America would benefit from more US House seats, less population per district

I think this is a fantastic idea.  It’s very often stated that “there’s too much money in politics.”   While there’s nothing inherently wrong with voters speaking their point of view through their dollars (it costs money to share views through mail, TV, radio, and the Internet), the high “buy in” for a US House race is unfortunate.  Incumbent congressmen have never been more tough to beat.

If congressional districts were smaller, it would be easier to contact voters through good old fashioned campaign methods — namely, door to door walking and personal phone calling.  The results would include more upsets, more turnover, a greater fear of losing among incumbents, and better listening/representation by congressmen.

Jeff Jacoby in The Boston Globe:

LARGER FAMILIES need larger houses. A larger nation does, too.


The initial 65-member House prescribed in the Constitution was expanded to 105 members after the 1790 Census, to 142 members after the 1800 Census, and so on through the 19th century. Following the 13th census, in 1910, Congress enlarged the House to 435 members – and there it has remained, even as the number of Americans has more than tripled, from 92 million to 308 million.

Read the entire article here.


Connect with Benjamin Hodge at FacebookTwitterLinkedInThe Kansas Progress, and LibertyLinked. Hodge is President of the State and Local Reform Group of Kansas.  He served as one of seven at-large trustees at Johnson County Community College from 2005-’09, a member of the Kansas House from 2007-’08, a delegate to the Kansas Republican Party from 2009-’10, and was founder of the Overland Park Republican Party in 2011.  His public policy record is recognized by Americans for Prosperity, the Kansas Association of Broadcasters, the Kansas Press Association, the Kansas Sunshine Coalition for Open Government, the NRAKansans for Life, and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).


Site Meter