Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review Jan. 15, 2001 / 20 Teves, 5761

George Will

George Will
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
James Glassman
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Congress just isn't big enough -- AS GEORGE W. BUSH prepares to exchange the pleasures of rusticity at his ranch for the capital's political climate that he vows to improve, here is a proposal for doing so: Increase the size of the House of Representatives to 1,000 seats.

Today's number, 435, is neither written into the Constitution nor graven on the heart of humanity by the finger of God. It was set by a 1911 statute, which can be changed in a trice.

In 1910, when America's population was 92,228,496, the ratio of representatives to citizens was one for every 212,999. The House has been 435 members since 1912 (except briefly after Alaska and Hawaii became states in 1959, when there were 437 representatives until after the 1960 census).

The first Congress had 65 representatives for about 3.9 million Americans, one for every 60,000. Not until 1860 did the ratio top one for every 100,000. Today the ratio is one for every 646,947. In 1790 only Virginia had that many residents (692,000). Today, four states (Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming) do not have that many. So now representatives, whom the Founders intended to represent smaller numbers than senators, represent more people than most senators did in the Founders' era.

If there were 1,000 representatives today, the ratio would be one for every 281,000, about what it was in 1930. Candidates could campaign as candidates did in the pre-broadcasting era, with more retail than wholesale politicking, door to door, meeting by meeting. Hence there would be less need for money, most of which now buys television time. So enlarging the House can be justified in terms of the goal that nowadays trumps all others among "progressive" thinkers -- campaign finance reform.

Much of the political class and the media, with the special irresponsibility each brings to campaign finance reform, saluted and swooned in admiration when John McCain recently vowed promptly to force action on his reform bill. The swooning saluters were undeterred by the fact that the contents of McCain's bill had not yet been -- and still have not been -- divulged.

However, one of Bush's published reform proposals, although potentially hugely important, goes largely unremarked. It would ban lobbyists from making campaign contributions to any senator or representative while Congress is in session. This, even more than the seating problems in a 1,000-member House, would be a powerful incentive for Congress to have shorter sessions.

Critics will say, correctly, that the House chamber cannot seat 1,000 members, that it would be crowded and uncomfortable, that office space would be so severely rationed that staffs would have to be trimmed, so the House, and therefore Congress, could not do very much. Sensible people would be dry-eyed about such conditions, which would encourage representatives not to tarry here.

Besides, congestion would be constructive. The greatest democratic statesman of the last century understood this.

On May 10, 1941, an air raid badly damaged the House of Commons, which moved its sitting to the House of Lords. On Oct. 28, 1943, Winston Churchill delivered a short, brilliant speech concerning reconstruction. "We shape our buildings," he said, "and afterwards our buildings shape us." Hence he said that the House "should not be big enough to contain all its Members at once without overcrowding, and that there should be no question of every Member having a separate seat reserved for him."

In a House that could accommodate everyone, most debates would be conducted in the depressing atmosphere of an almost empty chamber. (As any viewer of C-SPAN knows, this is the case in the House of Representatives today.) But, said Churchill, good parliamentary dialogue -- quick, informal, conversational -- "requires a fairly small space, and there should be on great occasions a sense of crowd and urgency." Besides, the House's vitality and its hold on the nation's imagination "depend to no small extent upon its episodes and great moments, even upon its scenes and rows, which, as everyone will agree, are better conducted at close quarters."

Of course, the House of Representatives will not more than double its size, thereby diluting the majesty of membership and the power of each member. In truth, there are reasons for not doing so, including considerations of sheer cumbersomeness.

Nevertheless, it is well to acknowledge arguments for enlargement. They point to possible connections between institutional attributes and the tone and quality of representative government, which, as the president-elect has repeatedly said, has room for improvement.

Comment on JWR contributor George Will's column by clicking here.


01/12/01: Clinton's mark
01/08/01: All that is jazz
01/04/01: Bush's picks reveal Right attitude
01/02/01: Prosperity in perspective
12/28/00: Soft landing in a spoiled nation
12/26/00: When laws replace common sense
12/21/00: Beware the 'Bipartisanship'
12/18/00: ... A Brief Moment
12/13/00: Judicial activism on trial
12/11/00: Truth optional
12/06/00: A Chastened Court
12/01/00: Counting on some slippery language
11/28/00: Florida's rogue court
11/27/00: This willful court
11/22/00: Ferocity gap
11/17/00: Slow-motion larceny
11/13/00: Gore, Hungry for Power
11/09/00: No, the System Worked
11/06/00: The case for Bush
11/03/00: The Framers' Electoral wisdom
10/30/00: Political astronomy
10/27/00: Candidates condescending
10/23/00: No Partners For Peace
10/20/00: Talking peace with thugs
10/11/00: A feast of retreats
10/10/00: .. And what's gotten into the Danes?
10/05/00: The Agony of Debate
10/02/00: Senate Canvas
09/28/00: Milosevic: Not Another Saddam
09/25/00: Blaming the Voters
09/22/00: Saying No to the Euro
09/18/00: Farewell, Mr. Moynihan
09/14/00: When 'Choice' Rules
09/12/00: Colombia Illusions
09/08/00: Will He Spend It All?
09/04/00: Back in the U.S.S.R.
08/31/00: Stonewalling School Reform
08/28/00: Uphill for a California Republican
08/24/00: Sauerkraut Ice Cream
08/21/00: The Partial-Birth Censors
08/18/00: A Party to Prosperity
08/14/00: The National Scold on the Stump
08/10/00: The Thinking Person's Choice
08/07/00: The GOP of Powell And Rice
08/03/00: Panic in the Gore Camp
07/27/00: . . . Both Radical and Reassuring
07/06/00: Harry Potter: A Wizard's Return
07/03/00: Recalling the Revolution
06/29/00: An Act of Judicial Infamy
06/26/00: Life, Liberty and ... the Pursuit of Foxes
06/21/00: Fumble on Prayer
06/19/00: The unified field theory of culture
06/15/00: Schools Beset by Lawyers And Shrinks
06/12/00: Missile Defense Charade
06/07/00: The Grandparent Dissent
06/05/00: Liberal Condescension
06/01/00: Great Awakenings
05/30/00: Suddenly Social Security
05/25/00: Forget Values, Let's Talk Virtues
05/22/00: AlGore the Hysteric
05/15/00: Majestic Avenue
05/11/00: Just How Irrational Is the Exuberance?
05/08/00: Home-Run Glut
05/04/00: A Lesson Plan for Gore
05/01/00: The Hijacking of the Primaries
04/28/00: The Raid in Little Havana
04/24/00: Tinkering Again
04/17/00: A Judgment Against Hate
04/13/00: Tech- Stock Joy Ride
04/10/00: What the bobos are buying
04/06/00: A must-read horror book
04/03/00: 'Improving' the Bill of Rights
03/30/00: Sleaze, The Sequel
03/27/00: How new 'rights' will destroy freedom
03/23/00: Death and the Liveliest Writing
03/20/00: Powell is Dubyah's best bet
03/16/00: Free to Be Politically Intense
03/13/00: Runnin', Gunnin' and Gambling
03/09/00: And Now Back to Republican Business
03/06/00: As the Clock Runs Out on Bradley
03/02/00: Island of Equal Protection
02/28/00: . . . The Right Response
02/24/00: Federal Swelling
02/22/00: Greenspan Tweaks
02/17/00: Crucial Carolina (and Montana and . . .)
02/10/00: McCain's Distortions
02/10/00: The Disciplining of Austria
02/07/00: Free to Speak, Free to Give
02/02/00: Conservatives in a Changing Market
01/31/00: America's true unity day
01/27/00: For the Voter Who Can't Be Bothered
01/25/00: The FBI and the golden age of child pornography
01/20/00: Scruples and Science
01/18/00: Bradley: Better for What Ails Us
01/13/00: O'Brian Rules the Waves
01/10/00: Patron of the boom
01/06/00: In Cactus Jack's Footsteps
01/03/00: The long year
12/31/99: A Stark Perspective On a Radical Century
12/20/99: Soldiers' Snapshots of the Hell They Created
12/16/99: Star-Crossed Banner
12/13/99: Hubert Humphrey Wannabe
12/09/99: Stupidity in Seattle
12/06/99: Bradley's most important vote
12/03/99: Boys will be boys --- or you can always drug 'em
12/01/99: Confidence in the Gore Camp
11/29/99: Busing's End
11/22/99: When We Enjoyed Politics
11/18/99: Ever the Global Gloomster
11/15/99: The Politics of Sanctimony
11/10/99: Risks of Restraining
11/08/99: Willie Brown Besieged
11/04/99: One-House Town
11/01/99: Crack and Cant
10/28/99: Tax Break for the Yachting Class
10/25/99: Ready for The Big Leagues?
10/21/99: Where honor and responsibility still exist
10/18/99: Is Free Speech Only for the Media?
10/14/99: A Beguiling Amateur
10/11/99: Money in Politics: Where's the Problem?
10/08/99: Soft Thinking On Soft Money

© 2000, Washington Post Writer's Group