tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post3773946765341125605..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: Big HouseJonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-41066548448784723612010-05-14T16:50:16.334-05:002010-05-14T16:50:16.334-05:00Back in 1910 when the size of the House was limite...Back in 1910 when the size of the House was limited to 435 members, districts had about 33,000 constituents. If we were to return to this today, we would have over 9,000 members of the House. With an increase to this such size, though it would probably never happen, we would see some interesting things. Like you mentioned, we would probably see a rise in leadership strength, though its possible that we would also see a rise in the amount of political parties; Representatives would be much more responsive to their constituents. In this case, I believe that personal campaigning would become even more relevant than it is today - everyone would know their Congressmen. That's just something I've thought about from time to time.<br /><br />I do agree with your reform ideas though, the House isn't in need of much, and the Senate seems to be due. While the slow moving nature of the Senate is something our Founders believed in and I think is good for the country, the pace the Senate has been moving in recent years is way too slow (nomination confirmations, the massive amount of legislation passed by the House and not taken up by the Senate).Ian Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17929242385417177997noreply@blogger.com