Increase The Size Of The House of Delegates?

I love this idea from Kenton.

Comments

[Steve Vaughan]

I think that's protentially a pretty good idea. But by how much? Double, meaning that each Delegate would represent about 40,000 folks...and a House district would be about a fifth of the size of a Senate district?

[Represent the People]

Yes, double the house at least. And double the Senate too. More constituents make it easier to evade accountability. Large districts make it easier for special interests and lobbyists to maintain their inordinate share of influence. For example, just look at the difference between Senators and Delegates.

[change]

So many illogical conclusions, so little time…

Just for starters:

I have never heard one VA legislator (house or senate) say that they did not have time to respond to their constituents, nor have I ever heard a friend or neighbor say they tried to contact their delegate and received no response.
Quite the contrary, on those rare occasions when a friend or neighbor have had an issue of importance and contacted their delegate they have always received a response.

But hey.. why let facts get in the way of an argument from someone who worked on a campaign that spent a million bucks of union money (taken from hard working citizens) and still lost
Maybe if the candidate would have knocked on doors and spoken with the citizenry, instead of sending out union surrogates, he may have had a better showing.

Sounds like the writer believes that since his candidate could not win an election; we should make a district for him that he can win.

[Steve Vaughan]

change,
Surprised you feel that way. Don't Republicans usually feel that that level of government closest to the people is the best? Cutting the costs of running for the House of Delegates would, by itself, be reason for the change. That encourages more "real people" -- read that as fewer lawyers and independently wealthy business people -- to run for office. Your dislike for the original poster aside, how is that a bad thing from a conservative viewpoint?

[Larry Sabato's Hairpiece]

Has Kenton ever been in the State Capitol? Does he plan to knock it down so he can build new legislative chambers that will actually fit the increased membership? And what about office space. I saw estimates on replacing the current dumpy of a GAB at about $80 million. That price would almost have to double. And the cost of the additional staff and other resources for the added members.

Besides has Kenton actually GONE door to door with candidates? What percentage of those people who answer the door are glad to see you? 20% tops?

The state has bigger fisher to fry right now...

[Steve Vaughan]

Hairpiece: Why so concerned for the Delegates' comfort? We can just jam them all into the current chamber. Those seats don't need to be that big:) Okay, some of them do.

[Not Larry Sabato]

omg, I was waiting for the first person to raise the "cost" issue of making the legislative chamber bigger and I'm disappointed it's you Hairpiece! The price tag on that would be very small for returning to a government where legislators still needed to personally interact with their constituents.

[J. Tyler Ballance]

What Mr. Ngo is rightfully trying to address, is the cost of elections and the fact that Delegates have lost their representative relationship with the citizens.

To correct this problem:

1. Restrict contributions to come only from citizens whose PRIMARY residence is within the district.

2. Eliminate PAC contributions.

3. Eliminate corporate contributions. Corporations are profit making entities whose by-laws mandate that they expend money only with the expectation of a return on that investment. This is perceived by the citizens as corruption.

4. Cap the amount to the federal limit for an individual contribution.

These reforms will amplify the voices of the citizens who reside in the respective districts, and restore the representative relationship between our elected officials and the citizens who reside in their areas of representation.

Campaign finance reform will enhance the ability of the individual citizen to be heard.

We don't need more politicians, we need better representatives.

[Steve Vaughan]

JTB- I don't disagree. But if we got more of the money out of the politics, we'dl get more representatives and less people who want to make a career out of politics, especially since adding seats would reduce the power that any one Delegate had.

[change]

Steve,
First, I consider myself a conservative independent.
Next, you seem to believe that this will “cut” the cost of running. I do not adhere to that logic(?); and putting the level of government “closest” to the people, might ultimately, suggest a “referendum” on every legislative proposal, which would prove itself unwieldy and open for the “purchase” of outcomes (by wealthy entities) we all should fear.

Also, we have no shortage of “lawyers”, or “real people” who might run for office be it one hundred or one thousand electoral districts; to assume otherwise is a bit naïve.

Finally, I have no “dislike” for the poster. My only point is that he seems a bit disingenuous. If his candidate had won would he still be proposing this illogical scheme?

On the other note; I agree we should jam them all into a confined space and make them work for the people in an expeditious manner.

On a "broader" note, we should cut off the heat and air conditioning for those in DC, that they might get something done and then return home to talk to their constituents.

[NotJohnWarrenCooke]

"current dumpy of a GAB"

If you think the GAB is bad, you should have seen the legistors' offices in the old 8th Street Office Building. The building had been a hotel years earlier and the old bathtubs were used as filing cabinets.

[Jack]

I have not thought of this for the House of Delegates, but certainly for the House of Representatives. I favor each member representing about 50,000 constituents. The do not need to meet in person with modern technology. Votes can be taken electronically.

When the entire Congress does need to meet, they can rent a hall like the MCI Center.

[Mike]

Hey, here's a thought: if we're worried about special interests and retail politics and responsiveness to voters, let's use this redistricting period to draw more competitive districts. Most members of the Assembly win reelection easily or with no competition. Why do we need to increase the number of people in the House who are reelected with 60-plus percent of the vote?

[Not Einstein]

It would be pretty simple to do. We have 40 Senators, therefore, 40 districts. Just elect three delegates from each district. Or four if you really want to waste more taxpayers money.

[Larry Sabato's Hairpiece]

NLS:

Well, the cost issue is a factor, especially at a time when the state is continuing to face cutbacks. To do what Kenton proposes is going to require a significant and costly capital expenditure, no pun intended, to expand the physical plant. I suspect you cannot build the infrastructure on Capitol Square to provide office space and enlarged chamber space for less than $150 million and I suspect that I am way low on that number.

Besides, how many of these jokers do we really need down here smoking cigars in the Commonwealth Park Suites?

[Mr Bubbles]

Thank you for the book report Kenton, i'm sure youre 8th grade social studies teacher will give you a gold star and extra credit. Its hard to believe someone with you keen intellect and amazing powers of observation has problems getting dates on friday nights.

Now if one of the grownups could produce real data on costs and impact we could have a real conversation...

[Steve Vaughan]

Change,
Okay. I still think you're wrong on the costs of running. It costs less to run in a smaller district. You need less advertising to saturate the district, cuts the cost of direct mail, etc.
It would create some additional infrastructure costs. Mostly in the GAB. The House Chamber, I think, could be modified. That would entail taking out the spectator balcony (not really needed because there are several places in the Capitol to watch the proceedings on closed circuit TV -- this would have the additional positive effect of speeding things up by eliminating the introductions of people in the balcony). The balcony could be extended for additional seating for delegates. There are several other ways to squeeze additional seating into that room.

[VA Blogger]

JTB, your campaign finance overhaul would simply allow self-funders to run hog wild over everyone else. By allowing only in-district contributors and then capping how much they can give, you're basically taking money out of political campaigns, and you're exponentially increasing the impact a large check from the candidate himself would have. A $50,000 check from a self-funder changes the game a lot more when the two candidates on their own raise only $10K - $15K a piece.

And trying to limit how much an individual can support his own campaign would clearly be a violation of free speech.

Secondly, it's not like that would actually stop the impact of money on elections. The difference is that PACs would donate to party caucuses, or spend money on their own in elections, and since they'd be able to raise a lot more, you'd have essentially PAC-driven campaigns, while the voice of the candidates actually campaigning and interacting with the voters is muted. You think you're accomplishing more accountability and you'd actually get far less.

[Kenton Ngo]

A higher House-Senate ratio is hardly unprecedented. We start with the obvious example of the US Congress, which has a 435-100 (4.35) House:Senate ratio. New Hampshire's 400-24 ratio is on the extreme end, but 8 states have a ratio of 4:1 or higher. A higher ratio in a bicameral legislature affords you both the personal representation in the lower house, and the large-district, longer-tenure upper house. The critical number towards the effectiveness of a bicameral legislature isn't merely the size of the lower house, it's the ratio.

Obviously this is largely an academic discussion, as nobody has seriously proposed this. I recognize the existing space constraints in the Capitol/GAB complex, but that doesn't mean that we should automatically discount any discussion on the structure and size of the General Assembly. We don't refuse to think about new voting machines because they cost money.

[Larry Sabato's Hairpiece]

Kenton:

True, but we do generally refuse to think about new voting machines when it would require building a new precinct to house them.

[change]

Steve,
I think VA Blogger makes some good points on funding elections that must be considered.

I am not overly concerned with the comfort of the members on the floor, as long as they “do their job”.
Unlike the 80 “congresspeople” in DC who have decided to go home for the holidays instead of fulfilling their duties; (although I would have preferred that they all go home).

Kenton, regarding your comment “We don't refuse to think about new voting machines because they cost money”.
I would say it is a proven fact that most liberals don’t care much about anything they want “cost(ing) money” they either pass the bill on to the next generation, or take more money from hard working citizens.

[James Young]

It's certainly a debatable point. Not really sure what I think about it. The Hairpiece raises some good practical concerns, but I can't see them as dispositive if the point is to make the legislature more representative of the people. JTB simply hates the First Amendment, and his proposals are patently unconstitutional and/or silly.

Too bad BV so fears rational discussion that it limits comments to fellow moonbats.

[change]

on the twitter note:
If you hit "four queens" shouldn’t you get arrested for assault?
Or maybe, abuse of the crown?

Or are you using the term “hit” in a sexual context….?

No matter.. I’m impressed…
What goes on in Vegas stays in Vegas..DADT…

[Not Ben]

Oh the things Democrats dream up to deflect the fact that they're in a losing streak.

Hilarious!

[Mr Bubbles]

It never ceases to amaze me how kenton can talk and talk without making a point.

First off, if we are going to use the US House of Representatives as a model, we couldnt even have this discussion because the number of members was capped at 435 a hundred years ago, which means population growth or admittance of new states into the union hastn factored in to the number of reps for a long time.

Secondly, how exactly does the ratio of upper house to lower house have an effect on... well anything. Yes it means my vote would matter more, and yes Mark Sickels might even return one of Kenton's phone calls but it doesnt necessarily mean goverment will function better, approval ratings for legislative bodies will jump, or gridlock will cease. I could make a very good case for that actually backfiring into a noisy aimless mob (even more so than now). Kenton put together a very cute math puzzle (which is a much better use of his time than knocking on doors or registering voters) but he forgot to mention why any of it matters. personally, im waiting for nate silver to say something about upper to lower house ratios before i care about meaningless statistics.

Third, New Hampshire? That's the model to use when deciding how the general assemble should look? Why not North Carolina which has similiar demographics to VA. Perhaps Texas would be better off if we quadrupled the number of whack job legislators there. Why arent we also discussing whether or not delegates should be full or part time or should the general assembly meet more than once a year?

... sigh. I miss the days when people would come up with a thesis, than an exhaustive experimient/case study, then wrote their conclusions, then talked about the broader implications.

[scseymour]

Kenton-

When examining the cost of GA and Senate campaigns in VA it is really important to understand the nature of the state parties with regard to direct mail.

By utilizing the bulk rate permit of the parties, campaigns are able to reduce the postage cost per piece by about 5 cents (since the parties have non-profit permits, the cheapest mail rate). This is a significant cost savings (5 figures) when you consider you are sending out over 100,000 pieces of mail during the course of the campaign.

Consequently, campaigns will funnel money to the state party, who then make an in-kind contribution to the campaign, covering the cost of the mailer. The added benefit is that negative ads can be attributed to the state party when in actuality it was created with the approval of the campaign.

Bearing this in mind, you need to consider that a significant portion of a campaign's expenditures are "double counted" as the money that goes to the state party comes right back to the campaign.

While the top-line figures may reveal expenditures in excess of $1M, the disaggregated figure is actually several hundred thousand dollars less.