House Of Representatives Problem

D.R. and M.D., writing in The Economist blog Democracy in America, take issue with Speaker Boehner's claim that the American people have given the House of Representatives a mandate by electing a Republican majority. They point out that the American people gave more votes to Democratic candidates for the house than to Republican members and attribute the Republican majority to successful gerrymandering: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/11/congressional-representation-0?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/callvotersuppression

Their blog post is interesting, because it addresses a number of problems with some of our historical assumptions about representation. The main issue the blog post addresses is that the maldistribution of seats in the house.

The authors do point out that "It is not the first time that a party has won a majority of seats in the House despite receiving fewer votes than its rival. Mr Gingrich’s team won re-election and a 26-seat majority in 1996, on 47.8% of the vote to 48.1% for the Democrats. In 1942 Sam Rayburn managed to attain a 13-seat majority for the Democrats in the mid-terms, even though his party won 46% of the vote to the Republicans’ 51% (small wonder that Rayburn holds the record as the longest-serving speaker). But rarely does it produce such a skewed result as we've seen in the House this year."

Actually, Sam Rayburn's accomplishment is less impressive when you realize it took place in an era before the Supreme Court's decision in Baker v. Carr which established the principle of "one person, one vote." In other words, each member of Congress must represent an approximately equal number of citizens. That was not the case in 1942.

D.R. and M.D. tentatively suggest proportional representation as a way to avoid this problem, and then quickly back off because it would require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I'm not so sure. The Constitution doesn't even mention Congressional Districts. There may be ways without such an amendment.

I posted some thoughts on the subject last May:

Some of the ills of congress are built into our constitution. The US Senate, for example, which likes to characterize itself as "the world's greatest deliberative body" is arguably the "free world's" least democratic body. That is, first of all, a consequence of the constitutional arrangement that each state, regardless of size or economic output, have an equal number of senators. This is compounded by the increasingly inexplicable commitment of the senate to the requirement of a supermajority of senators to pass any legislation at all. My solution to that: get rid of paper filibusters imposed by the cloture rule. Let's go back to "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" style of filibuster. Filibusters would become more rare because voters could see what was happening and better understand what it was about.

Some republicans want to fix the senate by repealing the seventeenth amendment providing direct popular election of senators. What, we have too much democracy?

A common complaint about the House of Representatives is "My representative doesn't listen to people like me."

Some advocate term limits to fix this. I say, we already have term limits. Elections. What we don't have is enough representatives.

We are going through redistricting right now. This is the process after every decenniel census (except for the 1920 census - there was not a reapportionment after that census). First Congress reapportions seats in the House of Representatives to the states according to population. District boundaries are then redrawn by state legislatures and in some cases by courts.

Contrary to popular opinion, the number of seats in the House of Representatives is not in the Constitution. But the number has not changed since it was set at 435 in 1911. At that time, each member of the House represented about 216,000 citizens. Since then, our population has more than tripled, but the number remains the same. Now each member represents about 708,000 constituents.

My suggestion: enlarge the House so that each member represents about 216,000 citizens. With modern communications systems, that would allow the members closer communication with constituents. It would also lower the financial and organizational barriers to running for office. It might reduce the influence of money in politics and even create opportunities for more political parties to become competitive.

How many representatives would we have? About 1,426. Admittedly, that might make the body even more unwieldy, but it might just as well force more cooperation. It would certainly induce representatives to be more responsive to constituents.

How could we accommodate so many representatives? Replace the desks on the floor of the House with benches. Reduce representatives' personal staffs. Currently, members are allowed to hire as many as eighteen personal staffers. Reduce that to five per member. Representatives might have to study bills themselves, possibly answer phones and write some of their own correspondence. But they wouldn't have to raise so much money.

Originally Posted May 29, 2012 

Note: I would actually prefer proportional representation. Failing that unlikely outcome, a possible (but not necessary) consequence of enlarging the House might be to increase the possibility of third (or fourth...) parties. It might at least make it harder to have the kind of lock step voting patterns we see on the Republican side of the House today.