Representative democracy increasingly less representative

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Is government really "too big"? Actually, it is not big enough for a representative democracy.

I have previously posted that "Arizona ranks among the states with the least representation based upon per capita representation by district." Before redistricting, consider increasing the number of districts (see for chart).

I have always believed that there should be a per capita formula for the number of residents served by state legislators. As the population increases (or decreases) the number of legislative districts would be adjusted accordingly every ten years with the decennial federal census.

Now Ezra Klein has a similar post regarding the size of the U.S. Congress. Our (relatively) undemocratic House in one chart – Ezra Klein:

Nick Beaudrot brings a chart:

This is one of those places where the structure of our government is almost entirely driven by status quo bias. The last time a major change was made to the size of the House of Representatives, it was 1911, and the population of the United States was around 100 million — approximately a third of what it is now. A full century has passed, and we’re still at 435 members. But not because the 112th Congress — or even any recent Congress — made a reasoned judgment that 435 was the ideal number, or at least a viable compromise between opposing ideals. We’re at 435 members because no one has seriously revisited the question since 1911.

At some point an organization does become too large and unweildy to be effective, but Congress has not yet reached that number. I have no idea what that number is, but that should be the subject of robust debate for a more representative democratic Congress. It's been a 100 years.

I say this with full knowledge that the much smaller Senate is completely dysfunctional, but its dysfunction is due to self-imposed (self-inflicted) Senate rules, not due to the size of the organization.

Some political scientists have suggested that the U.S. Constitution should be amended to require proportional representation by population for Senate seats, the same as for House seats, rather than the simple two seats per state formula. This would shift the balance of power to under-represented populous states where the nation's population actually resides, and away from over-represented less populous states. Any attempt to democratize the Senate would be blocked in the Senate by senators from less populous states, and these same states would not ratify the constitutional amendment (it takes 38 states to ratify). Our democratic principles only go so far.

Fun fact for history geeks from Ezra:

[y]ou’ll notice Beaudrot’s chart refers to the House’s status as the “lower” chamber. I’d never given much thought to why it was called the lower chamber, but in “Empire of Liberty,” Gordon Wood offers a pretty sensible explanation: “The House chamber was on the first floor of Federal Hall, while the Senate chamber was on the second floor.” Hence, the House was physically lower than the Senate.