Hastings Proposes Larger Congress

So, an impeached and convicted federal judge, elected to Congress, has proposed what amounts to a good idea. Even a blind squirrel can find a nut now and then.

To be sure, I am not a fan of Congressman Alcee Hastings. Some of his ideas make him seem like a complete wack-job. However, I must stand up an applaud his proposal to add more seats to Congress.

Hastings is not the only one proposing this idea. Larry Sabato and George Will, writing separately, both believe 1,000 members is better. Sabato even suggests adding Senators.

The only negative effect, as quoted in the Media General article, that I would see is the effect on presidential elections: A larger House could make the Electoral College more proportional to the U.S. population, while diminishing the relative weight of the Senate’s percentage of that vote which combines total Senate and House members.

We previously wrote why the current electoral college system is good for the country. By adding members of Congress, and thus adding electors to the electoral college, the effect would nullify the reasons our Founding Fathers created the electoral college process.

That said, I think 1,000 is too many. However, I could see adding 217 to 435, from half to doubling of the current size. I would also recommend adding at least one or two Senators per state — to provide some balance between the House and Senate, and maintain some of the small-state/large-state balance in the electoral college.

So, Congressman Hastings — the State of Sunshine applauds your efforts on this issue, and wishes the rest of Congress would get behind this worthwhile endeavor.

About Jim Johnson

Editor and publisher of The State of Sunshine.
This entry was posted in 2008, Ideas, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Hastings Proposes Larger Congress

  1. George Blumel says:

    FedGov is too big. In fact, I hold that the single worst aspect of FedGov is its size. Rather than increase the number of politicians in congress I would like to the size and reach of FedGov reduced dramatically to only those areas within the Constitution. Increasing the number of reps in congress would only multiply the number of self-serving pols who, arguably, have caused most of our major national problems and their efforts at solutions have demonstrably exacerbated the problems. Education, Health Care and Energy –where congrss has inserted itself in the place of markets are the major areas of problems in the US. Am I right or am I right?

  2. susan says:

    Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all rule for electoral votes by state) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.

    In 1789, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote; however, as a result of changes in state laws, there are now no property requirements for voting in any state.

    The winner-take-all rule currently used by 48 or the 50 states is not in the U.S. Constitution. The winner-take-all rule was used by only 3 states in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789. Our present-day system was neither specified by the Constitution nor favored by the Founding Fathers.

    Support the National Popular Vote for electing the President.

    see http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

Comments are closed.