So what do I mean by Congressional Reform, well, let's narrow it down to the House of Representatives. The Senate, generally, is OK as it is, however, I have problems with the "People's House".
Two things strike out as problems to me, first is Public Law 62-5 which was passed in 1911 and limited the amount of Representatives to 435. The problem is that the House is supposed to represent the people of this country, yet, how effective is it when the country has tripled in population since this law was passed, and added 4 states? Given this limitation, the ratio of citizens to representatives is now almost 700,000:1.
The second problem is the districting system, which has been so pervasive in this country, that people think its actually part of the Constitution. To be frank, its not, in fact, the ONLY mention of how Representatives should be apportioned is in Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution, and it makes no mention of districts. Districts are the creation of states, nothing more, nothing less. As such, any reform to get rid of them is far less drastic than, let's say, the direct election of Senators, which required a Constitutional Amendment.
So why are these two issues problems? Well, Gerrymandering is a problem, its a fancy word for saying you can disenfranchise someone through creating district borders to create a political, or, in some cases, racial, minority, robbing them of Representation in the process. This is part of the reason why, if you ever seen Stephen Colbert's Better know a District, that the districts look so convoluted. This also leads to the incumbency problem, generally districts are either Democratic or Republican, hence, any Democratic or Republican Representative who wins in those districts can be guaranteed re-election till retirement. Its hard to dislodge an incumbent once they are elected, especially for the opposing party. Most districts are "safe" for one party or the other, very few, proportionally, are "in play", so to speak.
Having so few Representatives represent so many different people is also a problem and it will only be amplified as the population of the country grows. Many of us already have a huge disconnect between ourselves and our Representatives as is, imagine if the ratio grows to 1,000,000:1 or greater.
So, what are the solutions, it comes in two parts, one is that, through an act of Congress, they can repeal public law 62-5 and reapportion the House through a set ratio, like 600,000:1. The second part is harder, it involves getting rid of Districts, and will have to be done on a state by state basis. Basically allowing at-large elections within the States using Proportional Representation, which is basically just a fancy term for allowing everybody to vote for who they want based on politics and not strictly geography. In addition, this also simplifies the apportionment process in that politicians won't need to do horse trading to make sure they get the districts they want. In addition, we wouldn't lose representatives in one state due to another gaining more of a population than that other state, instead, both would gain representatives.
The fact of the matter is that, while this would be a change, it is actually less radical than other proposed changes to any level of government. This can also lead to a House that is less dependent on money and more dependent of keeping the people of the state they live in happy. They would also be more responsive, create less pork, due to the geography limitation being lifted, and third parties may actually have a chance at House representation.
Two things strike out as problems to me, first is Public Law 62-5 which was passed in 1911 and limited the amount of Representatives to 435. The problem is that the House is supposed to represent the people of this country, yet, how effective is it when the country has tripled in population since this law was passed, and added 4 states? Given this limitation, the ratio of citizens to representatives is now almost 700,000:1.
The second problem is the districting system, which has been so pervasive in this country, that people think its actually part of the Constitution. To be frank, its not, in fact, the ONLY mention of how Representatives should be apportioned is in Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution, and it makes no mention of districts. Districts are the creation of states, nothing more, nothing less. As such, any reform to get rid of them is far less drastic than, let's say, the direct election of Senators, which required a Constitutional Amendment.
So why are these two issues problems? Well, Gerrymandering is a problem, its a fancy word for saying you can disenfranchise someone through creating district borders to create a political, or, in some cases, racial, minority, robbing them of Representation in the process. This is part of the reason why, if you ever seen Stephen Colbert's Better know a District, that the districts look so convoluted. This also leads to the incumbency problem, generally districts are either Democratic or Republican, hence, any Democratic or Republican Representative who wins in those districts can be guaranteed re-election till retirement. Its hard to dislodge an incumbent once they are elected, especially for the opposing party. Most districts are "safe" for one party or the other, very few, proportionally, are "in play", so to speak.
Having so few Representatives represent so many different people is also a problem and it will only be amplified as the population of the country grows. Many of us already have a huge disconnect between ourselves and our Representatives as is, imagine if the ratio grows to 1,000,000:1 or greater.
So, what are the solutions, it comes in two parts, one is that, through an act of Congress, they can repeal public law 62-5 and reapportion the House through a set ratio, like 600,000:1. The second part is harder, it involves getting rid of Districts, and will have to be done on a state by state basis. Basically allowing at-large elections within the States using Proportional Representation, which is basically just a fancy term for allowing everybody to vote for who they want based on politics and not strictly geography. In addition, this also simplifies the apportionment process in that politicians won't need to do horse trading to make sure they get the districts they want. In addition, we wouldn't lose representatives in one state due to another gaining more of a population than that other state, instead, both would gain representatives.
The fact of the matter is that, while this would be a change, it is actually less radical than other proposed changes to any level of government. This can also lead to a House that is less dependent on money and more dependent of keeping the people of the state they live in happy. They would also be more responsive, create less pork, due to the geography limitation being lifted, and third parties may actually have a chance at House representation.
2 comments:
Nice blog, Solon.
--a fellow DUer
Thanks, I try, I update sporadically as you can probably tell, but I just like howling into the wind, rather than pissing into it. :)
Post a Comment