The House was supposed to grow with population. It didn't. Let's fix that.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

What if we increased the size of the House?

-snip-

As originally conceived, the House was supposed to grow with every decennial census. James Madison even included in the Bill of Rights an amendment laying out a formula forcing the House to grow from 65 to 200 members, then allowing it to expand beyond that. (His proposal actually stands as an open-ended amendment still available for state ratification, but the math it uses wouldn’t work for the country’s 21st-century scale.)

George Washington spoke just once at the Constitutional Convention — and on its final day — to endorse an amendment lowering the ratio of constituents to members to 30,000. The expectation was that good, responsive representation required allowing representatives to meaningfully know their constituents, constituents to know and reach their representatives, and Congress to get its business done.

Today, House members represent roughly 762,000 people each. That number is on track to reach 1 million by mid-century.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/02/28/danielle-allen-democracy-reform-congress-house-expansion/

[live love laugh]

1. Тяцмp aborted the last Census to diminish existing representation.

Seems like it would be difficult to make an expansion happen anytime soon.

[LT Barclay]

2. I've believed this for years. If someone says it would be too expensive, then cut staff

and have them do some work themselves!

[markodochartaigh]

3. Often people who say that something is too expensive for government

are really saying that they want to privatize the thing so that the wealthy can make a profit off of it.

[jmowreader]

4. Here's my recommendation

One Representative per 250,000 population. You must gain a full 250,000 residents to get another one, so if you have 749,000 residents you get two and at 750,000 you get three. Their districts will be set by a committee of people that include five Republicans and five Democrats, with the tie breaking vote being the most liberal member of the Supreme Court. Once the districts are set, they don’t change unless a state gains or loses a Representative.

Now…how to fix the “space in the Capitol” problem. Due to modern communications we don’t need to have everyone in the same chamber. Each state will elect one Head of Delegation, who will be in DC. We will select six convention centers: one each in Seattle, San Francisco, Chicago, Dallas, New York City and Charlotte. Lawmakers will be assigned to these centers at random and each state will be required, as feasible, to have at least one member in each city - so Idaho, with its 1.8 million residents, will have one lawmaker in all seven cities. Satellite television links will handle debates and dedicated satcom data feeds encrypted with NSA’s best data scramblers will handle voting.

[dobleremolque]

5. Build a new House Chamber somewhere on the

Mall. Build it large enough to hold 1,300 to 1,500 Representatives in session. Build rooms large enough to hold enlarged committee meetings. Build satellite structures to provide office buildings, the way Cannon, Rayburn, Longworth, now serve the Capitol.

With each House member representing oh, say, 250,000 constituents, that's a House of Representatives of 1,320 members given a U.S. 2020 census count of 330,000,000.

I appreciate the nostalgia for the structure that has served for 230 years, but which is more important ... the process that takes place at the Capitol (or is supposed to take place), or the hallowed marble halls?