Lindsay, your posts are a breath of fresh air in a very, very smoggy political environment. Thank you for this post. This is something I have imagined as a step towards national repair for quite some time. I would like to add one small point.... in order for the House of Representatives to be closer to their constituents, I feel it would be fitting for the House to de-centralize, having Representative's political offices ONLY in their districts. This would help facilitate the practicalities of an ever-expanding House, it would require Representatives to be close to their constituents on an ongoing basis, facilitating interaction, and - very importantly - would make lobbying much more difficult by interests outside of the district. Let's hope that your ideas are seen by influential eyes. Thank you for your obvious love of our country...
Mrs. Chervinsky, Great information. You make some great points. I definitely get behind such legislation for the reason you stated, as well as some others. I am curious to know your thoughts on Congressional terms to include why our founding fathers failed to include them in the U.S. Constitution.
Fascinating factual journey and ideas here. Thank you for thinking so hard about how we turn the corner from where we are today. I would add a constitutional amendment that says corporations are legal fictions and not people protected by the constitution. women are people so everywhere it says men and man means male and female or however a person identifies, they are a person entitled to protection of rights under the constitution.
But we could make it perfectly clear and that is fair and right as the vote for married women just got taken away in the big bill- if you took your husband’s name.
Very interesting. I wonder if there's a way to sue to have the Permanent Appro Act 1929 declared unconstitutional, which it seems it is assuming Reynolds v Sims and Wesberry v. Sanders still matter (one person, one vote). Obviously, this SCOTUS would reject any argument that limits GOP power but a SCOTUS case could bring much needed light to this.
Or, if Dems got a gavel they could start hacking at the foundations of the 1929 act ('it's crowded, move over') and force CSPAN to, rather than the present rule thanks to Newton 'she turned me into a Newt' Gingrich ('I didn't get better') that bars showing the House gallery, and show how often speeches are made to a room of empty chairs. For those that don't know, that's quite often.
I like this idea in theory, but the practical implications are challenging. Where and how are you going to gather around 800 representatives? Office space and staff would be a monumental undertaking. And debate? Seems extremely unwieldy to me. Our current legislature is unlikely to vote for this, just like they won't vote for term limits. Term limits would be a much simpler solution. This is why I'm in favor of a Convention of States to enact a constitutional amendment for term limits and other ways of limiting the federal government.
Term limits would be a good solution too but it alone won’t stop the gerrymandering. Weighted voting is an interesting animal that could make gerrymandering ineffective. We do have to be cognizant of larger numbers reducing overall effectiveness but then again- we have an internet too. I’m surprised no one has advocated for direct democracy vote on bills, given the ease of internet participation but then we are a republic- if we can keep it!
You are probably correct about term limits not helping with gerrymandering. It is interesting that you brought up direct democracy! Has it ever worked anywhere? My knowledge on this is hazy, but I seem to remember that even Athens couldn't properly manage direct democracy. It would be instructive to hear more about this from someone knowledgeable.
Well- we have the internet. Can you imagine if we voted directly on the budget that is required to be balanced? What if the items to vote on showed up in our email daily? I just don’t see us being smart or committed enough as a group but it is intriguing and it is ultimate control over taxation and spending as well as policy and legal standards. This would be real majority rule. The fact that we are talking about g about solutions is hopeful and this article was well developed in good arguments.
This is really interesting and something I never thought of. You already laid out that it would be advantageous for both parties and our democracy, but do you think that members of Congress would vote for it?
Okay, her name is Danielle Susan Allen the James Bryant Conant University Professor at Harvard. Her writings about the fix for democracy are similar to these noted above. ⬆️
I get the point. Set the scale of districts to the scope that a given representative can actually understand the needs and desires of the people in those districts. I’m just not sure the resultant size of the house would be effective. My experience is that the effectiveness of a given large meeting reduces proportionally to the number of people in that meeting. My issue with both houses of congress is that there aren’t effectively 435 representatives and 100 senators. There are really only effectively two that are aligned along party lines. This has been exacerbated by the people themselves. They’ve allowed 40+ years of 24/7 “news” designed not to inform, but to captivate attention to increase market share coupled with sensationalized and outright false partisan claims intended to propagandize those people into demonizing that party’s opponent. Would smaller districts break this spiral of democratic decay and dilute partisan control of the house? I’m not sure. It certainly won’t fix the senate. I believe fixing gerrymandering is key. This will take a 28th amendment. I’d like to see that amendment require states to create districts in a straight up contiguous grid with as close to exactly equal population squares as possible and district boundaries parallel to latitude and longitude lines. Some districts would be partisan. Some would be blended from a partisan perspective. Racial and economic demographics would be up to chance, but let those chips fall where they may. My hope is the blended districts would begin the process of forcing some level of compromise on which this nation was founded. I think something like this essential whether the districts are 700,000 or 30,000.
Perhaps you'll consider the relationship of the New Hampshire state legislators, who, by district, are many in comparison with the number of their constituents. That state maintains a tradition of self-limited terms in legislative office. You may also want to look at: legally limited congressional terms, instead of an enlarged House; and the mechanics of growing the number; and why the 1929 objections would be overridden by your proposed solution to today's circumstances; and how and why a dissatisfied public would support a much larger source of that dissatisfaction; and how vastly increased memo-chasing would promote efficiency; and why it is important for the Electoral College tally to more nearly match the popular vote numbers; and what to do as the census goes up and up. Wouldn't practical difficulties prove even worse than the way things are now?
So glad to see your thoughts for a better future in our government. In the malaise of the moment, it is important to plan for and recognize the future will be, needs to be better government. I appreciate your excellent work and positive thinking expressed in this article.
Interesting idea- I am wondering if at the same time we should look at the idea of term limits for Congress especially in the House. I know that would be more difficult and take an amendment, but I think these 2 in tandem would definitely help the representatives be more accountable to those they represent.
as always, your insights provide a shining beacon to help those of us who care to find a way through the current miasma! Thank you Dr C. dh
Lindsay, your posts are a breath of fresh air in a very, very smoggy political environment. Thank you for this post. This is something I have imagined as a step towards national repair for quite some time. I would like to add one small point.... in order for the House of Representatives to be closer to their constituents, I feel it would be fitting for the House to de-centralize, having Representative's political offices ONLY in their districts. This would help facilitate the practicalities of an ever-expanding House, it would require Representatives to be close to their constituents on an ongoing basis, facilitating interaction, and - very importantly - would make lobbying much more difficult by interests outside of the district. Let's hope that your ideas are seen by influential eyes. Thank you for your obvious love of our country...
Mrs. Chervinsky, Great information. You make some great points. I definitely get behind such legislation for the reason you stated, as well as some others. I am curious to know your thoughts on Congressional terms to include why our founding fathers failed to include them in the U.S. Constitution.
Very interesting. Thanks
Fascinating factual journey and ideas here. Thank you for thinking so hard about how we turn the corner from where we are today. I would add a constitutional amendment that says corporations are legal fictions and not people protected by the constitution. women are people so everywhere it says men and man means male and female or however a person identifies, they are a person entitled to protection of rights under the constitution.
There are a number of places in the Constitution where is says persons. That would seem to cover everyone no matter how one identifies.
But we could make it perfectly clear and that is fair and right as the vote for married women just got taken away in the big bill- if you took your husband’s name.
It is always great to hear the point of view of someone who is educated and intelligent rather than the worthless noise we commonly hear each day.
Very interesting. I wonder if there's a way to sue to have the Permanent Appro Act 1929 declared unconstitutional, which it seems it is assuming Reynolds v Sims and Wesberry v. Sanders still matter (one person, one vote). Obviously, this SCOTUS would reject any argument that limits GOP power but a SCOTUS case could bring much needed light to this.
Or, if Dems got a gavel they could start hacking at the foundations of the 1929 act ('it's crowded, move over') and force CSPAN to, rather than the present rule thanks to Newton 'she turned me into a Newt' Gingrich ('I didn't get better') that bars showing the House gallery, and show how often speeches are made to a room of empty chairs. For those that don't know, that's quite often.
I like this idea in theory, but the practical implications are challenging. Where and how are you going to gather around 800 representatives? Office space and staff would be a monumental undertaking. And debate? Seems extremely unwieldy to me. Our current legislature is unlikely to vote for this, just like they won't vote for term limits. Term limits would be a much simpler solution. This is why I'm in favor of a Convention of States to enact a constitutional amendment for term limits and other ways of limiting the federal government.
Term limits would be a good solution too but it alone won’t stop the gerrymandering. Weighted voting is an interesting animal that could make gerrymandering ineffective. We do have to be cognizant of larger numbers reducing overall effectiveness but then again- we have an internet too. I’m surprised no one has advocated for direct democracy vote on bills, given the ease of internet participation but then we are a republic- if we can keep it!
You are probably correct about term limits not helping with gerrymandering. It is interesting that you brought up direct democracy! Has it ever worked anywhere? My knowledge on this is hazy, but I seem to remember that even Athens couldn't properly manage direct democracy. It would be instructive to hear more about this from someone knowledgeable.
Well- we have the internet. Can you imagine if we voted directly on the budget that is required to be balanced? What if the items to vote on showed up in our email daily? I just don’t see us being smart or committed enough as a group but it is intriguing and it is ultimate control over taxation and spending as well as policy and legal standards. This would be real majority rule. The fact that we are talking about g about solutions is hopeful and this article was well developed in good arguments.
This is really interesting and something I never thought of. You already laid out that it would be advantageous for both parties and our democracy, but do you think that members of Congress would vote for it?
It can be done. A Harvard professor whose name escapes me has shown how to do it. I will look for her name.
Okay, her name is Danielle Susan Allen the James Bryant Conant University Professor at Harvard. Her writings about the fix for democracy are similar to these noted above. ⬆️
I get the point. Set the scale of districts to the scope that a given representative can actually understand the needs and desires of the people in those districts. I’m just not sure the resultant size of the house would be effective. My experience is that the effectiveness of a given large meeting reduces proportionally to the number of people in that meeting. My issue with both houses of congress is that there aren’t effectively 435 representatives and 100 senators. There are really only effectively two that are aligned along party lines. This has been exacerbated by the people themselves. They’ve allowed 40+ years of 24/7 “news” designed not to inform, but to captivate attention to increase market share coupled with sensationalized and outright false partisan claims intended to propagandize those people into demonizing that party’s opponent. Would smaller districts break this spiral of democratic decay and dilute partisan control of the house? I’m not sure. It certainly won’t fix the senate. I believe fixing gerrymandering is key. This will take a 28th amendment. I’d like to see that amendment require states to create districts in a straight up contiguous grid with as close to exactly equal population squares as possible and district boundaries parallel to latitude and longitude lines. Some districts would be partisan. Some would be blended from a partisan perspective. Racial and economic demographics would be up to chance, but let those chips fall where they may. My hope is the blended districts would begin the process of forcing some level of compromise on which this nation was founded. I think something like this essential whether the districts are 700,000 or 30,000.
Perhaps you'll consider the relationship of the New Hampshire state legislators, who, by district, are many in comparison with the number of their constituents. That state maintains a tradition of self-limited terms in legislative office. You may also want to look at: legally limited congressional terms, instead of an enlarged House; and the mechanics of growing the number; and why the 1929 objections would be overridden by your proposed solution to today's circumstances; and how and why a dissatisfied public would support a much larger source of that dissatisfaction; and how vastly increased memo-chasing would promote efficiency; and why it is important for the Electoral College tally to more nearly match the popular vote numbers; and what to do as the census goes up and up. Wouldn't practical difficulties prove even worse than the way things are now?
So glad to see your thoughts for a better future in our government. In the malaise of the moment, it is important to plan for and recognize the future will be, needs to be better government. I appreciate your excellent work and positive thinking expressed in this article.
Interesting idea- I am wondering if at the same time we should look at the idea of term limits for Congress especially in the House. I know that would be more difficult and take an amendment, but I think these 2 in tandem would definitely help the representatives be more accountable to those they represent.
Great article. Check out why435.org
You usually put a list of things you have written, or podcasts you are on or going to be on.
I think she's too busy working on that JQA book for me.
Ok, and for everyone else too.
I just forgot! Super sick and traveling for work and it slipped my brain. I’ll edit the post tomorrow to include them.