Fixing a Broken System

Why this one change might make a big difference

There is a lot happening in the world at this moment and most of it feels bad. I don’t know to fix much it, but I do have some suggestions for how to fix our government. A few weeks ago, I realized I had talked about this idea at some length at events and on podcasts over the last year or so, but I hadn’t put it into writing. Now seemed like a good time to do so.

On February 8, 1788, James Madison wrote in Federalist 52, that liberty required the government to “have a common interest with the people.” Accordingly, the House of Representatives “should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people.” Today, that relationship is broken.

In public polling, voters express “very little” confidence in Congress and declining confidence in institutions more broadly. These convictions reflect a systemic problem with Congress, rather than displeasure with a particular party or person in charge. They also reveal how far Congress has departed from the founding vision. There is one relatively easy fix that would address many of the structural problems eroding the character of Congress and restore it to Madison’s founding principles: expanding the size of the House of Representatives.

The United States Constitution provides the mechanism for the House size in Article I: “The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years.” In 1787, when the House was seated for the first time, “the Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative.” In Federalist 55, Madison explained that he fully expected the House to grow rapidly, “At the expiration of twenty-five years, according to the computed rate of increase, the number of representatives will amount to two hundred, and of fifty years, to four hundred.”

The founders expected that representatives would remain close to the people. They were expected to interact in their district, socialize, and campaign directly with voters. In 1798, when John Marshall ran for a congressional seat in Virginia, each district was about 33,000 people. Marshall’s opponents sneered at him, calling him “Mr. BBQ” because of the frequent gatherings he hosted in his district. But it worked—Marshall won and attributed his victory to the hands-on approach. Of course, it was much easier for Marshall to have direct engagement with most of his potential voters given that only white men of property could vote. But direct engagement is almost impossible today, with districts of approximately 700,000 people.

The House steadily ticked up in size for most of American history until 1929, when Congress passed the Permanent Apportionment Act. Congress came up with no moral or constitutional objection to increasing the size of the House. Instead, they were annoyed with the logistics of increasing staff needs and demands for office space. In 1929, each district represented about 200,000 constituents. Today, each district represents 760,000.

The current House structure produces four interconnected problems: gerrymandering, extreme party primaries, imbalanced Electoral College outcomes, and failing trust. Increasing the size of the House would address all four problems.

Prior to the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, the House had increased gradually over time in response to census changes. Because a specific House size is not mandated in the Constitution, it does not require an amendment to alter. Instead, Congress could pass another law superseding their 1929 bill. As fixes go, it is pretty simple.

Here is what it would look like. Instead of districts of 760,000, let’s say they are 400,000. Both red and blue states would likely gain additional seats in cities like Los Angeles, Dallas, Miami, and New York City. California would increase from 52 seats to 98, Texas would increase from 38 seats to 78.

The ramifications would be impressive. Smaller, more numerous House districts makes it harder for states to gerrymander. There are fewer voters to splice into weird configurations and more districts to fit into a state. Similarly, smaller districts reduce the overall power of partisan primaries. While a specific district might shift right or left depending on the concentration of voters, the party itself is forced to become more accountable to its voters. It can’t depend on a small concentration of primary voters and ignore the rest.

Increasing the size of the House is also one of the easiest ways to reform the Electoral College. The size of each state’s vote in the Electoral College is determined by adding the number of seats in the House plus two votes, one for each senator. The system is designed to ensure small states aren’t completely overrun by big states, but the balance is far beyond what the founders could have imagined. The Electoral College result is regularly at odds with the popular vote because a Californian’s or Texan’s vote counts for so much less than someone in Wyoming or North Dakota. A larger House would mean a larger Electoral College and produce results consistent with the popular vote.

These three changes would help restore trust in the political system over time. Voters have lost faith because they think their voice doesn’t matter, their representatives don’t listen, and their vote doesn’t count. They aren’t wrong.

But widespread apathy is a fatal challenge that we must address. The democratic institutions in our republic are rarely upheld by force. Instead, they depend on the goodwill of the office holders and the buy-in from civilians for their continued survival. As citizen trust erodes, cracks spread in the foundations of our institutions. The collapse is gradual, over a long period of time, and then sudden.

I’m not naive enough to think that changing the House would be a magic solution that would all of a sudden restore civility to politics, reduce political violence, provide affordable housing and childcare, etc. etc. etc. But it would be a very good start.

As Benjamin Franklin was departing from Congress Hall after the last day of the Constitutional Convention in September 1787, Eliza Willing Powel asked him what type of government the delegates had produced. Franklin apocryphally replied, “a republic, if you can keep it.” The founders understood the fragility of the republic they had created. They expected future generations to fight just as hard to preserve it. Many reforms require constitutional amendment and feel out of reach in this current moment, but increasing the size of the House is possible. As the 250^th anniversary of the nation arrives, now is the time to revisit founding principles.