I’m an advocate of sending a lot of representatives to the Big House. And doing this as well also doesn’t sound bad. I guess the problem that will preoccupy those who argue against the idea is that the Congressional chambers are not big enough to seat thousands of Representatives. How would that be handled? Would telepresence be part of the solution or would they have to build a gigantic theater in which to seat the Representatives?

“A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” –Alexander Hamilton

Study at Redstate University

I hadn’t given this much thought, I’m embarrassed to say. My initial impression is that you’re right, this would be more effective than term limits. A smaller constituency can keep a closer eye on a congress critter, the bit would be more securely between his teeth.

I found an article tracing the history of the size of the House here.

While the argument has been going on since the Constitutional Convention, it seems those who wanted to keep increasing the size wanted to do so in order to ensure adequate representation. Those who opposed it invariably did so because too many representatives would be too dis-organized and hard to operate. That sounds suspiciously weak to me. Madison discusses it in Federalist Papers #55-58, the founders spent a great deal of time arguing the size of the house, their greatest fear was that if it were too small it could easily be controlled by a small group of corrupt members. It seems to me we have reached that point.

probably could not envision population growth to the numbers that we have today, if for no other reason that modern medicine of the 20th and now 21st century, allow for survival that would have been inconceivable to them.

There is a significant correlative relationship between smaller district sizes and increased freedom. Moreover, this is a causal relationship; that is, as the legislative districts become larger, the government becomes increasingly oligarchic and statist.

Pil’ those words above, also describe how the Federal government taking over from the states, by imposing their will, have the power because they are increasing the number of people they have control over. Statism vs Federalism. The states are giving up their power and being consumed by their dependency on the Federal government, and in turn the people have less freedom. Anyway, that is just a side thought.

I agree that having fewer people per representative might help accountability, but it also might fragment things to a point that absolutely nothing got done.

More representatives would necessarily mean more committees, etc. While we might wish that they would stay focused on the Constitution, Congress will have hearings about every problem and find a way to nationalize the issue.

It might also have the effect of making some representatives stay longer. Isn’t it easier to please a few people rather than a lot?

It might also make the issue of earmarks and pork barrel spending more prevalent instead of less….if you have to attract 800+ votes to an issue, how do you make sure they stay on ‘your team.’

If there are fewer voters per district, it would be easier for the Working Family Party, the Greens and many others to pick off a couple of seats here and there — presto! we look like Germany with constant coalition building and posturing. Not sure this is a good thing.

In spite of your dismissal about the size of the building and numbers of representatives, I would not be at all in favor of a video conference based setup…all representatives should be in the same place at the same time. No exceptions.

Liberty is assailed. Period.

The answer does not include increasing the size of the federal government in any manner, shape or form, and that expressly includes increasing the number of members in the House of Representatives. That’s the beginning of the end for our Constitutional Republic and a precursor to a parliamentary system.

The answer lies before us: It’s the Assertion of State’s Rights under the Tenth Amendment.

the root of Alaska’s inability to deal effectively with some overarching issues and also of the corruption problems that have bedeviled us. While the graph above shows us to have among the smallest districts in terms of population, most of the 40 House districts and 20 Senate districts are geographically huge. Our one US House seat has a geographic area over twice the size of the next largest STATE, and that state has over 30 House members.

Even in the urban areas districts are large enough that only those who take active steps to engage in political activity are ever likely to see or talk to a rep except during campaign season and established incumbents rarely campaign door to door. Juneau has a population of about 30K and has two representatives and one senator. I’m out and about a good bit and I almost never see any of them - and I know all three of them personally. It is extremely unlikely that any of them would actually have to deal with a constituent in an unplanned manner, e.g., standing in line at the grocery store or the Post Office. Some of the rural house districts are bigger than most states and the senate districts are twice as big and geograpically, culturally, and demographically so diverse that there really is no there there. For example, Senator Kookesh is a Tlingit Indian from the village of Angoon, about 50 air miles from Juneau, and like Juneau only accessible by water or air. The Tlingit are among the most well-off of Alaska’s native people and their ANCSA Corporation is one of the more successful and diversified. Senator Kookesh is on the corporation board. His district reaches all the way to the Bethel area over 300 miles west of Anchorage which is itself about 600 miles north and west of Juneau/Angoon. Most of his district is accessible only by air or water and is composed of Tlingit and Haida Indians in Southeast Alaska, Yupik Eskimo in the Bethel area in Western Alaska, with a smattering of Athabascan Indians, Whites, and Filipinos thrown in for good measure. Whatever else, there isn’t a lot of community of interest between Angoon on a Southeast Alaska island and the river villages of the Eskimo in Western Alaska. So, in reality, the Senator never sees more than a handful of his constituents and he only sees those that he has least in common with at election time if ever at all. He isn’t unigue, he’s just one whose circumstances I know better. These senators especially are far more influenced by the rainmakers, lobbyists and players than by any of their constituents. And once they’re an incumbent, the rainmakers, lobbyists and players will make sure that they can get enough money to campaign solely by invitation fundraisers and eletronic media, so they never have to be bothered with knowing their constituents. The odds of any individual citizen ever meeting a member of the federal delegation are miniscule unless they choose to go to a fundraiser. In forty years here the only one I’ve ever run into casually rather than at some political or social event was Congressman Young and only because we were staying at the same hotel in Anchorage.

Frankly, I’d love to see the Senate go back to being appointed by State Legislatures and have a much larger House of Represenatives. I don’t know that it needs nearly 2K members but doubling it and halving the size of Congressional districts would be a good thing. And as to a new building for a 1000 member House, in the overall scheme of government spending the cost would be change under the sofa cushions.

Related to this subject, read “Political Monopoly Power” by Walter Williams
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/19/political-monopoly-power/

Also read “Freedom and Legislative District Sizes” at
http://thirty-thousand-org.blogspot.com/2009/10/freedom-and-legislative-district-sizes.html

For additional information, read the 15 Questions & Answers on the home page of Thirty-Thousand.org.

and in states that have them, [Virginia], independent cities.

No county could be split unless it has a really large population. Parts of counties could not be combined with each other. Entire contiguous counties that had small populations could be combined together to form one congressional district.

Using the existing county boundaries in 2000 would do a lot to prevent gerry-mandered incumbent protection districts - not a total fix, but much better than what we have now.

We ought to get the sizes of the House districts down to what they were in the 18th century.

I heard Erick Okeefe make a good point recently. He noted it was when parties lost control of the nomination process is when government growth took off.
It is also when long term incumbency took off.

Before popular primary elections occurred the parties selected the candidates obviously.
This meant they had control of the candidates since they could ensure a disloyal politician did not get renominated.
When we speak of purging the party today it is virtually impossible to do it since the party really has little or no control over the nomination process.

Before primaries the average congressman served fewer than two terms. Now the average is between six and eight.

Some much was done to destroy the Republic during the Progressive Era that it is hard to keep track of it all. But we should track it all and undo it all as much as we can.