Should we repeal Public Law 62-5 which limits the amount of Congressmen to 435?
If this law was repealed and we adopted a strict policy of 1 representative for every 30,000 people within a particular state, we would have 10,100 representatives in Congress.
At the Constitutional Convention, George Washington actually objected to the idea of only 1 representative for every 30,000 Americans because he felt that was insufficient representation.
This would end the influence of lobbyists. Although a lobbyist can easily buy the votes of 218 politicians, they will have a hard time buying the votes of over 5,000 politicians. This also has the advantage for conservatives of protecting limited government (it would probably be far more effective than term limits) and has the advantage for liberals of making it more difficult for Congress to attack civil liberties. Besides that, it makes Congress closer to the people, which would make them more likely to listen to their constituents when they are receiving large numbers of phone calls telling them not to bail out insolvent banks.
Surely, new facilities could be built with the money that is now spent on graft to house the vastly expanded Congress.
Would you be in favor of vastly increasing the number of Congressmen?
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
No, I don't think it would help. Each congressman would have a smaller district, and thus it would be cheaper to "buy off" a seat.
- 5 years ago
The original 1st amendment set up a practice of how the house membership should increase as the population increased, it ratification has not been completed, the original second amendment became the 27th. In 1913, when public law 62-5 was passed there was 1 rep for every 211,000 people, if we kept that ratio, there would be 1465 reps today.