Should the House of Representatives be increased in size?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes. Ideally to 1000 or more, but I'll settle for the cube root rule.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Parliaments larger than 5-600 generally do not work well. So an increase with about 100 should be the maximum.

500 each representing 0,2% of voters might be a good size.

The European Parliament might not be the best, but it doesn't exactly strike me as dysfunctional.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I've always toyed with the simple heuristic that the current apportionment method should be used, but that no state that gains population should lose representation.

Ugh, no. Then you get a horrendous and incredibly messy malapportionment like the Canadian House of Commons.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I've always toyed with the simple heuristic that the current apportionment method should be used, but that no state that gains population should lose representation.

Ugh, no. Then you get a horrendous and incredibly messy malapportionment like the Canadian House of Commons.

I'm unfamiliar with what the problem was there, beyond what I just quickly skimmed on Wikipedia, but I believe the method they've been using for apportionment there makes little to no sense. I'm saying if we just use the current apportionment method we use, but let the upper bound float and only stop once every state that has gained population has at least as many representatives as it had at the last apportionment. It seems that Canada's system allocates according to population and then adds to the deficient provinces, which seems totally backwards. What I'm saying would just continue the process we've got, so the states' representation stays proportional.

Ah, I see. It makes sense then, as long as proportionality between population and seats is respected. That said, this will lead to a very rapid increase in the House's size (which the US could afford only because such size is still ridiculously low).

[Antonio the Sixth]

I've always toyed with the simple heuristic that the current apportionment method should be used, but that no state that gains population should lose representation.

Ugh, no. Then you get a horrendous and incredibly messy malapportionment like the Canadian House of Commons.

I'm unfamiliar with what the problem was there, beyond what I just quickly skimmed on Wikipedia, but I believe the method they've been using for apportionment there makes little to no sense. I'm saying if we just use the current apportionment method we use, but let the upper bound float and only stop once every state that has gained population has at least as many representatives as it had at the last apportionment. It seems that Canada's system allocates according to population and then adds to the deficient provinces, which seems totally backwards. What I'm saying would just continue the process we've got, so the states' representation stays proportional.

Ah, I see. It makes sense then, as long as proportionality between population and seats is respected. That said, this will lead to a very rapid increase in the House's size (which the US could afford only because such size is still ridiculously low).

Yeah, but I see the increase in the size of the legislature as a feature, not a bug. Unless we're prepared to argue from first principles that population growth itself dictates that people deserve less and less direct representation.

I mean, at some point, there has to be a limit. If your rule was applied at every census since 1789, the House of Representatives would have over 5000 members. My guess is that 2000 is the highest level at which a parliamentary assembly could properly function, in terms of thoroughly debating and voting on every aspect of a piece of legislation. If you go higher than that, you'd probably have to considerably increase the role of subcommittees and limit the House's role to holding the final up-or-down vote.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I believe if this rule were applied from 1789 through the present, the House would have 3,770 members (I lost the spreadsheet where I calculated it, but I might rebuild it to play with things again).

I just have a lot of trouble thinking that logistical troubles should trump representation concerns. If you're talking about the logistical troubles of the body actually functioning, then it can certainly amend its rules to make it more able to function.

You certainly can't ignore these concerns. A legislative body exists in order to perform certain functions. So, if population growth reaches a certain level, you only have two choices: either cap the assembly's size (and thus reduce the quality of representation) or make it a mere ratifying chamber (and alter the very nature of representation). This is the downside of living in a great and populous country: representation will inevitably become more imperfect with size. Honestly, I think the level of representation I would consider appropriate could only be reached in countries of less than 10 million inhabitants. However, other powerful reasons make it preferable for countries to be larger.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Sure. I think we're certainly far on the low side of that curve in the US right now, and getting lower. I don't discount that there ought to be some logistical concerns at some point. It's just that for me we're so far off to the other side that we should entertain what might otherwise seem like more extreme proposals at least as starting points.

Sure. As I said, I think 1000 Representatives (or around one for 300,000 people) would be fair in the current US.

[Antonio the Sixth]

However, other powerful reasons make it preferable for countries to be larger.

Which ones? Apart from defence (where small countries could pool their resources and ally in an alliance) smaller countries (above micro state level) generally function better than larger ones in most respects.

Economic competition, mainly. In the era of globalization, small countries have a much weaker bargaining position against corporations that pressure them into lowering labor costs and wealthy taxpayers who want their tax burden reduced. It's easier for a corporation or a rich guy to stay out of the lone small country that decides not to play by their rules. Larger countries are more immune to this sort of behavior, both because they are less reliant on a small number of corporations/individuals and because the cost of "boycotting" them would be higher.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The European Parliament also has 750 members, making it the largest democratically elected legislature in the world.