Althouse: "We’re nearly two decades into the 21st century, so why is America still operating with a House of Representatives built for the start of the 20th?"

November 10, 2018

"We’re nearly two decades into the 21st century, so why is America still operating with a House of Representatives built for the start of the 20th?"

"The House’s current size — 435 representatives — was set in 1911, when there were fewer than one-third as many people living in the United States as there are now. At the time, each member of Congress represented an average of about 200,000 people. In 2018, that number is almost 750,000.... To understand the implications of a larger House, we enlisted software developer Kevin Baas and his Auto-Redistrict program to draw 593 new congressional districts for the entire country... Then we used historical partisan scores to determine which party would win each district... [I]t would create a more competitive landscape, with 25 percent of seats qualifying as toss-ups, compared to just 10 percent today.... There’s no constitutional basis for a membership of 435; it’s arbitrary, and it could be undone by Congress tomorrow."

Says the Editorial Board of the NYT.

140 comments:

gilbar said...: 25% of seats being tossups? what are the other 75%, solid democrat?; 11/10/18, 1:00 PM
Ann Althouse said...: @gilbar There are some clear graphs at the link to answer your question.; 11/10/18, 1:02 PM
ALP said...: I feel ya. I often wonder why school kids still get summers off to help with the harvest.; 11/10/18, 1:02 PM
WK said...: Perhaps 435 had significance to the Freemasons.; 11/10/18, 1:03 PM
Hagar said...: It's working fine; let's don't fix it!; 11/10/18, 1:04 PM
tcrosse said...: Maybe that's as many as the House chamber can seat.; 11/10/18, 1:05 PM
Mark O said...: Next up to be packed: The Supreme Court.; 11/10/18, 1:06 PM
campy said...: Why don't we add 5 or 6 more presidents while we're at it? Maybe one was enough 100 years ago when those slaveowners wrote the constitution, but now? More!; 11/10/18, 1:07 PM
rhhardin said...: One representative per person gets rid of the possibility of gerrymandering. Then let everybody name a substitute for himself. Presumably substitute-candidates would announce themselves somewhere, for people who don't want to go themselves.; 11/10/18, 1:09 PM
mockturtle said...: Maybe that's as many as the House chamber can seat.

I thought about that, too. Maybe they should increase the number of Congressional seats but only have half convene at one time, taking turns every year. Better yet, have Congress meet once every two years, with each half represented.; 11/10/18, 1:11 PM
mockturtle said...: And reduce their benefits and perks accordingly. ;-); 11/10/18, 1:11 PM
Greybeard said...: The NYT thinks it's a good idea?
Then leave it alone.; 11/10/18, 1:16 PM
Xmas said...: I agree with this. It would even relieve some of the complaints about the electoral college being "unfair".; 11/10/18, 1:16 PM
Bill, Republic of Texas said...: I don't have an opinion about the proper size if the House.

But I have a very strong opinion about gerrymandered districts. Districts should be designed as simple as possible in the most compact size.

It is unacceptable that the representatives select their constituents and not the constituents select their representatives.; 11/10/18, 1:21 PM
Qwerty Smith said...: If the aim is to make officials better represent their constituents, then the Federalist Papers suggest that making the House larger would have the opposite result. Madison's argument about the House implies that 435 is already tending toward a size that would undermine the body's capacity for deliberation (hah!) and that larger numbers would simply enhance the powers of the House's leadership.

If the concern is about overcoming the electoral problems Democrats face as a result of their extreme concentration in urban areas, however, then making the House larger would indeed make sense. Current arrangements provide urban Democrats with slightly reduced representation.

This clashes with the aims of the Framers, who would have employed property requirements to ensure that the urban mob was wholly disenfranchised, rather than just slightly so. Perhaps we are mulling over the wrong reform...; 11/10/18, 1:23 PM
YoungHegelian said...: While not opposed to the idea of expansion of the House in principle, let me say that the timing of the NYT's sudden enthusiasm for the idea makes me more than a wee bit suspicious.; 11/10/18, 1:23 PM
Matt Sablan said...: The tradeoff to population density dinging you in the House is that local politics greatly favors those populations.; 11/10/18, 1:30 PM
Gahrie said...: This would increase the power of the cities over rural areas.; 11/10/18, 1:30 PM
Mike of Snoqualmie said...: Increasing the House size would reduce the relative strength of the small states in the electoral college. Their "Senate" votes would go from being 100 out of 535 (18.7%) to 100 out of 970 (10.3%). Thus giving New York and California a much bigger thumb on the Presidential election. That's why the NYT wants a bigger House.; 11/10/18, 1:33 PM
mccullough said...: Let’s cut their staff to one person. The reps have large staffs in their districts and in dc. The committees also have large staffs.

We need less, not more.

Let’s get rid of the House of Represenatives.; 11/10/18, 1:35 PM
Darkisland said...: Blogger Mark O said...

Next up to be packed: The Supreme Court.

Hey! I'm up for that. Lets add 6 more.

ISTR some Demmies in favor of more Supremes as recently as a couple month's ago. I am sure they had the country's best interests at heart and would not mind PDT appointing them.

Riiiiight?

FWIW, I wonder if PDT will get to appoint 4 Supremes in his first term? Justice Thomas has made noises in the past about wanting to retire. The Notorious RBG seems about due.

Then 1-2 more in his second term,maybe 3. All youngsters. Could he get to 7/9 of the Supremes? Still there in 2040-2050 or so? Yeah, bring it on.

How many lower court judges has he confirmed so far? Has he hit 100 yet?

MAGA, baby!

John Henry; 11/10/18, 1:38 PM
Churchy LaFemme: said...: There was an interesting thread in this vein on an SF group I read. Say you have a Galactic Empire which wants to be a democracy. How do you even do it? Even if you have a senate-like body where each planet gets a Senator, you have possibly millions of Senators, and if you have something done on a population basis like the House, forget it!; 11/10/18, 1:39 PM
hstad said...: Blogger Xmas said..."....It would even relieve some of the complaints about the electoral college being "unfair"....." 11/10/18, 1:16 PM

What an interesting comment? How? You do know that the Census updates representation every 10 years. What true ignorance abounds among us voters.

AA - since you are such a maven on reading articles from the NY Times. Do you ever remember the NY Times publishing an article advocating a decrease in the number of representatives.

My God, everyone, that's all we need more crooked politicians to pillage and feed at the public trough! We need less government, not more crooks!; 11/10/18, 1:40 PM
Darkisland said...: I question the Senate makeup.

Is it fair that a state like Texas only has two senators while miniscule Rhode Island (1/268th the size and 1/28th the population) also has 2?

Sounds awful undemocratic to me.

John Henry; 11/10/18, 1:42 PM
LYNNDH said...: More opportunity to pack ballot boxes by the Dems. Maybe there should be fewer house seats from populated cities and more from the countryside? Sounds fair to me.; 11/10/18, 1:43 PM
m stone said...: What Mike Smythe said.

Not only would NY and California have a bigger thumb on the scale, but major cities that tend to be ideological monoliths would have more influence. The NY Times has an agenda.

M; 11/10/18, 1:45 PM
mesquito said...: How many people work on capital hill as staff members for members of the house? How many would this add?; 11/10/18, 1:48 PM
Nonapod said...: I suspect that increasing granularity would almost certainly benefit more populated areas at the expense of more rural ones. It isn't hard to see why the NYT would be very in favor of that. And generally bringing in more people would also increase opportunities for graft and corruption. Increasing complexity always increases points of failure after all.

Fortunately it's probably unlikely that most representatives would be willing to ever vote for effectively less power for themselves.; 11/10/18, 1:49 PM
Dave Begley said...: What total and complete bullshit.

Yeah, let's get rid of that First Amendment too. That was drafted for a different age.

The Left falls back on the old appeal to authority via science. We have software to develop better House districts. BS.

Good thing no one pays attention to the failing New York Times.; 11/10/18, 1:51 PM
DEEBEE said...: Yes we should index the number for inflation.; 11/10/18, 1:52 PM
Roughcoat said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/10/18, 1:53 PM
Hagar said...: It is difficult for an individual member to be heard now. Increasing the size of the House will just further increase the power of the inner circle of Party leaders.; 11/10/18, 1:56 PM
tim in vermont said...: Whatever it takes to put The Party into a permanent majority. After having my vote stolen, I am not in a great mood.; 11/10/18, 1:57 PM
Marty said...: As to the NYT article, note that they choose a few small states as examples rather than specific big-population states/cities like NY and Cal. Second, even using their "new"districts, they end up with 236 Dem and 207 Rep with 150 supposedly tossup, which means dems need but 61 out of the 150 for majority. And take a look at where the alleged "tossup" districts are and whether they were dem or rep before the new districts (and ignore that "minor" caveat about compliance with current law, and ignore that the census counts residents, not citizens). Finally, the real point of the article seems to be (to me at least) that this would change the number of voters in the electoral college and thus give more power to the more populous states and urban areas. The NYT would prefer to do away with the electoral college but knows it's not going to happen, so this article sets out one of the less-obvious methods of getting where it wants to go - popular vote-getter wins (and the NYT assumes always, with some justification, that NY and Cal are dependable dem and that Texas will get there).; 11/10/18, 1:57 PM
Hagar said...: Have you seen the pictures of the Chinese and Russian "House" meetings?; 11/10/18, 1:57 PM
Matt Sablan said...: If they want more democracy, let's move to a by district instead of winner takes all for the Electoral College.; 11/10/18, 2:03 PM
Rory said...: I'd consider this if it was combined with moving the capital to Wichita.; 11/10/18, 2:14 PM
Dave Begley said...: Matthew Sablan:

Nebraska and one other state divide Electoral College votes by Congressional districts. It is a disaster. It leads to the splintering of the state's unity. So it's Omaha versus the rest of the state. City vs. rural. More tribalism. More Balkanization.

The only good thing about it is that Hillary wasted a bunch of money and time in Omaha chasing one EC vote when she could have been in WI. Idiot.; 11/10/18, 2:16 PM
jimbino said...: Why are we still honoring religions invented for bronze-age and stone-age cultures? And still genitally mutilating little boys in the process?; 11/10/18, 2:16 PM
Char Char Binks, Esq. said...: "One representative per person gets rid of the possibility of gerrymandering. Then let everybody name a substitute for himself. Presumably substitute-candidates would announce themselves somewhere, for people who don't want to go themselves."

That's perfect! Each person who doesn't want to go to Washington selects a champion. Those champions who have enough followers to make it worthwhile go to Congress. Put at least a one-per-million restriction on getting a seat. Then they can legislate by proxy, much the way those with a relatively high percentage of ownership in a corporation get to run things, or use their negotiating power to broker deals, if they so choose.; 11/10/18, 2:16 PM
Gulistan said...: Conservative Jonah Goldberg has been arguing for a bigger House for years:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2009/10/we-need-bigger-house-jonah-goldberg/; 11/10/18, 2:17 PM
MadisonMan said...: Better than nothing is a high standard. This idea (Filed under "things not suggested when a Democrat is in Office") does not meet that standard IMO.; 11/10/18, 2:18 PM
stevew said...: The more districts there are the less each individual district matters to the body's ability to do things. This would create even more coalition forming and building. Thus a system that is slow to decide anything would become even less efficient and decisive. For someone like me that wants less government and fewer laws this might actually be a good thing.

That said, seems obvious that the NYT wants a scheme that increasingly favors the political party they prefer. Where would many/most of these new districts come from? Big population centers, of course. How can anyone honestly argue that would not favor Democrats?; 11/10/18, 2:18 PM
Jersey Fled said...: Let's assume that the 435 that we have now are the best and the brightest. And this cohort includes Pelosi, Waters, Jackson, et al. So any additional reps we add would by definition be less best and less brightest.

No thanks.; 11/10/18, 2:24 PM
Gahrie said...: There is actually an active Constitutional Amendment that would greatly increase the size of the House of Representatives.

It's called "Article the First" because it was the first of a series of Constitutional amendments introduced by the First Congress immediately after the Constitution was ratified. Ten of them went on to become the Bill of Rights, the eleventh became the 27th Amendment two hundred years later. The last one can still be ratified.

Article the First came one state short of being ratified with the Bill of Rights. As more states have been added, it is now fairly far away of being ratified. As original written, this amendment would have set a limit of 1 representative for every 50,000 people. So there would be approximately fifteen times the number of representatives in the House. (That would mean nearly 7,000 members of the House. Nobody tell the Democrats.) However a less second change of a word from "less" to "more" has made the proposed amendment's effects unclear.; 11/10/18, 2:30 PM
Pettifogger said...: Jersey Fled said...

"Let's assume that the 435 that we have now are the best and the brightest."

That is the most depressing thought I'e heard expressed in a long time.; 11/10/18, 2:31 PM
Bilwick said...: If the NYT Editorial Board is for something, I'm guessing it can't be good for liberty.; 11/10/18, 2:32 PM
readering said...: Seems pretty sensible. It will have to happen someday, as the population continues to grow. Why not now when the dislocation less. The maps are interesting.; 11/10/18, 2:34 PM
rcocean said...: I'm amazed everyone is taking this "Boob Bait" seriously.

The Democrats (aka the NYT/WaP0 hate that the Democrat edge in votes doesn't translate into more Democrat Seats.

That's why they're always yelling about Gerrymandering. Its why Federal Judges - who are just Democrats in Robes - are suddenly finding "Gerrymandering" as "Unconstitutional"

Increasing the House seats accomplishes two things:

One, it dilutes the power the smaller more Republican states that get one ore two seats. Every state gets 1 Rep no matter what, and the other 385 are allocated based on population. Increase the House to 593 and you would have 543 seats based on Population.

Two, more seats means its harder to pack the D's into a few districts. SF for example, instead of having one seat, would have two. Chicago instead of having, what 10? Would have 16. Etc.

The D's hate that all their voters are packed into a small geographic area. Which means One way, to cure that is to have more House districts.

Again, where was the NYT's on this issue 10,20,30 years ago? Answer: They didn't care because the D's were doing OK.; 11/10/18, 2:37 PM
rcocean said...: Taking the NYT or Wapo or MSM seriously on ANY process issue is foolish.

They constantly flip flop based on whether it helps the D's.

When Reid/Schumer is Majority leader - the Filibuster must GO! Its a racist relic that undemocratic. When an R is Majority Leader - the Filibuster is the bulwark of Republic, saving us from the "Tyranny of the Majority"

When California was the state of Reagan - 2 Senate seats were enough. But now that its Feinstein-land, giving all those voters on 2 Senate is an outrage!; 11/10/18, 2:41 PM
James K said...: Substitute quantity for quality. I'd say go the other way, take it down to 250 or so. Saves a lot of money too.

But yeah, what MarkO said above: This is just the prologue to the argument for bringing SCOTUS up to 15--when the Democrats are in power, of course.; 11/10/18, 2:41 PM
WK said...: Say you have a Galactic Empire which wants to be a democracy. How do you even do it?

Very difficult to gerrymander because the member planets are not in fixed locations.; 11/10/18, 2:45 PM
bleh said...: Obviously this would make it much tougher for a Republican to win the presidency. The Electoral College would be enlarged but there would still only be 100 senators. The allotment of electors would be more proportional than under the current system.; 11/10/18, 2:52 PM
Bill Peschel said...: With apologies to the Firesign Theatre ...

Republicans: "What kind of fools do you take us for?"

NYT: "First class!"; 11/10/18, 2:58 PM
wild chicken said...: "We have software to develop better House districts. BS"

Operations research, baby! My old employer had a software suite for that about 1990. We even sold it to NYC.

But guess what, people still have to pick the parameters.

Dinkins admin stiffed us but
Giuliani guys made it good.; 11/10/18, 3:06 PM
tim in vermont said...: "I am altering the deal. Pray that I do not alter it further."; 11/10/18, 3:23 PM
chuck said...: Summary: The Constitution is outdated because Republicans can be elected.

Shorter Summary: Republicans should be made illegal.

My Proposal: Walled cities are a great old idea. Lock them in.

My opinion: I think the congress is too big as is.; 11/10/18, 3:23 PM
Ken B said...: 435 is arbitrary. 593 is natural.

Double it. Halve staffs. Halve perks. Cut salaries 60%; 11/10/18, 3:32 PM
Paddy O said...: Why do we need representatives at all? With today's technology, we all have the ability to vote instantly on any given topic. Why should someone who doesn't know me or my family get to say what I want just because I live near them? It's absurd!; 11/10/18, 3:32 PM
Tank said...: Who whom.

All the way down.; 11/10/18, 3:37 PM
Static Ping said...: If Democrats were winning, they wouldn't care.

They may have a point, mind you, but this is bad faith all the way down.; 11/10/18, 3:43 PM
Static Ping said...: Lots of things are all the way down, apparently.; 11/10/18, 3:43 PM
Drago said...: readering: "Seems pretty sensible."

LOL

We'll just add this to the lost list of things the left thinks is sensible, including getting rid of most of the Bill of Rights, gutting almost every clause of the Constitution, and replacing citizens with mass open borders immigration.; 11/10/18, 3:46 PM
cubanbob said...: Why not use a number that only counts US citizens in full possession of their civil rights for the base number to determine the number of House seats along with a residency requirement of six months and a day?; 11/10/18, 3:49 PM
Sam L. said...: Just ONE MORE REASON to distrust the NYT. Not to mention, despise and detest.; 11/10/18, 3:50 PM
cronus titan said...: Silly idea for a number of reasons. First, 100 years ago, mass communication was non-existent. One congressman for 200,000 people was inadequate to represent a district. Reaching 750,000 people, and for 750,000 people to reach their representative, today is relatively easy. There is a better argument to reduce the number of Representative. It is already unwieldy. Second, it solves nothing. Gerrymandering would still rule the roost.
There would just be a lot more of it.

The NYT is trying to come up with a scheme that diminishes voters it does not care for. Nothing more, nothing less.; 11/10/18, 3:52 PM
Darrell said...: Add 1000 telecommuting Representatives. There is no reason in this day and age to show up in person.

To make things convenient upfront, Trump can name the first group.; 11/10/18, 3:52 PM
Lance said...: No amount of Constitutional tinkering will solve any national problem. Today’s problems stem from the nation’s character, not its Constitution.; 11/10/18, 3:55 PM
Martin said...: The real issue here is the recent determination, which has become common knowledge, that Democrats suffer a bit because their support is so concentrated in mono-party urban districts. More, smaller districts, would address that.

This has NOTHING to do with any more elevated concept of representation, and criticizing it as failing in that regard is beside the real point. It is simply something they think would help the Democratic Party, no more and no less.; 11/10/18, 4:00 PM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: I think we should change the number of house seats just to screw with Nate Silver's website choice.; 11/10/18, 4:01 PM
WWIII Joe Biden, Husk-Puppet + America's Putin said...: Great. More representatives who get to opt out of ObamaCare AND live off the tax payer dime.; 11/10/18, 4:02 PM
Earnest Prole said...: America hates congressmen almost as much as it hates lawyers and journalists, so the New York Times' bright idea is to make more of them?; 11/10/18, 4:04 PM
Unknown said...: In other words, we don't like the outcome, so let's change the rules.; 11/10/18, 4:17 PM
Churchy LaFemme: said...: No amount of Constitutional tinkering will solve any national problem. Today’s problems stem from the nation’s character, not its Constitution.

This.

The Roman constitution was kind of stupid, but it worked as long as the Romans believed in Rome. After that, not so well.; 11/10/18, 4:20 PM
Leland said...: Why read newspapers founded in the 19th Century? It is the 21st Century; read blogs!; 11/10/18, 4:20 PM
Fabi said...: I've argued for a larger HoR for years. I would also like their terms to be four years; with the senate eight.; 11/10/18, 4:27 PM
The Godfather said...: The 1st Congress had 65 Representatives. I'm a traditionalist, so I think we should go back to that number. After all, the 1st Congress was one of the most successful we've ever had -- adopted the Bill of Rights, adopted the Northwest Ordinance, etc. That would assure every State one Representative, and the remaining 15 seats would be divided among the largest States, say Cal. +5, TX +4, FL +3, NY +3. Congressional staffs and related expenses would be dramatically reduced. Also, opportunities for gerrymandering would be significantly reduced, which ought to make the NYT happy, right? Right?; 11/10/18, 4:28 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Blogger Drago said...
. . .

We'll just add this to the lost list of things the left thinks is sensible, including getting rid of most of the Bill of Rights, gutting almost every clause of the Constitution, and replacing citizens with mass open borders immigration.

In order to preserve political norms!; 11/10/18, 4:30 PM
BUMBLE BEE said...: IT'S BROKEN... ONLY WE KNOW HOW TO FIX IT.
Project manager... ms. Snipes? Didn't that Barry guy redraw his Chicago district cleverly?; 11/10/18, 4:39 PM
Xmas said...: hstad said...

What an interesting comment? How? You do know that the Census updates representation every 10 years. What true ignorance abounds among us voters.

---

Census driven House seat distributions have nothing to do with this discussion. I wrote about a direct consequence of decreasing the population per House seat. This will help address the complaint that smaller states are too over-represented in the EC. Wyoming gets one electoral college voter per ~147K of their population while California has 1 EC vote per 500K their population. Increasing the number of House seats and decreasing the population per Congressperson will directly affect the population per EC vote in the same way.

If you want to make it more fair, I'd even suggest ending winner-take-all for the states and suggest that each state use the Maine/Nebraska method of distributing EC votes. This is certainly a much better method than the "State's EC Votes go to the National Popular Vote Winner" approach that is being tossed around. Unfortunately, that method may win out because people come into policy and politics discussions and deliberately misinterpret what other people are saying while implying they are ignorant. This makes everyone angry. Unfortunately, in such an environment, the angriest voices win. The angriest people are often the ones with the worst ideas.; 11/10/18, 4:46 PM
Kevin said...: Aren't newspapers and media companies a product of last-century thinking?

Why don't we shut them down and use the internet to let millions of people write news articles and opinion pieces and end the monopoly the media outlets have which disenfranchise and no longer serve our growing population?; 11/10/18, 4:49 PM
Kevin said...: The NYT would prefer to do away with the electoral college but knows it's not going to happen, so this article sets out one of the less-obvious methods of getting where it wants to go

Another installment of the NYT's Naked Power Grab series, which also serves to distract the discussion from what's happening in Florida and Arizona.

None of this was an issue when Barack was President, and wouldn't be an issue had Hillary won.; 11/10/18, 4:52 PM
BUMBLE BEE said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/10/18, 4:53 PM
cacimbo said...: Democrats are fighting the citizenship question on the census. They fear Republicans will say people in the country illegally should not be counted for the purposes of distributing Representatives for the House. If we removed the twelve million plus illegal population out of the calculations - the Cities would lose big.; 11/10/18, 4:55 PM
BUMBLE BEE said...: Shall be led like lambs to the slaughter...; 11/10/18, 4:56 PM
CWJ said...: If it saved my current congressman the problem of pretending to represent the sacrificial rural and suburban makeweights outside of east Kansas City, then I actually might be in favor.; 11/10/18, 4:58 PM
BUMBLE BEE said...: TWELVE MILLION???, that's what a variety of search strings into google produce many pages deep
Try this estimate from the right wing bastions of YALE-MIT:

The U.S. government and most groups put the number of undocumented immigrants at around 11 million to 12 million, but researchers from Yale and MIT give a “conservative” number of 16. 7 million in 2016 and an average of 22 million, according to Yale Insights.

Government figures often obscure "chain migration " as well.; 11/10/18, 5:02 PM
CWJ said...: "We’re nearly two decades into the 21st century, so why is America still operating with a House of Representatives built for the start of the 20th?"

Because nothing of which anyone has thought or experienced prior to our birth has any value. Next up, applying that sentence to the US Constitution itself. "Built for" rather than "built at" is the tell; conflating time with purpose.; 11/10/18, 5:07 PM
BUMBLE BEE said...: Bloomberg reported the study could validate claims made by President Trump that the real number on undocumented immigrants in the country is as high as 30 million and could offer ammunition for the president and immigration critics to take a harder stance on the issue.

https://insights.som.yale.edu/about-yale-insights

From Bloomberg:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201193; 11/10/18, 5:08 PM
BUMBLE BEE said...: America's schoolchildren have NO idea about the whys and wherefores of American Civics. I see this whole "it's broke" dance as battlefield prep for the next generations. Fundamentally Transforming, as the story goes.; 11/10/18, 5:13 PM
Yancey Ward said...: Gerrymandering ability would be enhanced by a larger house, not reduced- this isn't argument to reduce gerrymandering.; 11/10/18, 5:17 PM
Yancey Ward said...: The real reason that the NY Times favors a larger house is the Electoral College- a larger house dilutes the influence of smaller, less populous states. Indeed, that is the only reason the NYTimes supports this idea. I can't read the article- do they even mention that fact about the Electoral College?; 11/10/18, 5:21 PM
mezzrow said...: "if you let us add correct some long-term defects in the SCOTUS, we promise to forget about that extra 150 seats for the House and removal of advice and consent for the Senate."

"This cycle, anyway."

"Promise."; 11/10/18, 5:28 PM
tim in vermont said...: If you want the party to be supreme, this is the way to go. We could have a log rolling racial spoils system; 11/10/18, 5:28 PM
tolkein said...: I don't think this is a bad idea. Of course, it coming from the NYT, one suspects the suggestion is partisan. But even suggestions from people you are suspicious of may be correct. After all, even if Fox or CNN say the world is round, doesn't make it not so.; 11/10/18, 5:30 PM
mezzrow said...: This is your weekend virtual strikethrough exercise. Choose only one from "add" or "correct" in the entry above.

Thank you.; 11/10/18, 5:30 PM
BUMBLE BEE said...: Consider the advertising revenues from campaigning for all these objective publishers of wisdom. Why, it could save a dying industry. Recall the Soetoro stimulus package (for education)? I do... seems the millions went toward rescuing teacher's pensions. And... GM was at death's door. Ignore the tens of thousands of mechanics and office workers and porters downsized Robber Barons "obsoleted" their competition's (dealerships) market share. Cash for clunkers was a godsend as well. They got a million ideas!
Too much info too much litigation.; 11/10/18, 5:33 PM
James K said...: There's just as strong an argument for increasing the number of senators per state. OMG, it's been the same since the population of the US was under 4 million! Let's go to three per state. Oh, but that would help Republicans.; 11/10/18, 5:34 PM
Michael said...: Fine. And have Congress meet every other year in a town at least a six hour drive from a Palm Restaurant. And pay by the number of laws removed from the books.; 11/10/18, 5:35 PM
CWJ said...: When in practice legislation succeeds or fails on the basis of holding your caucus together, the idea that any of these people actually represent the interests of their districts (other than pork) is a cruel joke. So actual representation (pork) is orthogonal to the issue at hand.*

* - This is why on a larger scale McCaskill finally lost so handily in Missouri. For all her posturing as a moderate, she delivered the pork to herself and her husband, rather than Missouri. As I said elsewhere, her early ditching of Hillary for Obama in 2008 and her towing the line voting record should have resulted in huge rewards to Missouri. That they didn't happen made Hawley's claims that McCaskill lined her family's pockets that much more credible.; 11/10/18, 5:37 PM
WK said...: Why does it seem that the solution to any perceived problem is to make government bigger?; 11/10/18, 5:44 PM
mockturtle said...: Aren't newspapers and media companies a product of last-century thinking?

The press conference is certainly an anachronism.; 11/10/18, 5:45 PM
Left Bank of the Charles said...: Why not go the other direction? In 1789 there were 69 members in the House and 26 in the Senate, a ratio of 2.5 House members per Senator. We could restablish that ratio by reducing the size of the House to 251 (250 plus 1 for DC). And isn’t in obvious that Trump will want to do this before the 2020 election?; 11/10/18, 5:46 PM
Jupiter said...: Assigning representatives according to geographical location is an anachronism, held over from an age in which the average speed of travel was 15 miles per day. We should have a fixed number X of representatives, and anyone can give his vote to any candidate. The X candidates with the highest votes get elected.; 11/10/18, 5:51 PM
Jupiter said...: Or cut to the chase, and just apportion House seats on the basis of race and sex. Let the games begin.; 11/10/18, 5:53 PM
Unknown said...: As if gubmint isn’t already too bloated, expensive, and ineffective as it is.; 11/10/18, 6:08 PM
iowan2 said...: America's schoolchildren have NO idea about the whys and wherefores of American Civics.

Several years ago my daughter came home from High School and said that her Govt teacher told the class the electoral collage should be eliminated. It was an old idea the nation had grown out of. So asked what purpose the EC served, oh so long ago. She just looked at me. The end of the story is that the TEACHER never explained the reason for the EC and the founders phobia about direct democracy.
I asked the teacher at conferences about the exchange I had with my daughter and asked him what the original purpose served if it no longer applies today. He mumble something about slavery, and "this day and age". He either had no idea or feared he was going to look stupid in a substantive exchange of ideas.
This is all planned out in DC to churn out students with no notion of rights, and the power citizens have. Better to develop a dependent class.; 11/10/18, 6:15 PM
Narayanan said...: I'm okay with increase House Seats, if each State get six Senator, election every year for turnover; 11/10/18, 6:23 PM
Crimso said...: I've seen a couple of comments include something to the effect of "each state gets at least one representative." There is already a provision for representation of the states. It's called the Senate. The 17th Amendment screwed that up.; 11/10/18, 6:26 PM
Jeff said...: Hey, I've got a better idea. Let's make each House district the same geographic size. Why reward people for overcrowding?; 11/10/18, 6:27 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: We’re nearly two decades into the 21st century, so why does the NY Times still support socialism?; 11/10/18, 6:37 PM
cacimbo said...: @ Jeff, That actually makes more sense.; 11/10/18, 6:43 PM
rcocean said...: California is doing just fine with 2 Senators. That's 1 per 15 million or so.

Maybe we should shoot for that ratio?; 11/10/18, 6:53 PM
rcocean said...: I agree on increasing the House to 593 but lets divide the additional 158 seats equally between the 50 states. Every state would get about 3 extra seats.; 11/10/18, 6:55 PM
Jupiter said...: Jeff said...
"Hey, I've got a better idea. Let's make each House district the same geographic size. Why reward people for overcrowding?"

I'm liking this idea! Proportional representation for dirt! Dirt would vote more wisely than most people anyway. Except that maybe we should make a paved acre only count for 3/5 of an unpaved acre.; 11/10/18, 7:11 PM
Edmund said...: If you take the population of the least populated state, Wyoming, and divide that by the population of the US, you get about 572 in the House.; 11/10/18, 7:28 PM
grimson said...: It's all BS. This only comes up because Democrats think they should be the majority.

FiveThirtyEight redrew Congressional districts based upon 8 different criteria. The GOP received more expected seats than Democrats in every approach but one--a Democratic gerrymander.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-maps/; 11/10/18, 7:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Pardon me if I am suspicious of anything the NYT claims is good for us.; 11/10/18, 7:40 PM
rehajm said...: So each one of these douchbags gets the full boat healthcare plan and the saving and security plan and the job on K Street when they lose?

I’ll pass...; 11/10/18, 7:41 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: Well you look at how people treat Great Men like WFB.

LOOK!

Buckley Online
This website contains the complete writings of William F. Buckley, Jr. Transcripts from his longrunning TV show, Firing Line are available at the Hoover Institution.

NOTE: This website also uses pop-ups. Please add it to your list of trusted websites in your browser's pop-up blocker settings.

"Well, thanks to Hillsdale College,it is all here, a lifetime's work. Necessarily, you will find infelicities here, and maybe a deviation or two, but it is all an earnest attempt to contribute to the patrimony, preserved here thanks to Hillsdale." W.F.B.

https://cumulus.hillsdale.edu/Buckley/

It.

It, it it it.

It... it.

It. It...; 11/10/18, 7:50 PM
Known Unknown said...: "election every year for turnover"

Incumbents would almost always win.; 11/10/18, 7:55 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: This 47th time, author's exist so underlings can think of themselves as other than underlings.; 11/10/18, 7:55 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: I may write for a living, but my writing does 87 times what a lawyer produces net/net, and only half that of a plumber.

Maybe a third.; 11/10/18, 7:57 PM
tim maguire said...: Democrats are all for protecting minority rights. So long as they decide what the rights are and direct the protecting.; 11/10/18, 8:17 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: "author's"

Referring to possessions natch, i.e. referring to you the reader possessed.

It is why Altouse is Althouse, no books.

Demean her now, if you find it worthwhile. It makes her stronger and this is not Star Wars.

There is no cog dis.; 11/10/18, 8:25 PM
Henry said...: I'd like Congress to try 434 first.; 11/10/18, 8:28 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: Cognizance of no Cog Dif ain't easy congruence.; 11/10/18, 8:41 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: Boys in the hood is always hard.; 11/10/18, 8:43 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: If I were Lasli I would be like:

No no no, you gotta think about how the audience sees it, were here for them.

No no no, no you can't say because actors exist we must let them play the tune, haven't you seen ALL ABOUT EVE?

What?

All About Eve.

What?

I'm sorry is this a film festival?

What?

Uhm...; 11/10/18, 8:48 PM
Ambrose said...: Here we are in 2018 - why is pi still 3.14? We have enlisted (paid) Kevin Baas who insists that pi should be at least 5.; 11/10/18, 8:49 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: "were"

This might be the greatest thing I've ever written, or could indeed write.; 11/10/18, 8:55 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: Obvioulsy were I respected WFB would, as he ought be, considered 20/20 so much larger than JFK it makes you think it must be the giant Irish cockeries than mere obvioulsyness.; 11/10/18, 9:04 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: Ooh...

For a short time makin' up definitions and being absurd was kinda cool...

Ain't.; 11/10/18, 9:07 PM
tcrosse said...: Where would they all live? DC is crowded enough as it is.; 11/10/18, 9:32 PM
Unknown said...: Why would having a slightly closer relationship to a representative in a much larger deliberative body necessary be better (from a democratic normative perspective) than having a slightly more distant relationship to a representative in a smaller body where the representative actually has a chance to influence policy?; 11/10/18, 10:10 PM
Kelly said...: In this day and age there is no reason for a congressperson to move to DC. They can teleconference while continuing their full time job. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made me aware of the hardship new, working class Congress people face. This should help out. Plus, the sexiness of being a powerful member of congress would deteriorate (hopefully) with not being fawned over and whined and dined by lobbyists.; 11/10/18, 10:36 PM
Danno said...: Whined and dined? Is that what happens when antifa shows up at your restaurant?; 11/11/18, 4:14 AM
RMc said...: As originally written, this amendment would have set a limit of 1 representative for every 50,000 people.

Actually, Article the First sez one Rep for every 30,000 people up to the first 100, then one for every 40,000 for the next 100, then one for every 50,000 thereafter. In a nation of 329MM people, that adds up to about 6,640 Congresscritters. (California alone would have nearly 800!) No thanks.; 11/11/18, 5:57 AM
Unknown said...: It will also dilute the influence of the small states in the Electoral College, which allots one vote for each senator and representative. That's the Times's real agenda.; 11/11/18, 3:06 PM
becauseIdbefired said...: Just what the house needs. More people with agendas to increase the gridlock.

Naturally, as Unknown says and as Mark O. implies, the real purpose is to increase representation for the big Blues.; 11/12/18, 5:02 AM