No, we have to accept as a fact the need for an increase in the size of our government, and in turn increase the checks and balances we use to maintain control over its functions. Our nation's population has grown three-and-one-half times since the Congress last increased the number of its permanent Representatives in 1907. Then their were five members of Congress for every one million Americans. There are now 1.4 members for every one million Americans. With the vastly increased complexity of society, and its obvious affect on both our government and our lives, those 1.4 cannot be representing the one million nearly as well as the five did 105 years ago.
As any cook who has put too much sugar or salt in a recipe knows, you can't fix the problem by cutting your recipe in two. There are only two ways to fix the problem: throw it out and start over, or dilute it by adding more of the other ingredients.
Throwing out the recipe (revolution) is an extreme solution, and there is no guarantee whether that the new recipe will fix the problem, or make it worse. The problem of our House of Representatives can best be solved by diluting our current recipe, and increasing its membership.
Currently, members of the House are on two or three different committees, which often meet as a full committee or a subcommittee at the same time. This means the Representative must often choose which of two meetings he will attend, rather than concentrating on a single area of legislation that concerns them most.
If the membership of the House of Representatives were increased from 435 to say 1035, it would allow the House to limit committee membership to one per member, while maintaining current membership levels. Staffing levels for individual Representatives could be reduced, while maintaining and improving service to constituents. Overturning Citizens United v. FEC (using Article III, Section 2, if necessary) , together with campaign finance reform, limiting both the campaign season length and the amount of money that can be spent, would reduce the amount of time that Representatives spend raising money. It would also permit them to spend time engaging in their Constitutionally mandated duties, including serving their constituents.
One of these Constitutionally mandated duties is oversight of the other two branches of government. This includes the Executive Branch's extensive system of Agencies, Bureaus, and Departments. Increasing the number of Representatives, while reducing the number of committees they serve on to one, allows them to be more proactive concerning their oversight of a specific area of our government.
We have a similar problem with our Senate, where once again we have far too few Senators to provide anything like proper service to their constituents. My suggestion for this is to increase the number of Senators from each state from two to six, with two of them being elected every two years for a six year term. This solution unfortunately requires a Constitutional Amendment.
When the First Congress met in 1789, there were 65 Representatives and 26 Senators. This is a ratio of five Representatives to every two Senators. Our current ratio of 435 to 100, is a slightly more than four to one. My system would reduce the ratio to 1035 to 300, slightly less than seven to two. Once again, the tripling of the number of Senators from each state, together with campaign finance reform that eliminates the continuous need for fundraising , should permit the reduction of Senatorial staffs, while improving actual service to individual constituents.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
