Should the House of Representatives be increased in size?

[politicallefty]

Bumping it up to 500 would be ok.

What's the cube root rule?

Quite simply, it's the cube root of the entire US population. I'm not sure why, but it seems to be a common measure for ideal representation in a national legislature. In any event, it works out quite well. If it were used from the start, the House would have grown by 12-32 members each decade (the smallest growth during the 1930s and the largest during the 1950s). Based on the 2010 Census, the House would currently be at 676 members, an increase of 21 from 2000's 655 members. Also, based on current projections, the House would increase to 694 in 2020. I think an added benefit is that an ever-increasing House such as that would remove the zero-sum game that apportionment brings about (although it would still be possible for states to lose representation).

The Wyoming Rule isn't bad as a number for the current population, but it's quite unstable when you have the smallest state growing more rapidly than the nation as a whole. The current House would be 542, but that would have dropped from 568 in 2000. For most of this country's history, had that been used, there would have been huge shifts in the House (from 1308 in 1890 to 1862 in 1900 to 1095 in 1910). Yes, the House would have had two consecutive increases of more than 500 members before dropping over 700 in the following Census.

[Rooney]

Yes. "Too many cooks will spoil the broth." The more members of Congress means the more debate The more debate means the more log jam. The more log jam means the fewer "necessary" laws passed. The fewer "necessary" laws passed means the greater amount of freedom for everyone.

[Slander and/or Libel]

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. If applied throughout the country's history, this would (I believe) imply a House membership on the order of 3,000. The average population per Congressman would still increase, but not nearly as quickly as is currently the case.

How is it defensible to say to Illinois, for example, "Your population increased 3.3% between 2000 and 2010, but your representation is decreasing by 5.3%, meaning your population per representative is going up by 9%"?

Let's look at the other states whose representation decreased but whose population grew:

IA:

2000-2010 Population increase: 4.1%
2000-2010 Representation decrease: 20%
2000-2010 Population per representative increase: 30.13%

LA:

2000-2010 Population increase: 1.44%
2000-2010 Representation decrease: 14.29%
2000-2010 Population per representative increase: 18.35%

MA:

2000-2010 Population increase: 3.13%
2000-2010 Representation decrease: 10%
2000-2010 Population per representative increase: 14.58%

MI:

2000-2010 Population increase: -0.55%
2000-2010 Representation decrease: 6.67%
2000-2010 Population per representative increase: 6.55%

MO:

2000-2010 Population increase: 7.04%
2000-2010 Representation decrease: 11.11%
2000-2010 Population per representative increase: 20.42%

NJ:

2000-2010 Population increase: 4.49%
2000-2010 Representation decrease: 7.69%
2000-2010 Population per representative increase: 13.19%

NY:

2000-2010 Population increase: 2.12%
2000-2010 Representation decrease: 6.9%
2000-2010 Population per representative increase: 9.68%

OH:

2000-2010 Population increase: 1.62%
2000-2010 Representation decrease: 11.11%
2000-2010 Population per representative increase: 14.32%

PA:

2000-2010 Population increase: 3.43%
2000-2010 Representation decrease: 5.26%
2000-2010 Population per representative increase: 9.18%

The way we've got it going, it's just this inexorable process where the population per representative is going to go up linearly with population, being distributed in weird and chunky and inherently unfair ways. There's just no two ways about it.

[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.

[Slander and/or Libel]

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.

[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).

[Slander and/or Libel]

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.

[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.

[Slander and/or Libel]

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.

[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.

[Slander and/or Libel]

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.

[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.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

How many members did the House of Lords peak at before 1999? Obviously the House of Representatives has a lot more to do than the twentieth-century House of Lords had or should have had, and I'm pretty sure most members of the House of Lords didn't attend all the time, but that could still serve as a very vague estimate of about the upper bounds of what's reasonable for a parliamentary chamber.

[politicus]

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 on most aspects.

[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.

[Hatman 🍁]

Personally, I support the Wyoming rule.

For the record, these are the world's largest national legislatures.

1) National People's Congress (China): 2,987
2) House of Lords (UK): 765
3) Supreme People's Assembly (North Korea): 687
4) Hose of Commons (UK): 650
5) Chamber of Deputies (Italy): 630
6) Bundestag (Germany): 620
7) National Assembly of People's Power (Cuba): 614
8 ) Constituent Assembly (Nepal): 601
9) National Assembly (France): 577
10) People's Representative Council (Indonesia): 560

[Antonio the Sixth]

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

[DrScholl]

No. There are already enough seats to be gerrymandered, there is no need to add even more.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

No. There are already enough seats to be gerrymandered, there is no need to add even more.

That's...a really weird argument. Overall size doesn't inherently affect malapportionment or gerrymandering, which are issues involving relative size and strengths of parties.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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

Yeah but it's not a real parliament so doesn't count.

[AggregateDemand]

Are you people insane? We already have enough Congressmen.

You can't stop death wish. Let it work it's magic. We will secede.

[badgate]

Are you people insane? We already have enough Congressmen.

You can't stop death wish. Let it work it's magic. We will secede.

You mean succeed?

[Mister Mets]

I'm surprised at the interest in this.

I voted against, although I don't mind the Wyoming rule. I do think larger congresses will be less wieldy.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The HoR is bizzarely small for a country the size of America though.

[The Mikado]

750 or so Reps would make a lot of sense. It might also make the pill of Puerto Rican statehood and DC representation go down a bit easier if other states aren't losing seats to accommodate them.