Parade.com/congress – Do we need more members of Congress – Parade.com/congress from Parade magazine asks you to cast your vote on whether we should more than double the number of representatives in the House.
At Parade.com/congress citizens are asked whether you agree or disagree with Michael Farris, a constitutional lawyer representing the states of Delaware, Mississippi, Montana, South Dakota, and Utah.
According to Farris, the number of politicians on Capitol Hill do not fairly represent all Americans and thinks the number in the US House of Representatives should be increased from 435 to 932.
Farris has filed a law suit on behalf of the plantiffs, Delaware, Mississippi, Montana, South Dakota, and Utah stating that districts need to be smaller, “so that everybody is represented equally. There’s no loser except for the Congressmen who don’t want their power diluted.”
The scope of the state’s districts are recalculated every 10 years and is based on collected census data. The current policy is that each district is comprised of approximately 650,000 citizens. But since Montana has 900,000 residents, they qualify for one representative on Capitol Hill. But in Rhode Island, with a population of 1 million, one congressman represents about 500,000 because they have two congressmen.
David Rohde, a congressional scholar at Duke University in North Carolina, argues that increasing the size of the House would significantly raise the cost of government, including having to expand the size of the House chamber. He states, “Running an institution of 435 members is difficult enough. Making it two or three times larger would be much more of a challenge.”
With so many citizens in complete disgust of their own elected government, now may not be the best time to bring forward the question of increasing the size of government. Tell us what you think.
Should Congress be bigger? Cast your vote at Parade.com/congress.
Tags: congress, Parade, parade magazine, parade-com-congress, vote, www-parade-com-congress
December 13th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Bigger government? Are you kidding me? We need less not more. I hope Parade magazine doesn’t actually think we need more people in Washington doing what they want to do, not what their constituents want them to do.
December 13th, 2009 at 11:17 am
No No NO!! to bigger government. Everybody vote no! Those idiots are already ruining our country. And Obama is the biggest idiot of them all!
December 13th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
No, absolutely no! We need fewer political crooks feeding at the trough of the taxpayers, not more! Congress thinks it’s main job is to retire rich and do as little as possible along the way! School taught a lie that they vote for us, so totally not true! They vote to keep their own jobs and collect as much graft as they can while they ride in their limos paid for by us!
December 13th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
NO. WE HAVE ENOUGH CROOKS NOW,WE SHOULD REDUCE CONGRESS OR ELIMINATE THEM,THEY AND THE SENATE SHOULD BE LIMITED TO 6 YR TERMS AND CANNOT WORK FOR ANY LOBBY FIRM OR COMPANY THAT DOES BUSINESS WITH OUR GOVERNMENT AFTER SERVING. OUR GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN TOTALLY CORRUPTED BY THESE PACK OF WHORES. WE SHOULD HAVE A LIST OF ALL CONTRIBUTERS TO THESE THEIVES SO WE KNOW WHO IS BUYING THEM AND CHARGE THEM WITH CURRUPTION OF OUR COUNTRY. I AM FED UP WITH ALL THESE FRAUDS.
December 13th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
NO< NO< NO,,,,,absolutely not, we have enough political
misfits with wrong ideas for the American people. Clean house and start over but we don't need any more crazy ideas, we need people with American's best interests, not their own. We need to improve what we have rather than add more. Need a good Spring cleaning..
December 13th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
No WAY …….. current system stays … rely on census. That’s why there is a Senate with 2 members per state.
I guess the previous posters prefer anarchy and no representation.
December 13th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
NO, NO, NO we have a big enough mess with the misfits that are there now. We need someone with America’s best interest at heart. NO more of what we have, clean house.
December 13th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Absolutely Not. Remember, each member of congress also has an extensive staff plus all the lifetime benefits that politicians enjoy at the taxpayer expense.
As it is now, it is almost impossible for them to accomplish anything in a given session. Can you imagine what would happen if they were to double in size as Mr. Farris has suggested?
December 13th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
We should increase the # of Representatives based on every 500,000 of population and do away with the Senate altogether . The Senators are too powerful and rarely reflect the will of the Citizens that they are supposed to represent .The Senators become more distant from the people the longer the stay in congress . I suggest Term Limits of two four year terms for the senate and four two year terms for the Representatives.
December 13th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Absolutely not only a fool would want to more than double
the number of crooks we have in Washington DC.. enriching themselves at taxpayer expense.
December 13th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Yes provided that: term limit 6 years; pay only equal to ave household income in congressional district; no retirement except own IRA or 401; only one paid staff assistant; health insurance like federal employees while in office only; travel defined and limited for all. Otherwise NO because of reasons above by others.
December 14th, 2009 at 11:08 am
Why in the world would anyone think we need more people to NOT represent us? I think we should recall ALL of the current politicians and replace them with Farmers, Teachers, Truck drivers, Construction workers, Stay at home moms, etc. NO MORE LYING POLITICIANS!!! We need REAL Americans!!! Not politicians who smile in your face while stabbing you in the back!
December 14th, 2009 at 11:16 am
No! America cannot afford bigger government. It’s already getting bigger since congress decided to give federal employees a 2% raise in the budget passed 12/13/09. Where is this money (and money for future congressmen/women and their staffs) going to come? You and me, the taxpayer, that’s where! Have you gotten a raise year? Why does Congress not understand the concept of DEFICIT? You cannot spend more than you make and taxpayers have nothing left to give!
December 14th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
The states that are under-represented in the House are over-represented in the Senate, an extremely undemocratic institution. The Senate permits states with small population to exercise a powerful drag factor, which tends to work against progressive legislation. So there’s no need to double the number of members of the House. The disparate representation there is more than compensated for in the Senate.
December 14th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
No we do not need more members of congress. This will give us double payroll, benefits, and retirement. We have enough member stealing from us right now.
December 14th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
MORE GOV’T., are you kidding??? We need to downsize congress. They need money ,they vote themselves a rais and more perks. They have no idea how the average American lives because they live in an ivory tower. I hope that there are big changes coming and that the American People are just plain fed up with them and the poor job they do.
December 14th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
More representatives – good heavens NO!
The increased financial burden on CORPORATE AMERICA, INSURANCE COMPANIES & BIG PHARMA would be devastating! They would have to come up with millions of more dollars inorder to BRIBE the new representatives as they now do with the existing representatives. That, in turn, would cause them to raise their prices (in whatever business their in) so we citizens would pay more dollars. I believe the actual best form of gov’t would be an benevolent anarchrist. .and, I’ll volunteer for the job. Really.
December 14th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
They need to get rid of the Senate they are just abunch of Old Men living off the Corporations and Insurance Companies. Over half of them Sleep through most of the sessions.
December 14th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
NO!! WE do not need additional members of congress to pay and feed. The congressional entitlements are already excessive. These people are elected to represent the citizens of this country but obviously they are generally responsive to and financially obligated to the thousands of lobbyists and special interest groups to the detriment of their constituents who elected them. Term limits should be applied to both representatives and senators. A max of three terms for representatives and two terms for senators, without exception.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Absolutely yes! We the People need to be represented fairly. As it stands only the rich and powerful are heard. Think of the tetrrible laws that would be recinded if true representation were made a reality. Representation is what Our country should be about. Today we are ruled by barbarians, bigots, and hate mongers only like minded people support. It is time all us little people got a vote too.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
You folks really need a web designer. There is no place to vote on your web site. Are you trying just to get people to see your site.
December 15th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
The House should be cut down by half (218), once in office they no longer represent the American people,
They now cater to the lobyists.
I believe they voted for a 2% raise for 2010, that
about $3500 for 2010, boosting their yearly income to
$178000, while at the same time they said no for
Social Security. Wake up American people an as Reagan said just say no,no,no,no,.
December 15th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
NO. Both houses of Congress should be reduced – 50 representatives and 50 senators – even that is too many. And then reduce the size of their staffs, perhaps two secretaries each; limit all travel to one trip home each month; make them work every day except for a 2-week vacation (then they will not mortgage their souls for re-election); eliminate taxpayer subsidies for their health care and retirement; prohibit former members from using gyms and cafeterias or coming to coat rooms; declare lobbying and campaign contributions as bribery. Wow, we could have a democracy.
December 15th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
NO. Both houses of Congress should be reduced – 50 representatives and 50 senators; reduce their staffs to one secretary and one researcher each; limit all travel to one trip home each month; mandatory 5-day workweek with 2-week vacation; no taxpayer subsidies for their health care and retirement; prohibit former members from entering gyms, cafeterias and coat rooms; declare lobbying and campaign contributions as bribery. Wow, we could have a democracy.
December 15th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
NO. Congress should be reduced to 50 representatives and 50 senators with only one secretary and one researcher each; limit all travel to one trip home each month; mandatory 5-day workweek with 2-week vacation; no taxpayer subsidies for health care and retirement; prohibit former members from entering gyms, cafeterias and coat rooms; declare lobbying and campaign contributions as bribery. Wow, we could have a democracy.
December 15th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
This is crazy. If we can do with 2 senators from each state, then we should just have two congressmen for each state. There is no way everyone will ever be represented, no matter how many representatives we pay, or should I say the lobbyists pay.
December 15th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
My heavens NO! Can we get real here for a minute? Today’s Congress can’t do right with what it has, why should we add to the mess. Congress needs to be brought down to earth and offered what the average citizen must live with. Instead of adding members, we need to get Congress working. Every member of congress should have a web site that allows any citizen to send them a message; after all someone not in their state may have something important to say they need to hear. Some regular hours and days, let’s cut out this late night action. It should cost the American people less if Congress works in the light. How about we start by changing their Medical benefits to match the average citizen, good grief if they had to worry if their insurance would cover their care, raise their rates or maybe drop them. I think by what others have written that the report card for Congress is a big fat “F”. It’s time for Congress to work together for the well being of the country and not just for themselves.
December 16th, 2009 at 1:13 am
absolutely NOT———We do not need additional members of congress or senate, the ones there do not represent the constituents that voted them in, they only represent themselves and lining their own pockets with money received from lobbyists and special interest groups. They should cut down what we have now and put limits of 8 years to their terms, just like the President. These career politicians stay in there not for the people but for their own power and money. Kick them all out!!!!
December 16th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
no.i think that washington has become a job factory for too many people who do nothing.michele obama has a staff of 22.the spending has become insane.when will it stop
December 16th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
I absolutely vote NO for more Congress Representatives. I am fed up with the voices asking for more government without any regard to the huge amounts of costs to pay for them (which never ends). We do not need any more government spending! Let’s get the current Congress Rep’s to do their job properly and efficiently… which seems to be forever lacking. That’s what is needed… not more of them to pay for! Also, I agree w/ setting shorter term limits (possibly two) and asking our respresentatives to adhere to the same laws they pass for us to follow!
December 16th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
I agree with the last commentater. I feel that those who stay in congress for long periods of time have too much power. Number of years served should be limited just like the presidency. Our governor also has a 2 term limit, but can run again later.
December 17th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
YES. Follow Article I, Section 2 of the US Constitution and make our government a representative democracy instead of the republic it is now. The large number of representatives (about 10,000) could stay in their home district close to the voters and conduct business via the internet in a virtual congress. The representatives could form caucuses of 25 each sending one representative to the House in Washington. But for roll call votes, all 10,000 would vote like the House does now. Members get a page, go to their computer and vote on the bill. Small districts also solves the campaign financing problem because small districts don’t need TV advertising to reach all the voters. Door to door campaigning is feasible and more effective.
December 19th, 2009 at 10:33 am
I vote no, the members of congress we have now don’t represent us if any thing we need more special intrest groups there the one who run this country.
December 19th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Congress is to big now and can’t get anything done unless it’s to vote in a pay raise for themselves. I think it should be smaller.
December 19th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
No! We don’t want more congressmen. A recent article in the Scientific American of August 2009 debated the disappearance of the Neandertals. They haven’t disappeared; they have evolved into conservative constitutional lawyers.
December 19th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
No! We don’t need more Congressmen
December 20th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
YES YES YES YES YES If the unratified 12th Amendment of 1791 had been adopted, Congress would have about 4,400 members today! All these dunderheads who are saying “No,” would rather abolish Congress. But the more representatives, the more likely your Congressmember will be someone you know and who really would represent you.
December 28th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Oh hell no , We do not need any more Congressmembers screwing thing up . Yes we have a problem with healthcare . We do not need any more taxes to pay for others who might not even want insurance . So what does Congress do lets force them into insurance . Should we Cap the Lawyer , Congress says NO ,could this be because 80% or there about , be lawyers themselves . We should never cut the lawyers out of healthcare law suits or for that matter cross state lines to purchase health insurance , now why is this , maybe they wouldn`t have enough control , your guress is good as mine . Next we will be stopped at the State line for an ID check and a tax to enter or leave the state . Welcome to the Change
December 30th, 2009 at 1:47 am
no we don’t need any more congressmen or senators they have so muct time on hand to talk about ballplayers on drugs a health plan we are going to pay for but don’t get get a vote and don’t need. help the small business people they hire people, people buy insurance,clothes cars, pay someone to do repair work(not the goverment) help small insurance companies start up we get the same coverage for less money(no bonuses) profits go back into their business. back to ballplayers the ball commission should control their players use of drugs(no job). take a drug test like other worker. all congressmen & senators take 20% cut in pay untill all our american people are back to work. of the people,for the people and by the people. we need american congressmen and senators to work for AMERICA we could see a big change
January 2nd, 2010 at 5:39 pm
It is amazing how few people understand the meaning of democracy. The “No’ votes outweigh the “Yes” votes by about 36-3. Would all these people who say “No” suggest that only a small percentage of the country should be allowed to vote in elections? How would they feel if their right to vote was taken away in favor of allowing only one vote per 500,000? How would they feel about the “cost-effectiveness” of that?
Take a look at these statistics:
1800
Population: 5.3 million
Number of Representatives: 106
Representative per citizens: 50,000
1900
Population: 76 million
Number of Representatives: 357
Representative per citizens: 213,000
2000
Population: 300 million
Number of Representatives: 435
Representative per citizens: 690,000
To get back to the level of representation our country enjoyed when our forefathers created it, we need to have 300million/50,000 = 6,000 representatives in the House. Imagine how difficult it would be for special interests to control that many representatives. The representatives would go back to representing the people.
As Don mentioned, they do not have to meet in some special chamber in Washington, they can do teleconferencing instead and remain where they belong — in their home districts.
The cost of more representatives would be offset by less pork barrel spending because it would be impossible for special interests to buy off 6,000 Representatives. It would be harder to approve any type of wasteful spending, thus DECREASING the size of government.
January 2nd, 2010 at 5:54 pm
Just to add one more note:
If each of the 6,000 Representatives was given a budget of $250,000 per year to pay for staff, travel, office space, etc. (they can use the money any way they see fit), then the total cost would only be $1.5 billion — a bargain when you consider how much will be saved by cutting down on wasteful pork barrel spending.
I bet it costs at least a billion dollars each year to pay expenses for the House of Representatives as it stands today anyway.
January 7th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Please no more.To pay for more of the memebers of congress…what are they doing for us?
There are out of touch with any reality a normal american has to deal with every day.And it’s unbelievable how old some of these goofs are…take terms and give them less money!!!
June 14th, 2010 at 8:54 am
Oh yes, thats so right!