our excuse for willfully disregarding democracy. This would reduce polarization, as larger bodies naturally have more people representing the whole of the political spectrum, with smaller districts able to sustain more moderate, district focused candidates, instead of party demagogues. Democrats would be those in favor of the campaign, because they have more to gain from a more proportional electoral college, and because cities are the places most misrepresented currently and reform will change that, improving Democrat's power. This is not going to change gerrymandering, more districts means more gerrymandered districts obviously, but no more than any current district, just on a wider scale.
ReplyDeleteEvidently, Congress has been structured in a way that disadvantages larger states while allocating more power to smaller states; therefore, adding more representative to the House will only conjure benefits for the general population. It may be difficult and a long process to implement such drastic changes, but based on these past elections, it is obvious that people want a change. The population is growing rapidly in this nation, so it only makes sense that the House grows with it since its sole purpose is to really represent the people. However, it is fairly difficult to determine who would disapprove of this change more, the Democrats or Republicans, but judging from who has the majority in the House, Democrats might support this change more since they were successful in states that did not usually win Democrat. Also since California will significantly have more reps, and much of California is a left leaning, then Californian Democrats will most likely support this legislation.
ReplyDeleteIt's definitely time to adjust our House of Representatives to accommodate for the larger population. Because each state is guaranteed a representative, representation is severely distorted, and while this would not be entirely solved by increasing the HOR, the issue would be diluted. Larger states and urban districts, traditionally underrepresented, would be the strongest supports of this adjustment. Many people might fear that more people in government will lead to more conflicting opinions and therefore more gridlock, but according to the article, with this new system there would be more "toss up" districts. This will force candidates to be more moderate in order to appeal to a range of interests.
ReplyDeleteI think that we need to increase the size of the House of Representatives to adjust for the larger population. Larger states and cities are largely underrepresented and even if it does cost more tax dollars it would be worth it to have the type of representation that makes America what it is. If the electoral college is effected because of this, it would influence the elections to be more accurate of the popular vote. This will enforce that candidates are running and leading for the people.
ReplyDelete