On the other hand, other than the fact that it’s easier to remember 450 or 500 those numbers aren’t any better than 435.
Incidentally, there have been proposals to increase the size of the House, and quite recently, too:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2010/12/north-carolina-new-utah-and-dc-representation-even-deader-it-was
http://www.civilrights.org/voting-rights/dc-voting-rights/
http://hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=ad6eb565-1b78-be3e-e005-07ca53bd66d8
There’s no written rule, but by tradition the Speaker of the House of Representatives ususally doesn’t vote except to break a tie or (if he wants to defeat a measure that would otherwise pass by a single vote), to make a tie. Occasionally the Speaker votes to send a message that he strongly agrees or disagrees with the measure.
Only because it took them that long to figure it out. And because the power/prestige of a US House member in the 1800s is miniscule compared to what it is in the 21st century. As the government becomes more powerful, people using at a means to their own power will increase.
BTW, if we DID increase the size of the house, it would reduce the “small state bias” in the electoral college, too, as the two added electoral votes for each state would be less significant. Maybe the “winner take all” effect could be worked on next. Perhaps by finding some way to make all the states allow their electoral votes to be split.
It’s much more lucrative for a Representative to have a larger district in terms of collecting campaign contributions, and other forms of bribery. It also makes it easier to get re-elected by using issues to split the electorate. Finally it enhances the role of a Representative by representing so many people, sometimes an entire state. This is used as a justification for higher pay and benefits, larger staffs, and money wasted on junkets and other pretenses. It also strengthens party and special interest influence by limiting the number of members who have to be persuaded to vote against the interests of their constituency.
Cite?
This is GQ, so I restrict my statement to referring to this part of the OP, for which I don’t think there is a factual answer.
This is nothing special about government though. One might as well say, “As people become more powerful, people using that power as a means to their own power will increase.”
Ah, yes, but the size of California’s congressional delegation means it has much more electoral college weight than we do here in Wyoming. Maybe that balances the scales a bit. As someone who’s not a conservative on most issues and lives in a very conservative state (Wyoming hasn’t voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since Wilson first ran in 1912.), I’m not unhappy about our low representation in the HR, frankly, or the electoral college.
Psst . . . you might want to check the electoral maps of 1932, 1936, 1940, 1948, and 1964.
Consider this: National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia
Increasing the size of the House of Reps would most likely cause more arguing and inability to complete tasks effectively. Perhaps it is time to consider reducing the size of the House of Reps, to say, 250. This would help with deficit reduction. Unfortunately, a Constitutional amendment would take years to accomplish.
How would it help with deficit reduction, other than the miniscule savings (compared to the entire Federal budget) of paying salaries and pensions to 185 fewer Members of Congress? The staffs of the remaining representatives would probably get bigger, since each would have to provide constituency services to more people. A smaller House would not necessarily be a more politically-courageous or deficit-hawkish House.
It would not require a constitutional amendment to reduce the size to 250: it could be done by an ordinary act of Congress. However, that would mean that 185 members of Congress would lose their jobs: it’s even less likely than an ordinary amendment.
On a side note, don’t they cram all of Congress into the House chamber to be addressed by the president and other VIP’s? I don’t think they could get everybody in there if the HOR were enlarged very much. Would they then just set up a TV in the hallway or the Senate chamber for the overflow crowd?