A bigger House is a bad idea

[BloombergOpinion]( [Early Returns]( [Jonathan Bernstein]( The New York Times has been [editorializing]( about the benefits of a larger House of Representatives. I’m not convinced. To be sure, the idea has some intuitive appeal. Keeping the House the same size over the past century, even as the U.S. population has skyrocketed, certainly seems like it would’ve weakened representation somewhat, since House districts are now much larger. Perhaps more seats and smaller districts would strengthen representation, reduce knee-jerk partisan polarization and encourage more competitive elections. But in reality there’s simply no way to restore the kind of ratio that the Framers envisioned for a nation of more than 300 million. The Times wants to go from the current 435 House seats up to 539. But that would still leave districts far too large for a representative to really know most of his or her constituents. As for competitiveness, that’s a question of districting, not size. There’s no inherent reason that a 10-seat Colorado would have more competitive districts than a seven-seat Colorado. As David Lazer [argues](, smaller districts would also tend to be more homogeneous, which could actually end up increasing polarization. Making matters worse, enlarging the House would tend to dilute the influence of individual members – which is the chamber’s main problem to begin with. The less individuals in Congress can expect to have any efficacy, the more they’ll wind up simply being votes for the party leadership to round up. The constant struggle in the House is between centralization and decentralization, and right now centralization through the party is dominant. A larger House would almost certainly tend toward even more centralization, weaker individual members and more polarization. Those tendencies would only be magnified by the [multi-member districts]( the Times recommends. Two further things are at stake here. One is the concept of representation. For the Times, it’s static: Constituents have preferences, elections should transmit those preferences to Washington and then legislators should vote as instructed. But if we view representation as a process, we should want members who represent individual districts, make promises, act on them in office and then return home to explain their actions. That, in turn, requires members who can really act while in office, not just record their partisan preferences. It requires a balance between centralization and decentralization that strengthens individuals. That balance is also crucial for the House itself. Only through a strong committee system, in which the chairs of committees and subcommittees advance their own agendas, can the House restore itself as a strong chamber. The over-centralized House is weak because all it can reflect is either the majority party or (worse) the whims of the speaker and the small circle of leadership. Instead of thriving on the energy and skills of all its members, a centralized House tends to stagnate. Expanding the House is thus a recipe for the parliamentarization of Congress. If we want to reduce polarization, we should return some independence to committees and subcommittees. Some of them would stay strongly partisan, but some might explore the possibility of coalitions that could give minority-party members a stake in compromise. I don’t think there’s anything magical in the current makeup of 435 seats. If the House was functioning well, I’d be open to adding a few dozen new members. But given where we are now, it sure seems like a bad idea to me. 1. Tom Pepinsky on why Donald Trump’s rhetoric about the votes in Florida [is so dangerous](. Kudos, by the way, to Republicans in Arizona and elsewhere who have treated a normal process as normal and accepted the results. 2. Rick Hasen on phony claims about fraud and [what it means for 2020](. As I said the other day: It’s totally fine for both sides to send lawyers and observers to fight for their positions. But what’s happening now – casting doubt on elections based on nothing at all – is deeply threatening to the republic. 3. At the Monkey Cage, Erica Chenoweth and Jeremy Pressman with an update on [Trump-era protests](. 4. Jeremy Castle, Ryan P. Burge and Paul A. Djupe at Mischiefs of Faction on [young evangelical voters](. 5. Also at Mischiefs: Greg Koger on the best way for [Congress to fight back]( against the Supreme Court. Get Early Returns every morning in your inbox. Click [here]( to subscribe. Also subscribe to [Bloomberg All Access]( and get much, much more. You’ll receive our unmatched global news coverage and two in-depth daily newsletters, the Bloomberg Open and the Bloomberg Close. Bloomberg L.P. ● 731 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022 [Web]( ● [Facebook]( ● [Twitter]( [Feedback]( ● [Unsubscribe](