Should there be more or fewer representatives in government?

[Reeve]

I was just talking with someone, and I realized I think there should probably be fewer representatives in the US Congress. The way it is currently, I think the average American probably has no clue who their congressperson is, or what their platform is. Maybe if there were fewer congresspeople, and therefore more power in each one, people would see those positions as more important again, and be more likely to take an active part in voting for someone who really represents them.

This could apply for other countries as well. Do you think it makes more sense in a representative democracy to have fewer representatives to make the choice of representative more important, or more representatives to improve granularity of representation?

[Rukentuts]

The only problem is that with fewer politicians, the nutjobs have more power.

[Reeve]

The only problem is that with fewer politicians, the nutjobs have more power.

True, but they just have power in the aggregate right now. Maybe with fewer, we'd elect fewer nutjobs because we'd care more about looking into each person we elect.

[Kujako]

Politicians, or representatives? Cause they dont seem to be the same thing.

[Rukentuts]

True, but they just have power in the aggregate right now. Maybe with fewer, we'd elect fewer nutjobs because we'd care more about looking into each person we elect.

Eh...I don't have too much faith in a lot of people right now.

[Ssith]

neither. the problem is distribution. and the fact that they let them draw their own redistricting lines.

[Deadvolcanoes]

The representation in terms of population per representative is already screwed up in many states. Technically, there should be more members of Congress.

I'm in favor of scrapping the whole system and starting from scratch.

[Reeve]

The representation in terms of population per representative is already screwed up in many states. Technically, there should be more members of Congress.

I'm in favor of scrapping the whole system and starting from scratch.

OK, so when you recreated the whole thing, would we still have a bicameral legislature? Would we have more or fewer representatives?

[Elegiac]

I was just talking with someone, and I realized I think there should probably be fewer representatives in the US Congress. The way it is currently, I think the average American probably has no clue who their congressperson is, or what their platform is. Maybe if there were fewer congresspeople, and therefore more power in each one, people would see those positions as more important again, and be more likely to take an active part in voting for someone who really represents them.

This could apply for other countries as well. Do you think it makes more sense in a representative democracy to have fewer representatives to make the choice of representative more important, or more representatives to improve granularity of representation?

You'd be surprised. Most Americans do in fact know who their Congressperson is - and that is part of the problem.

In a representative system, there are two models of representation; Delegate, and Trustee. A Delegate is just that - they exist purely to communicate the wishes of their constitutents to the central government. The Trustee is more complex, entailing the belief that they are not a mere channel but that their constitutents have invested or entrusted their power of governance to the Trustee. America's problem is that Representatives in particular follow the Delegate model. While this is commendable for holding up local interests, it also means that Representatives focus on them at the expense of the general, public interest. This is partially sourced in culture, but as with -every- other problem in Government, it is a systemic one. Namely that the term intervals for Representatives are far, far too short, forcing a focus upon re-election and local interests.

The second problem is a well-known one, Gerrymandering. I don't need to explain what it is, but it is one of the reasons why the Republicans have managed to hold onto the House for as long as they have.

The solutions I propose are this.

1) Increase term durations for the House to four years, with elections occuring two years into a Presidential term.
2) Increase the number of Representatives, but also introduce multi-member districts; this severly cuts into the effectiveness of Gerrymandering and makes for a more representative House.
3) Introduce an independent government commission that is responsible for redistricting during census periods. While not immune to party politics, in countries like Australia is has shown to further cut the effectiveness of gerrymandering.

[Masark]

Maybe with fewer, we'd elect fewer nutjobs because we'd care more about looking into each person we elect.

The problem with your plan is that you presume the people electing the nutjobs aren't nutjobs themselves.

[Daelak]

I was just talking with someone, and I realized I think there should probably be fewer representatives in the US Congress. The way it is currently, I think the average American probably has no clue who their congressperson is, or what their platform is. Maybe if there were fewer congresspeople, and therefore more power in each one, people would see those positions as more important again, and be more likely to take an active part in voting for someone who really represents them.

This could apply for other countries as well. Do you think it makes more sense in a representative democracy to have fewer representatives to make the choice of representative more important, or more representatives to improve granularity of representation?

I don't think the political return on investment to reduce the number of representatives would be a positive one. Hell barely half of people with voting rights in this country vote for the president, and it slides down fast from there.

Now my stance would be to hit the constitutionally-advised upper bound that says no more than 1 rep per 30,000 citizens. Right now we are at about 1 per 700,000. Maybe with more part-time civic-reps., people who actually work in their districts for 10 months out of the year, receive a minimal stipend during public service might actually show communities that their voice is actually heard.

[Elegiac]

I don't think the political return on investment to reduce the number of representatives would be a positive one. Hell barely half of people with voting rights in this country vote for the president, and it slides down fast from there.

Now my stance would be to hit the constitutionally-advised upper bound that says no more than 1 rep per 30,000 citizens. Right now we are at about 1 per 700,000. Maybe with more part-time civic-reps., people who actually work in their districts for 10 months out of the year, receive a minimal stipend during public service might actually show communities that their voice is actually heard.

The "washington insider" myth is just that, a myth. Most Representatives are very connected with their individual electorates.

[Daelak]

The "washington insider" myth is just that, a myth. Most Representatives are very connected with their individual electorates.

But even if that were true, wouldn't you want to follow what the constitution says?

[Elegiac]

But even if that were true, wouldn't you want to follow what the constitution says?

It is the truth, Representatives don't get a 90% re-election rate just through incumbent advantage alone. They campaign heavily in their home districts and push pork-barrelling in order to get benefits for their electorates.

The wording of the Constitution in the apportionment section implies it is flexible, so no. I prefer larger electorates anyway.

[Sunseeker]

No, the problem is people don't know who everyone else's representatives are, and how those people's positions affect theirs and the ability of their representative to represent them.

I believe we actually need more representatives, and a proportional representation system. Each "Representative" would become a "council", made up of the Prime Representative and two Junior Representatives, each from the two second-highest voted parties. Any vote taken by the "Representative" would have to have the approval of at least one of the Junior members, and would be weighted heavier if all three members supported the vote. IE: Each "Representative Council" would have a single vote, but getting all three members to agree would make it worth say, 1.25 votes. Thus indicating that a specific proposal has more wide-spread support from the population, rather than only catering to less than half the population who happened to "win" the election.

[Elegiac]

No, the problem is people don't know who everyone else's representatives are, and how those people's positions affect theirs and the ability of their representative to represent them.

I believe we actually need more representatives, and a proportional representation system. Each "Representative" would become a "council", made up of the Prime Representative and two Junior Representatives, each from the two second-highest voted parties. Any vote taken by the "Representative" would have to have the approval of at least one of the Junior members, and would be weighted heavier if all three members supported the vote. IE: Each "Representative Council" would have a single vote, but getting all three members to agree would make it worth say, 1.25 votes. Thus indicating that a specific proposal has more wide-spread support from the population, rather than only catering to less than half the population who happened to "win" the election.

The solution to too much democracy is not more democracy. This would make government incredibly inefficient and unwieldly.

[cubby]

Churchill said it best: democracy is the worst form of government, except for the all the rest.

More or less representatives won't really solve the problem of apathy.

[MaximusRex]

I don't think the number of Representatives is the real problem.

I think the real issue is the election system has been taken over by the parties. Closed primaries that most states have, with no public election financing, extensive Gerrymandering, and lack of term limits is the heart of the problem.

The founders saw Congress as being full of ordinary Americans from a variety of professions and backgrounds, but the current system subverts that. It would be nearly impossible for someone who doesn't already have access to a large bankroll to even run for office, and closed primaries can push candidates towards the fringes of the political spectrum. This is part of the problem the Republican's are having in Statewide and National elections, their primary candidate is so far out there, or at least has to act like they are, that it makes them unpalatable to swing voters.

To fix the problem the election system needs to be opened up, and more churn created in who holds the seats.

[Elegiac]

I don't think the number of Representatives is the real problem.

I think the real issue is the election system has been taken over by the parties. Closed primaries that most states have, with no public election financing, extensive Gerrymandering, and lack of term limits is the heart of the problem.

The founders saw Congress as being full of ordinary Americans from a variety of professions and backgrounds, but the current system subverts that. It would be nearly impossible for someone who doesn't already have access to a large bankroll to even run for office, and closed primaries can push candidates towards the fringes of the political spectrum. This is part of the problem the Republican's are having in Statewide and National elections, their primary candidate is so far out there, or at least has to act like they are, that it makes them unpalatable to swing voters.

To fix the problem the election system needs to be opened up, and more churn created in who holds the seats.

And yet it is the system that the founders designed that promotes the existence of the two party system, and the middle/upper class control of government.

[Masark]

Now my stance would be to hit the constitutionally-advised upper bound that says no more than 1 rep per 30,000 citizens. Right now we are at about 1 per 700,000. Maybe with more part-time civic-reps., people who actually work in their districts for 10 months out of the year, receive a minimal stipend during public service might actually show communities that their voice is actually heard.

By coincidence, that is almost exactly the representation rate in Norway.

But if you're going to increase the number by that much, you're going to need a bigger building.

Perhaps they could hold congress at the Verizon Centre.