Making the House of Representatives More Representative

Making the House of Representatives More Representative

By Winston Apple

Created Jan 27 2008 - 12:02pm

What's the job of the candidate in this world? The job of the candidate is

to raise the money to hire the consultants to do the focus groups to figure

out the 30-second answers to be memorized by the candidate. This is

stunningly dangerous. - Newt Gingrich

Would some change-minded candidate or other kindly inform the American

people what this business amounts to? Change what into what? - William

Murchison

I'm not a candidate for anything, but one change I believe we should make is

to change the House of Representatives into a legislative body that more

effectively represents the will of the people. To this end, I propose a

constitutional amendment providing for proportional representation in the

House of Representatives.

Under the present system each state is divided into congressional districts

and voters elect a single representative from their district. With

proportional representation voters nationwide would each cast a vote for a

political party and its slate of candidates. Political parties would

nominate ordered lists of candidates pledged to support that party's

platform. Seats would be awarded to each party based on its percentage of

the total number of votes cast nation-wide.

This approach would allow candidates for, and members of, the House of

Representatives to focus on participating in drafting their party's

platform. It would relieve them of the burden of raising huge amounts of

money to fund individual campaigns. This, in turn, would keep them from

becoming indebted to special interest groups. Reducing the influence of

special interests would go a long way toward improving the approval ratings

of Congress and would begin to restore our faith in government.

If this amendment were to pass, the real action for members of the House of

Representatives would take place during the run-up to each party's

convention and the convention itself, as they engaged in serious discussions

of which issues should be included in the party platform and how each issue

should be addressed. While it would be up to each party to determine just

how strong of a commitment its candidates would be expected to make with

regard to supporting the party platform, members of the party gaining a

majority of the seats in the House would logically be expected (by voters as

well as the party) to support their party's platform.

Drafting a platform was once a vital part of the nominating conventions of

political parties. The platform is supposed to define the party's positions

on the issues of the day and offer some idea of what the party hopes to

accomplish. Today, however, the nominating conventions of the major parties

have become little more than coronations formalizing the nomination of a

presidential candidate who has already secured the number of delegates

needed to win the nomination. By making party platforms and the conventions

at which they are written meaningful again, proportional representation

would provide an incentive for civic-minded citizens to get more actively

engaged within party organizations.

With the focus shifted from individual candidates to party platforms, the

sort of attack ads that have come to dominate political campaigns would be

pointless in elections for members of the House. The fact that voters would

be choosing between parties based largely on each party's

platform, as opposed to the personalities or peccadillos of individual

candidates, would promote debates between political parties that would

highlight the differences in their plans for addressing issues of importance

to the nation.

I believe that most of our legislators ran for political office initially

because they have a genuine interest in the give and take of dealing with

political issues. I doubt that they are happy about being under constant

pressure to raise money. Many of them would undoubtedly welcome the

opportunity to spend more of their time devising solutions to the problems

we face as a nation.

Political reporters must also be getting a bit bored with simply reporting

the results of the latest polls and providing updates on the amount of money

raised by each candidate. Even their "informed discussions" of strategy and

momentum are a hollow exercise at heart. Covering the process of drafting

party platforms and commenting on the details of each party's proposals

would clearly be more engaging for serious-minded members of the media. It

would afford them the opportunity to participate in debates and discussion

about how the issues and problems facing our nation should be addressed. It

would cast them in the vital role of helping voters compare the agendas of

various parties.

If we were to succeed in shifting a considerable amount of media attention

to party platforms, formal debates could be restructured to do a lot more to

help voters make informed decisions on election day. Instead of each

candidate reciting their pre-programed responses to questions posed by the

moderators, a series of in-depth discussions of the proposals included in

each party's platforms, with each debate focused on a different issue, would

highlight the similarities and differences between the parties. Political

parties could select one or more party members to represent the party in

each debate.

Once elected, the members of the party winning a majority of the seats in

the House of Representatives should have no problem getting the legislative

proposals included in their party's platform passed by the House. Combined

with the fact that members of the House are elected every two years, this

would make the House of Representatives much more responsive to the will of

the voters. This is in line with the intention of the Founding Fathers that

the House of Representatives would be the most democratic part of the

Federal government.

The system of checks and balances provided for in the Constitution would

remain in place. The Senate would have to concur with the legislation

approved by the House. The president would retain the power to veto

legislation. And the Supreme Court could still declare a law to be

unconstitutional. It would be up to voters to decide whether to vote a

straight party ticket (for the Senate, the House, and the president),

thereby reducing gridlock, or to split their vote. (Some people like

gridlock.)

The system of representation in Congress provided for in the U. S.

Constitution was the end result of a compromise between representatives from

the small states and the large states.

The small states wanted to retain the provision in the Articles of

Confederation giving each state an equal number of representatives,

regardless of its population. The large states wanted representation based

on population. The Connecticut Compromise provided for a bicameral

legislature consisting of a Senate where each state would be equally

represented regardless of the size of its population and a House of

Representatives, where the number of representatives from each state would

be determined by population.

This was a necessary and effective compromise at the time, but it failed to

take full advantage of the concept of a bicameral legislature. Having both

senators and representatives represent geographic regions (states and

districts within states, respectively) is redundant. Furthermore, under the

system devised over two hundred years ago, we have a "national" government

without a single component that represents the nation, as opposed to the

states.

In the early years of the republic most citizens of the United States

identified strongly with the state in which they resided, considering

themselves to be "New Yorkers" or "Virginians," etc. This is no longer the

case. While some people (particularly sports fans) may identify strongly

with their state (or city or alma mater), when it comes to political matters

most of us consider ourselves to be "Americans." It is time for at least one

part of the national government to represent the interests of the nation as

a whole.

Proportional representation is not a new or an untested idea. It is quite

common in other democratic governments around the world. Nor is this sort of

change in the Constitution unprecedented. In a change necessitated by the

rise of political parties, the Twelfth Amendment provided for the electoral

college to cast separate votes for president and vice-president and provided

a method for resolving elections in which no candidate received a majority

of the electoral votes cast. Under the Seventeenth Amendment, direct

election of senators by the voters within each state replaced election by

state legislatures.

Our political process is in dire need of repair. Our elections have

degenerated into a witches brew of fund-raising and advertising. Far too

many of the ads paid for with the money raised are attack ads. Even the

positive ads amount to nothing more than catch phrases designed by each

candidate's advisors to evoke a Pavlovian response from voters. Slogans,

sound bites, talking points, and rhetorical platitudes, address the mood of

the electorate, while carefully avoiding saying anything of substance.

Every candidate earnestly assures us that he or she will provide quality

health care for all, improve education, help the U. S. achieve energy

independence, support family values, and keep us safe from terrorists.

Furthermore, they promise to cut taxes and balance the budget.

Like all good illusionists, they are careful not to reveal the details of

how they plan to implement this amazing balancing act. Serious, in-depth

discussions of the problems facing our nation and the issues of the day take

place in forums on the Internet and in the op-ed pages of newspapers and

magazines, but are missing in action during political campaigns.

This year's hottest political buzz word is "change." And the main thing

voters want to change is the political culture in Washington. Approval

ratings for Congress are even lower than for President Bush. (Not an easy

feat ) Providing for proportional representation in the House of

Representatives would make our government more responsive, more democratic,

and more effective. Voters who are serious about wanting change should find

out which candidates would support this amendment and vote for them.

A couple of footnotes:

1) If this amendment were to pass, it would need to include a provision to

alter the Twelfth Amendment which provides for the House to elect the

president with a vote by states if no candidate for president wins a

majority of electoral votes. I would suggest having the House choose between

the two candidates with the most electoral votes (instead of the top three),

with each member (as opposed to each state) having one vote.

2) The same redundancy with regard to members of both the House of

Representatives and the Senate representing geographic areas, is true of all

of the state legislatures (except Nebraska, which has a unicameral

legislature). Voters in each state who support the idea of proportional

representation should encourage their state legislatures to pass similar

amendments to their state constitution.

A final note:

Assuming that you are in agreement with this modest proposal, where do we go

from here? You don't need to join a political action committee or make a

financial donation. You simply need to help spread the word. Send a copy of

this essay to everyone you know who might be interested in making our

government more responsive to the will of the voters. Be sure to include

your representatives in Congress and your state legislature.

Other essays and articles by Winston Apple are posted at

http://www.winstonapple.blogspot.com [1]. The full text of his book EDUTOPIA: A

Manifesto for the Reform of Public Education is posted at

http://www.edutopiabook.blogspot.com [2]

_______

--

NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not

always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material

available to advance understanding of

political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I

believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as

provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright

Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their

spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their

government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are

suffering deeply in spirit,

and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public

debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have

patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning

back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at

stake."

-Thomas Jefferson