We need to make the
House of Representatives…
bigger.
Now I know what some might be thinking:
“Make the government bigger?”
Well, technically yes.
But that's missing the point.
We need to expand the House to make
the government work better, and be more responsive
to our needs.
Put simply:
The House of Representatives
does not have enough members to adequately
represent all 334 million of us.
Now, the House hasn’t always had
435 members and it was never intended
to stay the same size forever.
For the first 140 years of America’s existence,
a growing House of Representatives was
actually the norm.
It wasn’t until 1929
that Congress arbitrarily decided to cap the size
of the House at 435 members.
Back then, each House member represented
roughly 200,000 people.
But since then,
the population of the United States
has more than tripled, bringing the average
number of constituents up to roughly 760,000.
Compared to other democracies, we're
one of the worst in terms of how many
constituents a single legislator is supposed
to represent.
Only in India does the average representative
have more constituents.
And as America continues to grow
it's only going to get worse.
Think your representative doesn’t listen to you now?
Well, you just wait.
Not surprisingly, research shows that representatives
from more populous House districts tend
to be less accessible to their constituents,
and less popular.
Thankfully, the solution is simple:
allow the House to grow.
Increasing the number of representatives
should be a no brainer for at least four reasons:
First, logically, more representatives would mean
fewer people in each congressional district
— improving the quality of representation.
Second, a larger House would be more diverse.
Despite recent progress, today’s House is still
overwhelmingly male, white, and middle-aged.
More representatives means more opportunities for
young people, people of color, and women
to run for office — and win.
Third, this reduces the power of Big Money.
Running an election in a smaller district
would be less expensive, increasing the likelihood
that people elect representatives that
respond to their interests rather than big corporations
and the wealthy.
Fourth, this would help
reduce the Electoral College’s
bias toward small states
in presidential elections.
As more heavily populated
states gain more
representatives in Congress
— they also gain more
electoral votes.
Now, some might say that a larger House of
Representatives would be unwieldy and unmanageable.
Well, Japan, Germany, France, and the UK
— countries with smaller populations than us —
all have larger legislatures — and they manage just fine.
Others might say that it would be too difficult
— or expensive — to accommodate more
representatives in the Capitol.
“Are there even enough chairs???”
Seriously?
Look, we’ve done it before.
The current Capitol has been expanded to accommodate
more members several times — and it can be done again.
A building should not be an obstacle to a more
representative democracy.
Increasing the size of the House is an achievable goal.
We don’t even need a constitutional amendment.
Congress only needs to pass a law to expand the
number of representatives, which it’s done numerous times.
And as it happens, there is a bill — in fact two!
Each would add more than 130 seats to the House
and lower the number of constituents a
typical representative serves from 760,000
to a little over 570,000.
Plus, there is a mechanism for
adding new members down the line.
These bills are our best chance to restore
the tradition of a House that grows in representation
as America grows.
It’s time for us to think big
— and make the People’s House
live up to its name.