We Need More Representatives In The House Of Representatives

1) "More Reps would more closely resemble the makeup of the American people."Pro's first argument is that more representatives would mean the House would more closely resemble the makeup of the American people. This is merely a claim though, and when you break down the makeup of both parties, along with what kind of people are actually elected to the house of representatives in the first place, then it becomes apparent that more representatives would not resemble the american people, it simply wouldnt change. Take the Republican party, who in the last elections actually lost diversity they barely had in the first place and shifted further towards what people already stereotype them as (A bunch of old white guys)http://www.cnn.com...If the House was expanded by a little or by a lot, there is no evidence that suggests the party will diversify and have more minorities elected into the house thanks to these extra seats. It is very likely that it would just further exacerbate the gap between the makeup of the House and the american public where more white men are added to Congress. The Republican party has held control of the house for the last 10 elections in a row, and if the bigger party is witnessing shrinking diversity, then more seats will just add to the gap that already exists. "Dissatisfaction with Congress is so high that by a two-to-one margin voters think an “everyday American” could do a better job handling the country’s problems than most members of Congress"Americans hate Congress, that is a well known fact. However most Americans still heavily approve of their own senators. Take the Senator with the worst approval rating in the country (Mitch McConnell at 59% approval and 28% disapproval) His ratings are the worst out of any individual senator, yet Congress would DREAM of the approval rating that McConnell has. http://www.politico.com... People dont like Congress, but they sure do like their own congressmen that they elected. This means that Americans dislike the other congressmen who are in Congress, not those who they voted for and elected. Adding more people into Congress would just further exacerbate dissatisfaction with Congress and instead push Congress's approval ratings even lower, not higher. If you think about it further, adding more members to the House would only further exacerbate the problem of gird-lock and inefficiency that already plagues Congress today. 2) "More Reps would fix campaign finance issues.""We end up having many members of Congress running for reelection with no challengers whatsoever."Thats because incumbents get re-elected to the House about 90% of the time in any given electionhttp://www.opensecrets.org..."More representatives in Congress will move representation away from outside funding interests and towards the constituency who votes"Theres a ton of other reasons why incumbents get re-elected over challengers that dont involve money though.... - Incumbents can run on their record about what theyve accomplished, - They can campaign on how they will set Congress straight, - They can take advantage of certain government benefits like free mail for advertising, - Among other things they also have an advantage in that the people from that district know who their representative is whereas they have no idea who his challenger may be. Incumbents have a lot of advantages to use against challengers that dont revolve around money, and packing the house with more representatives wont change any of these advantages. 3) "Reform the electoral college""More Reps would give all states more electors in the Electoral College; therefore, a larger Electoral College would more closely resemble the popular vote."In the most recent election, Obama won the popular vote 51.1% to 47.2% and the electoral college 332 to 206 (62% to 38%)If we increased the house of representatives to the point where each state had double the electoral votes, then the final tally would be even more biased away from that of the popular vote. Romney would have ended up with 412 votes and Obama would have ended up with 664. THATS STILL 62% TO 38% Increasing the number of representatives each state has does not lead to any change in the final tally of the electoral college at all, it increases both sides proportionately leading to no change at all. "If states choose to allocate their electors on a proportional or Congressional district basis, then Presidential elections will then have to develop campaign strategies for not only all states but all populations within states."But thats not even the case with how the Electoral system works, its a winner take all system. Now your proposal that more representatives would even out the vote is now based entirely on a condition that doesnt even exist. If more people were added to the house then there would be no change at all until another agreement was made to eliminate the winner take all system as well. "Americans (as well as many on the Debate.org website) have decried a failure in the reliability of the Electoral College as it has often produced different results from the popular vote."It only produces a bigger gap between the popular vote percentage and the electoral college percentage, and the electoral college has only chosen a minority candidate maybe 3 times in the past over a candidate with a larger public vote in the past 200 years. It does not "often" produce different results from the popular vote, it just exacerbates how much the winning candidate wins by. "Just like a doctor must treat the cause of the problem and not the symptoms, we must also find out what causes an inability for average people to become Congressmen" People know who the incumbent is and not the challenger, the incumbent can run on his record for what he has accomplished whereas the challenger cannot, the incumbent can mail ads free of charge thanks to a law that allows them to. We know full well why incumbents get re-elected so frequently, and the size of the district has nothing to do with it. http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com..."and why the Electoral College can produce significantly different results from the popular vote."Because its a winner take all system, something that isnt influenced by how many representatives are added in the house since any increase is done proportionately to each state.==========================================================================Summary:1) Americans hate Congress because of other congressman they dont approve of along with their inefficiency, not because they believe their own congressmen are incompetent. Increasing the number of people in Congress will not lead to higher approval ratings, in fact it is very likely it will only lead to lower approval ratings and more gridlock. 2) In the past election, the dominant party of the house grew less diverse then it was before, losing two minorities and twelve women, and straying closer to its stereotypical image as the party of old white men. Increasing the number of representatives wont guarantee that those extra spots will be given to minorities, and judging from what happened to the GOP this election, it is likely that the gap between the American public and the makeup of Congress will just divide further. 3) The number of representatives added to the House has absolutely no effect on the electoral college and wont change the results to reflect the popular vote since representatives are added to states proportionately, not just to states who were on the losing side.