As to the Senate: The Founders rejected the election of Senators by popular vote. The net result of the Seventeenth Amendment was the usurpation of States’ Rights by the central government.

John Adams’ clear warning to our fledgling Republic has come to pass.

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams, October 11, 1798

But when we look to the Senate, obviously considerably smaller, uhm, it does too!

I think our situation now has been nullified from his description by another of the founders warnings. “Enlightened statesmen shall not always be at the helm.”

It’s the wisdom and accumulated knowledge of men.

…In this review of the constitution of the house of representatives, I have passed over the circumstance of economy which in the present state of affairs might have had some effect in lessening the temporary number of representatives; and a disregard of which would probably have been as rich a theme of declamation against the constitution as has been furnished by the smallness of the number proposed. I omit also any remarks on the difficulty which might be found, under present circumstances, in engaging in the federal service, a large number of such characters as the people will probably elect. One observation however I must be permitted, to add, on this subject, as claiming in my judgment a very serious attention. It is, that in all legislative assemblies, the greater the number composing them may be, the fewer will be the men who will in fact direct their proceedings. In the first place, the more numerous any assembly may be, of whatever characters composed, the greater is known to be the ascendancy of passion over reason. In the next place, the larger the number, the greater will be the proportion of members of limited information and of weak capacities. Now it is precisely on characters of this description that the eloquence and address of the few are known to act with all their force. In the antient republics, where the whole body of the people assembled in person, a single orator, or an artful statesman, was generally seen to rule with as compleat a sway, as if a sceptre had been placed in his single hands. On the same principle the more multitudinous a representative assembly may be rendered, the more it will partake of the infirmities incident to collective meetings of the people. Ignorance will be the dupe of cunning; and passion the slave of sophistry and declamation. The people can never err more than in supposing that by multiplying their representatives, beyond a certain limit, they strengthen the barrier against the government of a few. Experience will forever admonish them that on the contrary, after securing a sufficient number for the purposes of safety, of local information, and of diffusive sympathy with the whole society, they will counteract their own views by every addition to their representatives. The countenance of the government may become more democratic; but the soul that animates it will be more oligarchic. The machine will be enlarged, but the fewer and often, the more secret will be the springs by which its motions are directed… — James Madison, Federalist, no. 58, 391–97

(emphasis in the original)

Despite the name “Thirty-Thousand.org” (which is a reference to the minimum district size required by the Constitution), we actually recommend a district size of 50,000 as would have been required by “Article the first” as originally proposed by the House of Represenatives.

Please read this:
http://enlargethehouse.blogtownhall.com/

In any case, keeping the number of House members constant sure hasn’t done a thing to keep the growth of government smaller– in fact the explosion of government started about the time the House membership got its current cap around 100 years ago. Trying something else that’s more within the guidelines that the Founding Fathers set up seems worth a try– one of the original 12 amendments that became the Bill of Rights, the only one that ended up not passing mostly because of an error in it (the rest became Amendments 1-10 and 27), was supposed to limit the size of Congressional districts to 50,000 people, which I think personally is a darn good idea.

Apparently, you do not believe that increasing the size of the House of Representatives is expanding the size of the federal government, even though the Legislative Branch is, in fact, part of the same government.

The bottom line is simple: Under the scenario described in the OP, the size of the federal government will increase. Increasing the size of government — whether it’s local, state or federal — is, in fact, straight from the Progressive playbook, and the net result will be the loss of personal liberty.

The law of unintended consequences will prevail.

And you still refuse to distinguish between ‘increasing the number of Representatives’ and ‘growing the size of the government’. They’re not equivalent statements, no matter how many times you assert it to be true, and won’t be until you can produce a chain of logic from ‘more Reps in the House’ to ‘more bills will pass’.

Sure we need the Tenth Amendment, but that has nothing to do with whether increasing the size of the House will help or not.

Before popular primary elections occurred the parties selected the candidates obviously.
This meant they had control of the candidates since they could ensure a disloyal politician did not get renominated.
When we speak of purging the party today it is virtually impossible to do it since the party really has little or no control over the nomination process.

Before primaries the average congressman served fewer than two terms. Now the average is between six and eight.

Some much was done to destroy the Republic during the Progressive Era that it is hard to keep track of it all. But we should track it all and undo it all as much as we can.

The essence of the argument: Because our population has grown and our representatives are so overwhelmed by the size of their districts, we must progress in order keep pace with the demands of those they represent and return power to the people. The only way this can be accomplished is to amend the US Constitution and grow the size of the federal government. There’s no need to worry because Congress will become so big and the agenda so diverse that the legislative process will be gridlocked, and therefore, the government is more likely do no harm.

It’s a pipe-dream.

Bottom line: The size of the federal government has grown, and the precedent for its future expansion has been codified in the US Constitution.

Speaking for myself, the proper vehicle for the change we (Conservatives) seek is the Tenth Amendment, not the expansion of the federal government.

Can you show me any writing by any Progressives where increasing the size of the House is a goal? If it is ‘straight from the Progressive’s playbook’, you certainly should be able to find it somewhere.

Furthermore, you’re ignoring his example of New Hampshire and California. California has large districts with few House members and is driving itself into the ground, whereas New Hampshire has small districts with many House members and is doing fine. If you were right, wouldn’t that be reversed?

Your conclusion that growing the size of the House membership would grow the size of government also seems unjustified. Isn’t it easier to convince a smaller number of people to vote for something than it is a larger number? After all, it’s the bills that are passed that grow the government.

In my “Root Cause” article, a couple of other points (related to special interests) in favor of smaller district sizes (which require a larger House) are:
- DECREASED scope of individual representatives – the problem with the current model is that power is too concentrated, making individual representatives much too influential in the legislative process. Diminishing their individual scope and influence by over 75% should reduce the need for continual media appearances and campaigning, and re-focus their efforts on serving constituents as citizen-legislators. It should also reduce to a more appropriate level the necessary requirements of fundraising and listening to corporate and other special interests.
- INCREASED cost of lobbying – it’s much cheaper and easier to lobby 435 people than nearly 1,800. More representatives may equate to less influence of lobbyists and more protection for the American people.

Thanks,

Expanding the number of representatives increases the likelihood of having a more representative government rather than a tyranny of the majority, which we see in action right now.

There would also be less potential for voter fraud in smaller districts.

This is thinking outside the progressive box, really.