Do we need a bigger Congress?

[Proud Public Servant]

Was contemplating today's pic of the day and it got me wondering about relative individual leverage in Congress today versus 100 years ago. Using Wisconsin as an example (for no real reason other than it is and was a mid-sized state), here's what things are, and were:

Population of Wisconsin in 2010: 5,686,986
Number of WI Representatives: 8
Constituents per representative: 710,873

Population of Wisconsin in 1910: 2,333,860
Number of WI Representatives: 11
Constituents per representative: 212,169

You gotta wonder (or I do, anyway): would more reps, responsible to fewer voters, actually fix anything?

[Skidmore]

1. Size is not the issue.

You have to have a congress that is willing to work.

[Proud Public Servant]

4. No, but leverage is the issue

Would smaller/less populous congressional districts would have more leverage over their reps? That's what I wonder.

[Travis_0004]

11. I think less would get done

I think most senators are somewhat in the middle ground. They need to win a state. If they are too far to the left or right they cant win.

Since the house represents small districts they can be a lot more radical since they just need to win a small district. In a lot of districts they run unopposed so there is often no need to take the middle ground.

Smaller districts might make this worse.

[oldandhappy]

2. Interesting.

I have been wanting to cut it all in half and pay per diem. But your idea is worth considering. Right now lobby folk run the country.

[Brigid]

3. We definitely don't need more of the same.

Most of them don't care a plug nickel for their constituents anyway.

[The2ndWheel]

5. Adding more cooks to the kitchen

I don't think there's a good way to represent 300+ million people at one time.

[LadyHawkAZ]

6. We need quality, not quantity. get corporate money out of elections n/t

[frazzled]

7. A larger number would be unmanageable

It's natural that there are fewer today, because as population continues to grow, the Congress would end up with like 800 or 1000 members--something I think we could all agree would be fairly dysfunctional (as if it isn't already):

Based on the 1787 national population, each House Member in the First Federal Congress (1789–1791) represented 30,000 citizens. As U.S. territory expanded and the population grew, the Membership of House of Representatives increased and individual Members’ constituencies were enlarged.

http://history.house.gov/Institution/Apportionment/Apportionment/

Funny you should pick 1910--because that was the year before measures were enacted to cap the number of representatives (at 433 then; and then the 1913-15 Congress changed it to 435 because of New Mexico and Arizona being admitted to the Union).

In order to keep the House at a manageable number, Congress twice set the size of the House at 435 voting Members—the then-existing number of Representatives. In 1911, Congress designated the number of Representatives to be 433, with provisions made for two additional Members when Arizona and New Mexico were admitted to the Union (see Act of August 8, 1911, ch. 5, 37 Stat 13). The 63rd Congress (1913–1915) was the first to have 435 Members. The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 capped the Membership at that level, creating a procedure for reapportioning state delegations in the House under “the then existing number of Representatives” (see Act of June 18, 1929, ch. 28, 46 Stat 21).

The total membership of the House of Representatives is 441 Members. There are 435 Representatives from the 50 states. In addition, five, non-voting Delegates represent the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories of Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. A non-voting Resident Commissioner, serving a four-year term, represents the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

http://history.house.gov/Institution/Apportionment/Determining-Apportionment/

[former9thward]

8. Yes, we do.

The Constitution gives a minimum of 30,000 people per representative and I think that should be close to the maximum. The average district has about 750,000 people. It costs a fortune to campaign in a district that big. It means that when someone is elected they have to be on the phone soliciting contributions from day one until the election. They have little time to actually govern. A smaller size would be much more manageable and far cheaper to campaign in.

[frazzled]

10. If we kept it at 30,000 constituents per rep

Today's Congress would have 10,630 members!! (That's a population of 318,892,103 divided by 30,000.)

In 1790 the US population was 3,929,214 (which would have meant about 130 representatives in Congress). It's 100 times that now.

[former9thward]

12. I have no problem with that.

With modern technology meetings could be tele-conferenced. There is no reason Congress has to meet in DC. Nothing in the Constitution says that. Either that or break up the country. We have become too big to govern.

[Orsino]

9. Would only dilute our influence (dollars) further.

We need laws and a Constitution that could keep the goddamned money out.