Do you know your Congressperson?

Newsflash!  Congress is deadlocked, in a stalemate, unable to compromise to get anything meaningful done.  OK, so that's no longer news.  Everyone knows of Congress' inability to work as it should, and polls certainly indicate most Americans are dissatisfied with the current situation.  I expect most of us have our own thoughts about how to improve the situation as well.  I certainly have my opinion; but I was recently brought up short by reading an opposing opinion.  First, my own thoughts.

I look at the U.S. Congress and I see 435 members elected to serve the people, but who seem to be simply serving their parties' ideologies.  I don't understand how 435 intelligent individuals can ponder any issue and still vote consistently along party lines.  If they are only going to follow their party leadership, we don't need to be paying all those people to be there.  I say, cut the membership of the house in half; that's still a lot of representatives, and I'll bet they will still have a hard time finding agreement.  But at least each of them will be a little less anonymous and, perhaps, have to take an independent stand on issues.  That's my simple solution: reduce the number of representatives so each one has more responsibility to take an individual position, rather than "hiding" behind the curtain of "the party."

Now, I've said before that I am always willing to reappraise my position and even change my opinion when I see a better way (something else members of Congress need to learn to do).  While logging onto the internet the other day, I noticed a headline that caught my eye -- you can see why.  

What's wrong with Congress? It's not big enough.

This CNN article proposes just the opposite solution to fix Congress, and unlike myself, the writer actually presents factual information to support his claims.  You can read the article yourself, but the gist of it is that each member of the House of Representatives actually represents far more voters that were ever intended.  That is, the size of Congress has not kept up with the nation's increasing population.  The House did grow from its initial size of 65 members until it reached 435 in the 1920's.  One can understand why Congress voted to cap itself at that number, as continued growth would have reached many thousands by now.  Nevertheless, the writer of this article not only makes the case that "representative government by the people" mandates a larger Congress, but also that current technology makes it possible to have a proper sized Congress, assembling on a part-time basis, keeping in touch and even voting remotely, all while possibly maintaining jobs, careers and practices in their otherwise normal American lives.  

Still I don't think we will ever see a 3,000 member Congress as the writer suggests.  The same technology that could keep many members of Congress in touch can also be used to keep many citizens in touch with their congresspersons.  In addition, it may be time to reconsider the advisability of more wholesale changes to our 230-year old form of government.  I'm not an anarchist; I'm just saying . . . maybe there are better ways to do some things.  We can't be afraid to think "outside the box" once in a while, even with regard to those things we may consider most venerable.

So, a bigger Congress?  Or a smaller one?  What do you think?  Thanks for reading my thoughts; I'd like to hear yours.