This is a really interesting post on the ways that population shift has made our government structures obsolete:
- The ratio of small-state to large-state populations has increased. In 1790, Virginia had 12.5 times the population of Delaware. Today, California has 70 times the population of Wyoming. In 1790, Senators representing 14.7% of the population could sustain a filibuster under today's rules; today, that figure is 9.9%. I'm fine with the somewhat countermajoritarian nature of the Senate, but it's clear that things have gotten a little bit out of hand.
. . .
- Travel is much faster, but the country is much larger. As recently as the 1960s, DC airports didn't have direct flights to much of the country. The common practice of Congress was to stay in the District for seven months, then stay in their home state or district and meet with constituents for five months. Today, most members fly home every weekend, even during session. This puts tremendous strain on Western members, who must endure six hour flights while their colleagues in New York can catch an hourly shuttle that gets them home in 45 minutes. At this point, it seems fair to consider moving the capitol, or at least having an auxiliary capitol that might be used every other year. The population center of the US is currently in central Missouri and continues to march West, so either moving the capitol to Kansas City, or putting a secondary capitol in Denver should do the trick.
Somewhat separately, there is now tremendous pressure to be in one's home district all the time. When combined with the crush of fundraising, this limits the time that members have to collaborate with one another. We ought to make Constitutional provisions to ensure that members have the time and space to meet, rather than rely on staff at all times.
- The population has grown-a lot. The House has not kept up. The constitution mandates a state can have no more than one member of the House for each 30,000 residents. In the initial apportionment of the House, Pennsylvania received one for each 55,000 residents. Today each member represents about 700,000 residents. With a district sized to 1790 standards, a candidate could canvass the entire population in one Friedman Unit, meaning that every member would theoretically be vulnerable to a low-cost challenger. In addition, the effectiveness of TV advertising would drop to zero in most urban areas. Though, a figure that low would have other problems. California alone would have 650 members; Wyoming would have 9; the House as a whole would have 5454 members, which is clearly unworkable. In general, European countries have around one member per 100,000 residents; Japan, one per 265,000 residents; Russia, one per 320,000 residents. We ought to think about whether it's possible to have a much larger House with smaller congressional districts, with the hope that members will be more responsive to a smaller population and unable to win elections merely by blanketing the airwaves.
The problem is, of course, that the forces mitigating against any of these sorts of changes seem fairly well entrenched. So I'm not sure what good it does to talk about.
It is, however, a very good argument for federalism--devolving power down to the level of the states wherever possible. That makes legislators much more directly responsive to their constituents. Unfortunately, few people seem to really like that idea, since it means that a lot of the time, legislators in places other than the one in which you live will respond to the demands of their constituents in ways of which you disapprove.
The European Parliament is probably more equivalent to the House of Representatives than individual European parliaments. It has 785 members representing 492 million people - so each member represents about 626,000 residents.
"It is, however, a very good argument for federalism--devolving power down to the level of the states wherever possible."
You mean, like, having a Government that abides by the Constitution?
Wow, MM, you Radical.
Next you'll be wondering what happened to the 10th Amendment.
On the second point, a more obvious solution, to me, would be to just do away with a physical legislature altogether. Why not just have some internet chat room or videoconferencing? Unless of course, you *like* it when people with a stronger physical presence are better able to get their way...
"In 1790, Senators representing 14.7% of the population could sustain a filibuster under today's rules; today, that figure is 9.9%"
Actually, from 1806 to 1917 the Senate did not have a cloture rule. It worked under "unlimited debate" so theoretically only one senator could block legislation.
In 1917 a cloture rule was established (2/3 of those voting. The current rule is 60 senators (3/5ths).
I would imagine that the "least-representative" senator prior to 1917 was way under 9.9%.
In theory, state government should be more responsive, but in practice I think it tends to be captured by special interests (I live in California).
Problems 2 and 3 could be solved by term limits--e.g., one 4 year term for a congressman, one 8 year term for a senator. Then there would not have to be so many trips home to raise funds for the next election. Moreover, with the reduction or elimination of the fundraising, there would be less corrupt influence and the fact that a congressman represents many, rather than fewer, people would be less significant if he were acting honestly and in good faith, in contrast to our current situation where he is acting to get reelected.
It is, however, a very good argument for federalism--devolving power down to the level of the states wherever possible.
Few central governments contain many people keen on devolving power from the central government. No one in Washington - or any other capital - is ever going to try to sell this to the electorate, so the electorate never gets a chance to have a meaningful opinion, much less vote.
Same in the rest of the world.
I would love to see 5,000+ members of Congress. What are the odds that they'd be able to accomplish anything? Then maybe state and local governments would step in and start doing stuff to fill the vacuum.
If I had a magic wand, I'd enact term limits for Congress and for laws. All laws would expire after 10 years unless they were re-passed (I'd be willing to discuss the 10 year limit).
EI
California's US House delegation grows with each census. It may not be many more decades before its House delegation (now 46) has more members than the lower house of its State Legislature (the Assembly, with 80) It seems like it would be a worthwhile experiment for California or another state to expand their state legislature to achieve the kinds of ratios a 5400 member Congress would imply.
For God's sake don't move the capitol to Kansas City. It's a nice town.