tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7696446405100112491.post4336765949577949575..comments2023-10-31T06:45:58.112-08:00Comments on The Least of All Evils: Congress is Too SmallDale Sheldon-Hesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07974707193305445403noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7696446405100112491.post-31807765669538619962013-05-30T09:23:52.190-08:002013-05-30T09:23:52.190-08:00I do think it would work; I don't think 800 is...I do think it would work; I don't think 800 is flat out too many people to get any work done. But I admit, I don't have conclusive evidence to support that belief.<br /><br />India's house (and population) is larger, but it is parliamentary (so the prime minister is always supported by a majority of the legislature) so you won't see things like we have today in the US, where the house is useless because just about anything the Republicans there are willing to pass will be vetoed by the Democratic president (if it could make it through the Democratic senate, that is.)<br /><br />But, parliamentary vs. presidential government aside, there are many examples of larger legislatures. China has nearly 3,000 members in its congress. Does Chinese democracy "work"? I haven't got a clue. But those two are the _only_ nations more-populous than us, so we don't have a lot more to compare to.<br /><br />The UK's is larger; again, it's parliamentary, but worse, their population is much smaller than ours, so it's probably too big _for_them_ (like, almost 3x too big) so I'd expect it to be inefficient and full of low-quality representatives, so if it doesn't work, is it because of that, or because 650 is too many people?<br /><br />The closest example might be European Parliament; 754 members representing 500 million people. It's probably a little small. But, as far as proceedings being manageable, it does *work* (and that's with a "translate everything into a dozen languages on the fly" handicap.)<br /><br />So yes, I think it would work. There doesn't seem to be anything that would prevent a eight- or nine-hundred-member body working. But the evidence is thin.<br /><br />All the real work is done in committees even now though.Dalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12958348490440095409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7696446405100112491.post-20048000883503311132013-05-30T05:11:07.024-08:002013-05-30T05:11:07.024-08:00Do you really think an 800- or 900-member Congress...Do you really think an 800- or 900-member Congress could really function? If everyone wanted to enter into a debate, and each took 5 minutes, we're talking about 70 hours, roughly. but many would want to speak longer than 5 minutes.<br /><br />In fact, there is a problem; the House is too small to give effective representation to small States orsmall groups, but too <b><i>large</i></b> to operate efficiently. A body the size of the Senate, filibuster and all, seems to work a lot more smoothly. senators get to know each other; Representatives do not, generally.<br /><br />I am not sure what the proper size of Congress should be, but I can't see <b><i>enlarging</i></b> the House.Opinionatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13332824650892306265noreply@blogger.com