Is the House of Representatives too small?

This is the question posed today by Gerard N. Magliocca at Balkinization. His primary argument is that increasing the size of the House is the only practical way to limit the influence of money in politics:

Suppose you doubled the size of the House of Representatives, which only requires a statute. This would accomplish the goals of both campaign finance reformers and libertarians. First, the cost of each campaign would go down because House districts would be smaller. Second, special interest groups would find it much more expensive to wield clout within a legislature. They would have to donate twice as much, in effect, even though the demand for money from candidates would be lower. Third, the influence of any single member would be reduced in a larger legislature, due to the higher transaction costs for public action, and would thus make it harder for a member to make a credible promise of a benefit to a donor.

The idea of regulating the House’s person-per-representative ratio has an interesting history. Such a proposal, in fact, was originally the very first article of the Bill of Rights that came out of the First Congress. The purpose of the proposal was to ensure a minimum representation for the common people in the new federal government. As passed by the House in 1789, the proposed amendment read:

After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

Next, the Senate took up the issue, and it passed the following language:

After the first enumeration, required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, to which number one representative shall be added for every subsequent increase of forty thousand, until representatives shall amount to two hundred, to which one representative shall be added for every subsequent increase of sixty thousand.

Then the measure went to a conference committee to iron out the differences between the House and Senate versions. This is what emerged:

After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

Notably, what had been a minimum number of representatives under both bills became a maximum. As Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, puts it:

the word more was inexplicably substituted for less, and the conference paste job was hurriedly adopted by both houses under the shadow of imminent adjournment, apparently without deep deliberation about the substitution's (poor) fit with the rest of the clause. Thus it is quite possible that the technical glitches in the First Amendment's formula became evident only during the later process of ratifying Congress's proposed amendments.

Even with this strange switch-aroo, the original First Amendment was ratified by 11 states—just one short of the number required. The holdout was Delaware, which—as a small state with limited room to grow—had a natural interest in keeping the House as small as possible.

Had the House version of “Article the first” been ratified, we would currently have about 6,000 congressional districts. As crazy as that may sound, there is an organization (Thirty-Thousand.org) dedicated to making this a reality. Their website is worth a read.   I have to say I was with them until I read this, one of their ideas for dealing with the practical difficulties of such a large legislative body:

[F]or the purpose of visualizing one practical concept — among many that could be suggested — thirty-thousand.org proposes the creation of additional federal cities. Imagine if four new federal cities were created in four distinct locations around the country (in addition to the one already established in Washington, D.C.)

Yes, just imagine.

So, what do you think Mr. Gillette?  Should we add 5,500 congressional districts?  If nothing else, it would give us a fighting chance of getting into office.