Should we expand the House?

This is something I'm still thinking about but I do think it's more of a shot at current House of Representatives leadership than it is really a left or right kind of idea (I think). At least one of the authors here is (or would traditionally have been) considered on the right, but these days maybe is too much of a policy wonk intellectual to still be considered that way.

Anyway, the point is that they make a compelling argument in some ways I think, but I'd like to read some opposing arguments (I can think of some).

It is pretty counter-intuitive, that the best way to reform an untrustworthy collection of some of America's worst humans is by adding more of them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...-expand-seats/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inudesu

This is something I'm still thinking about but I do think it's more of a shot at current House of Representatives leadership than it is really a left or right kind of idea (I think). At least one of the authors here is (or would traditionally have been) considered on the right, but these days maybe is too much of a policy wonk intellectual to still be considered that way.

Anyway, the point is that they make a compelling argument in some ways I think, but I'd like to read some opposing arguments (I can think of some).

It is pretty counter-intuitive, that the best way to reform an untrustworthy collection of some of America's worst humans is by adding more of them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...-expand-seats/

---

i only read the first couple of paragraphs, but i think i may agree. it may result in more "safe" seats, but if we coupled it with term limits i'd be willing to support it.

of course, this would shift some of the power in the presidential election, as the value of the two extra electoral votes in small states would be diluted. that's not necessarily a bad thing. i think most people assume this would benefit democrats (and they're probably right) but i think the dynamic is slowly starting to change.

So...the Dems are about to lose the House, and the Senate, so their solution is to expand it! LOL! So effing predictable.

BTW I didn't read the posted article. All I had to see was "washingtonpost" and that one of our resident libtards supports it to know from whence it came. Bet Pelosi will try to create 100 new house seats in California, all in carefully drawn blue areas, of course.

Pathetic...can't win the arena of ideas, so just change the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawg80

So...the Dems are about to lose the House, and the Senate, so their solution is to expand it! LOL! So effing predictable.

BTW I didn't read the posted article. All I had to see was "washingtonpost" and that one of our resident libtards supports it to know from whence it came. Bet Pelosi will try to create 100 new house seats in California, all in carefully drawn blue areas, of course.

Pathetic...can't win the arena of ideas, so just change the game.

---

Factually wrong, total commitment to continued ignorance, and unmerited personal insults - why, you've hit the dawg80 trifecta! That's a slightly different three legged stool than the old days, but come to think of it, it's a formula that's worked recently. Thanks for chiming in, your contribution has been typically helpful and constructive.

One author edits National Review and works at AEI (a right-leaning think tank, as I'm sure you know) and the other at a left-leaning one (New America). As stated in the first post, I don't really think this is a left (or right) concept. It's not coming from either party certainly (because it would probably hurt the leadership in both parties, and would reduce the power of every member).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

i only read the first couple of paragraphs, but i think i may agree. it may result in more "safe" seats, but if we coupled it with term limits i'd be willing to support it.

of course, this would shift some of the power in the presidential election, as the value of the two extra electoral votes in small states would be diluted. that's not necessarily a bad thing. i think most people assume this would benefit democrats (and they're probably right) but i think the dynamic is slowly starting to change.

---

There doesn't seem to be a workable way to return to the original numbers of each House member representing 30,000 people (how great would that be though - you'd really feel represented and be better represented that way), but 760,000 constituents per member really ought to be too many.

I haven't read all the math, but according to the article,

Quote:

---

its practical effect on election outcomes could not be easily determined in advance — and therefore, like the expansion of the House itself, it would not advance any simple partisan calculus. In fact, we found that a larger House would not have any predictable effect on which party controlled the House, and that enlarging the House this way half a century ago would not have altered the result of any presidential election since. An expansion would reinforce the legitimacy of the existing system, not manipulate electoral outcomes one way or another.

---

The op-ed is a summary. I think they show their work here. With the partisan impact here.

Like I said, I'm not totally sold yet, but I think I'm getting there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inudesu

Factually wrong, total commitment to continued ignorance, and unmerited personal insults - why, you've hit the dawg80 trifecta! That's a slightly different three legged stool than the old days, but come to think of it, it's a formula that's worked recently. Thanks for chiming in, your contribution has been typically helpful and constructive.

---

He's nothing if not consistent!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

He's nothing if not consistent!

---

What do you think about adding seats to the House?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inudesu

What do you think about adding seats to the House?

---

I think it makes sense in some ways, but I'm with Bob that it's largely ineffective unless paired with term limits.

I personally don't like the statements that several members of Congress have made regarding other members or Senate members like Manchin. They are saying that because Manchin or other members of Congress who represent smaller districts (population wise) that their voice shouldn't carry as much weight as someone from CA or NY etc who have many more people that they represent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FriscoDog

I personally don't like the statements that several members of Congress have made regarding other members or Senate members like Manchin. They are saying that because Manchin or other members of Congress who represent smaller districts (population wise) that their voice shouldn't carry as much weight as someone from CA or NY etc who have many more people that they represent.

---

Yeah, that's totally irrelevant in the Senate. Not applicable. Shouldn't be a factor at all. The (actual) left has bad takes on him and how he's acted.

The biggest dysfunction in Congress now is that a proper budget never has to be completely passed.

A balanced budget amendment that includes a ban on "continuing resolutions" would be a start. I would also include a provision to put members of Congress and their staffs on the hook until a budget is passed and signed into law. Their pay should be limited to only a living stipend (say $5000 a month for Congress members and $3000-$4000 each for staff) until the budget is signed into law. If the budget is not enacted on time, any back pay is lost.

At the minimum $174,000 congressional salary, that would mean at least $9500 a month would be withheld each month from each House and Senate member until the budget is passed. $85,500 would be lost completely if the budget is not in place on October 1 each year. The President and Vice President could also be included in this.

With that incentive, I would expect a budget to be enacted before summer recess each year.

Seems like the whole point of our government is balance. As much as you can have anyway. Let’s just say for round numbers that Manchin represents 100,000 people and someone in Cali represents 350,000. Hypothetically, Manchin could be representing 85,000 logical, solid, reasonable constituents and the person from Cali could also have the same number of level headed constituents. Should the country suffer because the person in Cali answers to more crazy people?

I also think a huge mistake was the country allowing its leaders to turn this into a year round job. A majority of the countries business should be done by the end of April. After that, everyone goes home to their actual life and real job. If anything is needed, we have email, telephone, and zoom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techman05

Seems like the whole point of our government is balance. As much as you can have anyway. Let’s just say for round numbers that Manchin represents 100,000 people and someone in Cali represents 350,000. Hypothetically, Manchin could be representing 85,000 logical, solid, reasonable constituents and the person from Cali could also have the same number of level headed constituents. Should the country suffer because the person in Cali answers to more crazy people?

---

Well, it's just the way it was set up. On purpose. So the Senate is by state, period. That does make it less representative but that was the compromise (and it has some philosophical standing I think - our country is made up of states, it makes sense to do some national business and policy making as "states" with an equal number of people representing each state).

But as you say, the balance to that is the House - they represent the people in the states (in some sense). So the argument here is that for a very long time we expanded the number of reps based on the population, so each one represented a more or less stable number of people even as the total population of the country grew. But then we stopped doing that. And there isn't really a strong, clear reason to have stopped. You or I have much better access to a Rep if we're one of their 35,000 constituents than if we're one of their 750,000. We probably can't get back to 35k, but we can improve that ratio.

At some point I wonder about functionality, but my expectations for actual policy work out of the House is pretty low already.

I heard Levin discussing this on a podcast and he seems to think that's not a huge trade-off, because he doesn't expect much of that sort of thing from the House at all, so from a practical matter it's more about constituents feeling (and being) better represented than about getting them to pass better bills or anything like that (although there is a argument that you'd get more factionalism which might lead to more coalition building, which could lead to better law-making and functionality). I'm becoming a fan of his work lately (I think he was featured in W's book last year). He has another practical election-related thing out recently, but it's paywalled at another "way too liberal to read op-eds from" site, so I won't bother linking (and due to the paywall I haven't read it myself, only exerts).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inudesu

Well, it's just the way it was set up. On purpose. So the Senate is by state, period. That does make it less representative but that was the compromise (and it has some philosophical standing I think - our country is made up of states, it makes sense to do some national business and policy making as "states" with an equal number of people representing each state).

But as you say, the balance to that is the House - they represent the people in the states (in some sense). So the argument here is that for a very long time we expanded the number of reps based on the population, so each one represented a more or less stable number of people even as the total population of the country grew. But then we stopped doing that. As there isn't really a strong, clear reason to have stopped. You or I have much better access to a Rep if we're one of their 35,000 constituents than if we're one of their 750,000. We probably can't get back to 35k, but we can improve that ratio.

At some point I wonder about functionality, but my expectations for actual policy work out of the House is pretty low already.

I heard Levin discussing this on a podcast and he seems to think that's not a huge trade-off, because he doesn't expect much of that sort of thing from the House at all, so from a practical matter it's more about constituents feeling (and being) better represented than about getting them to pass better bills or anything like that (although there is a argument that you'd get more factionalism which might lead to more coalition building, which could lead to better law-making and functionality). I'm becoming a fan of his work lately (I think he was featured in W's book last year). He has another practical election-related thing out recently, but it's paywalled at another "way to liberal to read op-eds from" site, so I won't bother linking (and due to the paywall I haven't read it myself, only exerts).

---

Except that the Senate isn't the way it was originally set up. Changing the Senate to being elected for 6-year terms without recourse was one of the biggest mistakes in the history of American government.

Senators should be responsive to their states, and they clearly are not. They now focus on their states for a year or so before each election and then largely ignore their states for the next 4-5 years after election.

Either repeal the 17th Amendment and have states legislatures elect senators or add a recall process to the existing structure.

Could Cassidy be re-elected today? Very doubtful, but he has almost 5 years left on his term now.