Reforming our ailing House of Representatives
Our founding fathers intended the House of Representatives to be the voice of the people. The aim of the following three-part proposal is to restore that intention. To begin, we must increase the number of seats within the House of Representatives.
As the reader is undoubtably aware, the number of seats within the House of Representatives has been frozen at 435. Contrary to popular belief, that number seats is not prescribed by our constitution, but by a 93-year-old statute. The congress of 1911 passed the statute to counter “the dilution of the quality of our representation.” Before 1911, our House of Representatives had grown in accordance with our population. Within the historical context, this statute was necessary. The 1911 congress was trying to curb the influence of the corrupt “bosses” who were using the masses of fresh immigrants to gain political power. However, given our current challenges, we’d be wise to repeal this statute. The House of Representative’s 435 seats cannot adequately represent a population of 250,000,000 Americans. For every seat in the House, there are 535,000 separate voices.
Neither Jefferson, nor Madison would have approved a 1/535,000 ratio of representation. The writers of our constitution compromised by setting the ceiling of our first legislature at one seat per 33,000 citizens. They reasoned that a higher ceiling would create an elite and corrupt legislature. Case in point, our first legislature had 106 seats; had the compromise set the ceiling to today’s ratio, the House of Representatives of 1789 would have contained only six seats.
Moreover, America’s 1/535,000 ratio of representation is the worst in the first world. Germany’s 603 seats in the Brundenstag allow a ratio of 1/135,000. The 577 seats in France’s National Assembly create a ratio of 1/107,000. The British House of Common’s 651 seats grant their citizens a ratio of 1/90,000.
Of course, if restored our current 1/535,000 ratio to the original 1/33,000 ratio, than we’d curse ourselves with a mob-like legislature of 9,000 seats. Predictably, a legislature of that size would create more problems than solutions. A more effective solution would be to simply double the house to 870 seats. However, merely adding seats would be neither sufficient nor practical. The former consideration leads us to the second part of the proposal.
Instead of creating new districts for the 435 additional representatives, we would simply add a second representatives to every district. Currently, we elect our representatives with a winner-takes-all-system. In contrast to a winner-takes-all system, there would be two representatives: one for the majority and another for the minority. Instead of two representatives with two votes, these two representatives would split one vote. Thus, if a candidate wins 51% of the popular vote they will receive 51% of the district’s vote in congress. This system would effectively end the practice of gerrymandering. More importantly, it would reinvigorate and balance our electoral process.
The other reform is ending the practice of one district-one vote. Instead, the weight of every vote would be dependent on how many registered voters participated in the congressional election. Thus, every district would have the potential to have a full vote. However, if only 38 percent the citizens within a district participate in a congressional election, than the two elected representatives will have to split 38/100 of their district’s possible vote. In such a system, not a single citizen would be able to say, “My vote doesn’t matter.”
At first glance, this proposal appears radical. However, it is quite in-line with our tradition of democracy, and federalism. The over-arching philosophy behind this proposal is that a vote represents the voice of citizens. Adding seats to the house will double the responsiveness of a representative to the wishes of their constituents. Furthermore, the additional representatives insure that the voice of the minority isn’t silenced by the mere fact that a partisan majority’s candidate won 51% of the popular vote. Congressional candidates will be encouraged to reach out to as many diverse groups of as possible. This is in contrast to our current system, which allows candidates to win by using wedge issues to encourage groups whose vote they can control, while making the rest apathetic. In the proposed system, a strategy designed to make voters apathetic or polarized will result in less power for the representatives and the citizens of the district.
Perhaps the greatest strength of this proposal is its realistic approach towards people and power. Since the power of a representative’s vote is dependent on how many people participate, citizens will feel a greater obligation to each other to participate. Rather than merely encouraging citizens to “rock the vote”, the proposed system will make it clear that the entire community will suffer if they don’t vote. While latter has always been true, this proposed system will make it clear in concrete terms. Non-voting will no longer be a default to the winner of an election. Instead, a non-voter will default their entire community’s power over national affairs. Best of all, it avoids the institution of fines for non-voting, like the mandatory participation laws in Australia. Instead, it exploits the natural power of social pressure when an entire community’s voice is at stake.
Moreover, the splitting of a vote between two candidates will fundamentally alter American politics for the better. An effective campaign strategy would have to attempt to build as many bridges between diverse interests as possible. Candidates would not only be rewarded for capturing the imagination of the voters in their district; they’d be punished for concentrating on divisive issues like abortion or gun control. While activists would cringe at the loss of attention towards those problems, our ailing democracy would breath a sigh of relief. James Madison noted the dangers of “wedge issues”:
The most common cause of this instability was a majority of the citizens who, for whatever reason, attempted to impose their will upon the rest of the society and in the process deprived them of their rights.
To be continued…
Note: Please, if anyone has any insight, disagrees or could lead me to similar ideas I'd appreciate it. This idea is still in a rough draft phase.
As the reader is undoubtably aware, the number of seats within the House of Representatives has been frozen at 435. Contrary to popular belief, that number seats is not prescribed by our constitution, but by a 93-year-old statute. The congress of 1911 passed the statute to counter “the dilution of the quality of our representation.” Before 1911, our House of Representatives had grown in accordance with our population. Within the historical context, this statute was necessary. The 1911 congress was trying to curb the influence of the corrupt “bosses” who were using the masses of fresh immigrants to gain political power. However, given our current challenges, we’d be wise to repeal this statute. The House of Representative’s 435 seats cannot adequately represent a population of 250,000,000 Americans. For every seat in the House, there are 535,000 separate voices.
Neither Jefferson, nor Madison would have approved a 1/535,000 ratio of representation. The writers of our constitution compromised by setting the ceiling of our first legislature at one seat per 33,000 citizens. They reasoned that a higher ceiling would create an elite and corrupt legislature. Case in point, our first legislature had 106 seats; had the compromise set the ceiling to today’s ratio, the House of Representatives of 1789 would have contained only six seats.
Moreover, America’s 1/535,000 ratio of representation is the worst in the first world. Germany’s 603 seats in the Brundenstag allow a ratio of 1/135,000. The 577 seats in France’s National Assembly create a ratio of 1/107,000. The British House of Common’s 651 seats grant their citizens a ratio of 1/90,000.
Of course, if restored our current 1/535,000 ratio to the original 1/33,000 ratio, than we’d curse ourselves with a mob-like legislature of 9,000 seats. Predictably, a legislature of that size would create more problems than solutions. A more effective solution would be to simply double the house to 870 seats. However, merely adding seats would be neither sufficient nor practical. The former consideration leads us to the second part of the proposal.
Instead of creating new districts for the 435 additional representatives, we would simply add a second representatives to every district. Currently, we elect our representatives with a winner-takes-all-system. In contrast to a winner-takes-all system, there would be two representatives: one for the majority and another for the minority. Instead of two representatives with two votes, these two representatives would split one vote. Thus, if a candidate wins 51% of the popular vote they will receive 51% of the district’s vote in congress. This system would effectively end the practice of gerrymandering. More importantly, it would reinvigorate and balance our electoral process.
The other reform is ending the practice of one district-one vote. Instead, the weight of every vote would be dependent on how many registered voters participated in the congressional election. Thus, every district would have the potential to have a full vote. However, if only 38 percent the citizens within a district participate in a congressional election, than the two elected representatives will have to split 38/100 of their district’s possible vote. In such a system, not a single citizen would be able to say, “My vote doesn’t matter.”
At first glance, this proposal appears radical. However, it is quite in-line with our tradition of democracy, and federalism. The over-arching philosophy behind this proposal is that a vote represents the voice of citizens. Adding seats to the house will double the responsiveness of a representative to the wishes of their constituents. Furthermore, the additional representatives insure that the voice of the minority isn’t silenced by the mere fact that a partisan majority’s candidate won 51% of the popular vote. Congressional candidates will be encouraged to reach out to as many diverse groups of as possible. This is in contrast to our current system, which allows candidates to win by using wedge issues to encourage groups whose vote they can control, while making the rest apathetic. In the proposed system, a strategy designed to make voters apathetic or polarized will result in less power for the representatives and the citizens of the district.
Perhaps the greatest strength of this proposal is its realistic approach towards people and power. Since the power of a representative’s vote is dependent on how many people participate, citizens will feel a greater obligation to each other to participate. Rather than merely encouraging citizens to “rock the vote”, the proposed system will make it clear that the entire community will suffer if they don’t vote. While latter has always been true, this proposed system will make it clear in concrete terms. Non-voting will no longer be a default to the winner of an election. Instead, a non-voter will default their entire community’s power over national affairs. Best of all, it avoids the institution of fines for non-voting, like the mandatory participation laws in Australia. Instead, it exploits the natural power of social pressure when an entire community’s voice is at stake.
Moreover, the splitting of a vote between two candidates will fundamentally alter American politics for the better. An effective campaign strategy would have to attempt to build as many bridges between diverse interests as possible. Candidates would not only be rewarded for capturing the imagination of the voters in their district; they’d be punished for concentrating on divisive issues like abortion or gun control. While activists would cringe at the loss of attention towards those problems, our ailing democracy would breath a sigh of relief. James Madison noted the dangers of “wedge issues”:
The most common cause of this instability was a majority of the citizens who, for whatever reason, attempted to impose their will upon the rest of the society and in the process deprived them of their rights.
To be continued…
Note: Please, if anyone has any insight, disagrees or could lead me to similar ideas I'd appreciate it. This idea is still in a rough draft phase.
