More members, fewer problems?
On airline seats, government shutdowns, and why now would be a good time to talk about expanding the House
The chaotic race to hold off a government shutdown ought to serve as a spur for the public to demand something that might seem contrary: To demand an expansion of the House of Representatives.
â– The reflexive response goes something like, "Why should we pay for more politicians when we don't like the ones we already have?". But the problem we need to solve is that as House districts grow ever larger by population (remember, we've been fixed at 435 seats in the House for a century, despite enormous population growth since then), the costs of getting elected (and re-elected) have risen. Those costs are both direct (as in the cost of campaign ads) and implied (since any individual incumbent feels greater pressure not to endanger their own re-election by taking chances).
â– Is there room to do it? Yes, we could make space within the existing chamber to fit a lot more Representatives. (If airlines can squeeze passengers into ever-smaller seats, surely we can pack a few more elected officials into a room for debate.) And the additional support staff required could fit into some new buildings, if we were to be smart about it.
â– Among many arguments for making the House bigger -- among them, making the Electoral College more proportional without tweaking the Constitution -- one we shouldn't overlook is the value of getting a variety of new perspectives and sources of expertise into the room. We have a lot of lawyers (30% of Representatives have law degrees) but not a lot of people with more varied backgrounds, like auto-repair shop owners and psychologists.
â– In a world marked by increasing complexity, a dose of multidisciplinarity among the voting members would make Congress better. Change is unlikely, of course, unless and until the members see it in their own self-interest to expand the House. But it's worth pressing the issue from the outside, since our frustrations are often more systematic than not.
