Bigger is better

I don’t want to only link to Glenn Reynold’s Substack on this blog, but here’s another one about something I’d already concluded on my own: Making the Problem Bigger.

Congress is a problem, and it’s one that we haven’t been able to solve via elections.  No matter which party is in power, it’s overly influenced by special interests, insufficiently devoted to the interests of the people, and sufficiently ossified that Nancy Pelosi counted as vital, energetic leadership.

So maybe we should make it bigger.

The original idea of the Constitution was that the House of Representatives would get bigger as the population grew. However, the Reapportionment Act of 1929 (another abomination of the “Progressive Era”) capped it at 435. Although George Washington insisted that a congressman should be able to represent as few as 30,000 people, today the average congressperson represents over 700,000.

My main arguments for increasing the size would be:

• Voters would have a better chance of actually knowing the candidates in an election.
• Conversely, a representative would be able to personally know a higher percentage of his constituents.
• The cost to a candidate to run would be lower, allowing for a wider range of people to run.
• Lobbyists and donors would have to spend more time and money to influence enough representatives to sway an issue.

So there you go. The great part of this plan is that (unlike, say, term limits) it doesn’t require a constitutional amendment, just a new law. Of course, that law would have to be passed by people who would see their influence diluted as a result, so I don’t expect it to happen soon. But maybe if enough people demanded it, eventually?