How to Make Congress Less Terrible | Robert Reich 

“A building should not be an obstacle to a more representative democracy.”

Hard to believe that the number was capped before we even had 50 states.

"A larger House would be more diverse." This is one of the biggest reasons Congress would try to block it.

The permanent apportionment act of 1929 was a huge mistake. It needs to be fixed. I read an article saying that there should be 931 members of the house.

Of course, the problem with this idea is that you are asking today's representatives to diminish their own power.

One of the problems with the current cap on the number of representatives is that it concentrates power into fewer hands as the population grows. The House should be at least 2 - 3 times its current size. In addition to the issues Robert raises, more congressional districts also make it more difficult to gerrymander them. Unfortunately, this does not solve the problem of the Senate, but it is still worth doing.

Thank you, professor. I have written to Congress about this for years and, as you might expect, have been ignored.

Thank you for defending America peacefully With reasons and logic. This makes those other guys look even more unreasonable.

I've been saying this for years, it's good to hear someone with a bigger platform saying it too

Yes, this is desperately needed! Can you do a segment on ranked choice voting next?

My argument takes it further. One representative per 30,000 people. As this means 11,000 representatives, they do not all go to DC and instead vote on all bills remotely from their home district. From there, twenty representatives from the same state can sponsor a legislator (who may be be a representative themselves) to represent them in DC and does what today's representatives do which is make speeches on the floor, introduce bills, sit committees, etc. This means up to 550 legislators who are more beholden to the 20 representatives than to lobbyists, and the representatives are much closer to their constituents both in number and location. Beyond that, put term limits on how long people can be on committees (18 years total), chairs of committees (8 years total) or speaker of the house (8 years total). Also, chairs and speakers due to their national position CANNOT be active representatives as they serve the nation and should not have conflict with the needs of 30,000 in their district.

I have been talking about this issue for some time. The cap on the number of representatives has reduced citizens' access to their representatives and service from the government.

Here’s a fun statistic: When writing the Bill of Rights, Madison proposed 12 amendments, only 1 of which has not become an amendment: a formula for calculating the size of the House of Representatives. Had we passed it, we would have over 2,000 members of Congress today.

The founders tossed around the idea of maximum district population of 30-50k. They even passed an amendment concerning district suze back in 1789…. It just needs 20 some odd states to ratify it. If we had districts of 100k we would be similar to the UK and Canada

Keep sharing this folks! More Americans need to hear Robert Reich! 👍

1929 is when the great depression struck. When many are poor, the few that benefited from the crisis become very powerful.

Exactly. And this isn't some radical leftist idea, political scientists who actually study this stuff have found that the optimal size of a legislature is the cube root of the population it's supposed to represent. For the US this number should be 692 as of the last census, about 59% larger than the current 435. The cube root proposal was endorsed by the NYT editorial board in 2018.

I couldn't agree more. We are a huge diverse population!!! Thank you for informaint the public

Another benefit I’ve been thinking about: a bigger congress would make lobbying more costly for corporations. With more representatives, more money and effort is needed to buy enough “representatives” to push through corporate interests. It’s not much, but it would help. I’d quadruple the size of the senate to help with this and the other benefits mentioned as well.

As always, spot on the money Robert. We have to gain our representation back from our corporate overlords who have stolen it away from us. If we have no voice, we get no help. Pretty simple math. Keep up the outstanding work. Your efforts are greatly appreciated.

I'm entirely on board with the idea of more members in our legislatures. As an alternative to more numerous, smaller Congressional districts, I would love to hear your thoughts on multimember districts along with their pros and cons.

Not sure we can talk about proper representation without mentioning the importance of Statehood for DC

Another thing they could do is introduce proportional representation, as in the German system where two-thirds of the seats are still directly elected, but the rest are allotted so that the total is as close to the popular vote as possible. They could also increase the Senate from two seats per state to three, and have each state's senators elected on a single ballot every six years where the top three candidates would become senators. (You'd only need 1/4 of the vote to get elected...)

Imagine an Electoral College that actually reflects the popular vote! Boggles the mind 😯

I'm glad you brought this up. Education brings awareness of possibilities for change. Who knew? I didn't.

Brilliant. You make a solid case for expanding the House.

Make the senate reflect taxation. No taxation without representation. NY, Cali, Texas are the biggest payers. There is no reason Kentucky, New Mexico, and Mississippi should have equal say.

“A building should not be an obstacle to a more representative democracy.”. Keep sharing this folks! More Americans need to hear Robert Reich! .

Up to this proposition, you have had my complete respect. If the current corruption problem isn't corrected, increasing the number of dirtballs will not help. This two party system we have is not sustainable . If you look at the voting records of both sides , they nearly vote the same way on most issues. Take all corporate money out of our representations reach and that would go much further than increasing the number of corruptible representatives. Don't contribute to this cancer of a house of reps by increasing the number of defective members . Start by mandating sound morality and ethics with total and immediate eradication of those not meeting the standard . If this process had been followed, we wouldn't have the multiple pieces of shit in the House ,Senate , Supreme court and let's not forget about djt.

Always great information. This one was especially crucial.

The simplest and most important change to American democracy would be to require an outright majority in all elections, not just plurality, to break the 2 party hold on the country, by stopping "anti-worst" candidate voting instead of voting for a 3rd party candidate that may be risky. This would allow the rise of actual competition in deeply gerrymandered states.

The House of Representatives is broken but the Senate is way more broken. How can Wyoming have the same amount of representation as California?

This will never happen while the donor class finds advantage in the current system. They don't want more representation and less power.

Thank you sir, I've been ranting about this for years. Validation feels good.

As a Brit, I find your argument clear, logical and compelling. So it's got no chance of succeeding in modern America until the MAGA rabble have been banished. I've only just discovered your vids. They're superb. Thank you.

Another solution would be to give each house member a weighted vote based on the number of constituents

But but but, I thought the number 435 was brought down to us by Moses, on a stone tablet, where it was written by the fiery finger of God almighty.

I’m sorry….but the government is already huge and inefficient as it is

Of all the problems we have in our parody to democracy, having more representatives doesn't seem high on the list. Having representatives that actually represent people (and not corporations) would be a good start.

I've been saying this for decades. Article I, section 2, clause 3 of the Constitution says that there shall not be more than one representative for every 30,000 people. The current number of over 760K meets the letter of the Constitution, but is wildly out of sync with the spirit of it. I think there's constitutional grounds to say that the House must be made larger.

Dc also needs statehood

Your optimism is wonderful, and I'll keep watching because your logic is as well, but... maybe I'm just an old dog failing to learn a new trick, but videos like this usually make me sad. So many good ways to address so many important problems, but the representatives we have are basically certain not to even try. Which pales in comparison to the problem that many of them will be representing their constituents accurately, since so many people actively oppose fair and reasonable representation.

I think having more districts would also decrease the effects of gerrymandering. It wouldn't eliminate it, but it would decrease it.

They tried to change House Apportionment to introduce a cap using a Constitutional Amendment, which was required since this was written into the Constitution. It failed, and then they did it with legislation... which is unconstitutional.

Robert Reich is the voice of truth and wisdom.

Agreed! Also, won't that help with the gerrymandering we deal with? Thanks for pointing that out.

First time I've heard of this, I didn't think 435 was a cap!!?? I thought all the redistricting was because of population growth to add reps? We also need DC and PR to be added as states so we get 4 more senators, wtf has this not happened already, particularly when we dems had house and senate...

Could you imagine 1000 members in the House? Oh man! It would be AWESOME.

I'm not sure how many more fat six-figure salaries with full benefits and accelerated retirement benefits we can afford.

I completely agree. But more importantly, we need to end gerrymandering, end the electoral college, and end filibustering. Then the government would work better. DA

1 representative for every 250,000 people at least. 1,336 members. Most of the time the whole house doesn't meet all at once, and when they do we have conference calling. We live in the 21st century for God's sake. Make it make sense!

Twenty years ago, I was watching CSPAN and Larry Sabato challenged people to come up with new constitutional amendments. I cam up with several but my first was abolishing the 1929 apportionment act, and replacing it with a cap on the size of congressional districts of a tenth of a percent of the total population. And no this doesn't just raise the cap on the size of Congress from 435 to 1000, as many states end up with a one to four extra seats because I also came up with an anti-Gerrymander amendment which requires districts to expand out radially from city halls (or equivalent), and favors high population density. Under my system Congress would presently have 1058 members.

I hear what you're saying and it makes sense, but i highly doubt this will do anything to fiks the problem off corruption within the political system.

Great video! Since 1790 our Senate representation ratio has increased about 25 times. No wonder the average citizen has little representation.

Yeah, I never understood why the US House has been 435 seats since forever. Norway's Storting has expanded from 149 seats in the 1940s to 168 seats today. Canada's House of Commons went from 295 seats in 1993 to 338 seats today. It also means that a state like New York that has a growing population won't have to lose representation like it has already just because another state is growing faster.

I prefer moving back to the old standard of 200,000 per district. Yes, that's a new building. Worth it

It’s not only a good idea for all the reasons stated; if a new, modernized, and larger House facility were constructed even a short distance away from the Capital Building proper, it may bolster security by distributing risk-a January 6 event might be less feasible.

Thank you!! This is just simple arithmetic and an acknowledgement that equal representation is good.

The answer is NEVER more government. EVER.

The Senate is the branch that "treats states equally" the representatives are supposed to *represent*. They do not.

Agreed.

I agree and we certainly need to enlarge the Supreme Court their should be at least 21 or 29 justices! If there were more per population. We also need to get rid of the electoral college. Thank-you keep re-posting this! That we have to get people used to the idea.

I think the easiest solution would be to set the size of district to the size of the smallest state. Then you'd have a a self-adding system, that would have a fewer variances in district size. And I would want that as an amendment to keep congress from mucking with it latter on down the line.

I'm all for it! As always, research Urbanism, eliminate car dependence, increase walkability/bikability/transit, research Land Value Tax, research Georgism, and read "Progress and Poverty".

On one hand, you do make some very good arguments for expanding the house. On the other though.. It's hard to believe that expanding the house wouldn't simply open the way for more corrupted officials to get a paycheck off the rest of the American population. Or that republicans wouldn't find a way to pack it further with more of their people. And you can be 100% certain that they would raise taxes on everyone but the wealthy in order to accomplish this, rather than simply moving the money and resources from other divisions, like the military, to cover the costs. The issue with the cost isn't that we don't have the money, it's that our current officials are unwilling to use the money we already have on anything other than what it's already being spent on.

Thank you!!

Without comprehensive redistricting reform, smaller districts makes gerrymandering easier.

In addition, they might want to build a Congressional Annex complex in the western USA (my thoughts is somewhere in the Great Basin). That would give more room for Congress, would allow western representatives to serve closer to their districts, and would be convenient for eastern Representatives who are traveling out west.

Yes!

With the GOP leaning more and more towards fascism attaining that goal of more representation will be next to impossible. We need to first hold those legislators that were/are part of Trumps "Big Lie" accountable. Until then we are just spinning our wheels and making noise with no traction to go forward.

When the house is made bigger, it will need more offices, more and bigger meeting rooms. So move it to the middle of Kansas. Make it a reservation for congress with housing for congressman, not unlike apartment complexes with 1200 sq ft per apartment. Make sure lobbyists can only come on 1 day a week for a 2 hour period. DO not build any airport within 100 miles or more. Make all transportation public, with buses. GQP in the back.🥴 That would create lots of jobs in Kansas.

Increasing the size of the House of Representatives is only half of what needs to happen to the lower chamber. The other change should be to adopt proportional representation, that way the House is truly more representative of the people.

I love this and I love how you have solutions to problems but can actually help

Is this going to be on the exam?

Completely agree. This country has become too entrenched with things from the past. The house was designed to expand. The Supreme Court was designed to expanded by Congress. The Electoral College is beyond outdated. This country is behind because we refuse to embrace change and recognize that this country is not like how it was in 1929.

Thank you for making this vid. It's interesting and easy to understand. I've subscribed.

Yup, that's all we need...more politicians. Sometimes Robert is so out of touch!

Whatever "Shorty" here proposes, his end goal is the same: to make me poorer.

We do need to expand the House of Representatives, but we also should abolish the Senate and replace it with a House of Nationalities that allows for the proportional representation of all different nationalities within the United States for the redress of grievances from these social groups.

♫ I'm just a bill... ♫

435 members is big enough. Each congressperson probably has a staff of 15 people plus access to committee staffs. Multiplied by 435, there's already a large congressional bureaucracy. Modern technology made available to congresspersons also allows them to serve constituents better and allows them to access more information and analytical tools such as electronic budget worksheets. I don't see how smaller demographic districts coupled with more jostling congressmen would give the average citizen better representation.

Alternate solution: America needs to stop growing. We can't even take care of the people we have.

I’ve seen two videos from you and the simplicity but ingenuity of the ideas are astonishing

Money, or special interest groups, is what Congress truly represents. I don't think expanding the House can fix it.

Literally the stupidest argument I have heard this month. And currently that is saying a bit. Historically; Greece, Carthage, Rome, Byzantium etc; can all be used as failed examples of this practice. Corruption will grow. Thats about it.

Nope

Another factor to consider - make the elected representatives proportional to the votes cast. Today it's a "bipolar disorder" in US politics with just two parties. Many electable candidates are "cherry picked" by the party core to win an election in a district.

I'm for this. Let's go! One thing though? It'll be cheaper to buy the representatives.

Thank You, Robert Reich ⚖️

The real problem is the district voting system, and the resulting two party system.

I think the most vital electoral reform that we should move towards is a system like the Bundestag, while a mix of district elected members and members selected to keep the party proportions on line.

I’ve been saying this for years …. Not that anyone ever listens to me 🤷🏻‍♀️

Absolutely right. Each congressman represents 759,000 people! Congress must forget populist nonsense and get this done!

I once read that the statisticians caclulated the right number is 960 reps. And they shold eb apid more so that they could have more well qualified staff.

The # of House Reps should be increased by 2 or 2.5 times really...by about 500-600 more Reps, instead of 138 more Reps.

I realized a few years ago that if you want to fix the bias in the electoral college, first you need to increase Congress. It makes sense that a body designed to make laws could be a body to elect a president. Thus increase representation in Congress and you will decrease bias.

I have long thought they should knock down the Rayburn building and replace it with a new, larger house chamber that can support a few thousand representatives. The building was built in 1965, so it is not that historical. The design is also just a very inefficient use of space. There is a courtyard in the middle where a large chamber could be. Build a new, modern building with security features and technology in mind. Do it right and the building will never need to be expanded.

It's already hard to get a majority behind legislation, now you want to make it harder by increasing the size. The problem is with representation, corporations will by up members the same as before.

This NEEDS to be heard and more widely talked about, one of the biggest problems with our government right now is that there aren't enough "good" people working inside of it with law makers, that the people's voices aren't heard, and it's very difficult to offer and push for change. THIS IS A SOLUTION WE'VE BEEN LOOKING FOR DURING THESE CHAOTIC TIMES. Some people bring up that we should just have the people vote directly but the reason why we don't do that is because it's impractical, having everyone vote for issues takes too long, and I doubt people will find the time in their lives to read hundreds of short paragraphs (which is the length of a bill) to pass, veto, or change the bill. So what's the next best solution? We get MORE LAWMAKERS to represent, listen, and work for us. We make it easier for people to become a lawmakers but make sure they don't have an absurd amount of power, giving the house of representatives members less people to represent, but ironically allowing them to represent these people BETTER even allowing the people to more easily approach them and bring issues. One person for every close to 800k US population members is ABSURD. To expect one person to accurately represent THAT MANY PEOPLE is just wishful thinking, yet it's called the house of *REPRESENTATIVES* . This also fights against corruption and bribes, because having more lawmakers means more bribes and more money for them, not to mention corrupt officials will be outnumbered in the house of representatives. Some might bring up the idea that "Oh but now it makes it difficult for the house of representatives to represents states with smaller populations" and I respond with, that's not the point? The house of representatives was meant to represent the people, not the small states, that's the job of *THE SENATE* , to fix this issue it may be better to increase the size of the senate to maybe 4-5 people, keep it the same for all states, or create a new system in between the house of representatives and the senate.

Last time it was expanded was 1912. There's an amendment to the constitution that was originally proposed to the bill of rights that set the apportionment to 50,000 per rep. It fell one short of ratification in the 1790s.