Would a House of 6,600 members actually work?

Written by

in

The question

At 50,000 people per district, the House would have about 6,600 members. Could a body that big debate, write laws, and vote?

The case for

Size is a logistics problem, not a reason to shrink representation. Congress has rebuilt and expanded the Capitol before. Modern communication means members don’t need to live in Washington year-round to do their work. Most real legislative work already happens in committees, not on the floor, and more members means more people to staff them. The UK’s House of Commons already works with 650 members, for a country one-fifth our size.

The strongest case against

Big assemblies hand power to their leaders. When thousands of members can’t all speak, a few party leaders decide what gets debated and what gets a vote, and ordinary members become a rubber stamp. That’s already happening with 435: the Speaker and the Rules Committee decide which bills reach the floor, and most members get a minute or two to speak on anything. Multiply the House by fifteen and each member’s voice in the chamber shrinks even further, with more power in fewer hands.

Our answer

That’s the most serious objection, and it’s why how a bigger House runs matters as much as its size. But look at why power is concentrated now. Members owe their seats to donors and party leadership more than to voters. Most years, more than 90% of House members who run for reelection win, because the political machine is built to keep them in office.

A member elected by 50,000 neighbors has a base leadership can’t take away. To keep the job, that member has to listen to the people back home, because a few thousand votes can end a career. When a Representative’s job is really on the line every two years, the Representative answers to the district, not the leadership. Size alone doesn’t make an assembly a rubber stamp; dependence does.

Open floor — what do you think?

Make your case in the comments below. Argue the idea, not the person, and give a source for any fact. Ground rules and the other debates are here.

Join the Debate

3 responses to “Would a House of 6,600 members actually work?”

  1. Julie Avatar
    Julie

    Bigger numbers would mean that representatives could truly represent!

    1. Delmargo Avatar
      Delmargo

      I’d like to meet my representative in person

  2. Delmargo Avatar
    Delmargo

    Interesting idea but could it really work?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *