Questions Utilized for This Study

In undertaking an effort to empirically investigate attitudes toward the size of the U.S. House and the growth in the mean congressional district population size, there are no benchmark survey questions from which to take guidance. The Knowledge Networks' survey questions deal with the tradeoff between representation and legislative efficiency, loss of representation for certain states due to migration, and descriptive representation for minorities and women in the House. From September 13 to September 19, 2006, Knowledge Networks administered the survey to 1,425 of its members. The results presented in this study are based on responses from the 1,020 panel members who completed the survey, representing a 71.6% response rate.²

Prior to a delineation of the rationale for the choice of questions, a brief explanation of the survey methodology employed by Knowledge Networks is apt. Knowledge Networks creates a panel employing probability-sampling techniques. Recruited by random-digit dialing over the telephone, the Knowledge Networks panel is the only online consumer panel that represents those individuals who do and those that do not have Internet access. Knowledge Networks supplies Internet technology to the roughly 30% of panel members who do not have Internet access at home. Previous studies have shown that panel data from Knowledge Networks is in some cases more reliable than findings from other, more traditional, research companies (Krosnick and Chang 2001). Survey results gathered by Knowledge Networks have been used in a number of political science studies in recent years.³

An overarching theme throughout this debate revolves around the tradeoff between a small legislative chamber and a larger constituency size and large legislative chamber and a smaller constituency size. A small chamber may facilitate a more efficient legislative process, while a larger chamber is more representative in character (Willoughby 1934). This tradeoff forms the basis for the first survey question. Because of the rudimentary knowledge many U.S. citizens display toward U.S. institutions (Delli Carpini and Keeter 1996), the question is prefaced with a brief explanation of the changes in the size of the U.S. House and the average population of congressional districts. In doing so, each side of the tradeoff debate is included. The text of the question follows:

Providing a detailed question that offers each of the major arguments on both sides of the debate allows for a nuanced understanding of public attitudes. Those citizens inclined toward wanting a greater emphasis on additional representation through institutional reforms should support an increase, while those concerned with gridlock and the cost of government should voice preference for maintenance of the status quo or even reduction. Though most of the debate centers on an increase beyond 435 members, some Americans may find reduction an appealing option. Indeed, a few commentators have urged consideration of cutting back the size of the U.S. House (Proxmire 1989; Silverman 1991).

The remaining survey items investigate two of the other representational issues that have arisen from a cap on the size of the U.S. House. One of the most conspicuous consequences of the 435-seat limit pertains to geographic representation. Several states have lost seats in the House over the past century. Preventing this practice from continuing has been one of the most prominent arguments advanced by promoters of House enlargement (Kromkowski and Kromkowski 1991; Yates 1992). There has been a visible decline in the number of House seats for the states in the Midwestern and Northeastern regions, despite the fact the population of these states has continued to rise, albeit at a slower rate than the national average. For instance, after the 1910 reapportionment New York sent 43 elected members to the U.S. House; following the 2000 census that number dropped to 29 seats. At one point in the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries, Congress routinely passed apportionment bills to prevent any state from losing seats in the House (Kromkowski and Kromkowski 1991). Would Americans favor a return to an apportionment process that no longer allows states to suffer a reduction in the number of seats allocated to the U.S. House?

The question gauging support for this proposition reads: “After the U.S. census is taken every ten years some states lose seats in the U.S. House of Representatives because their population growth is slower than the national rate. Would you support increasing the size of the House to prevent states from losing any seats?” This question serves as a straightforward way to assess to what extent Americans are concerned that many states are losing representation in the House due to the 435-seat limit. One plausible expectation is that residents from the Northeast and Midwest may be more inclined to support an increase due to the loss of seats many states in these regions have experienced over the past few decades than would citizens in other parts of the country where population growth has been more robust.

One of the major claims advanced by advocates of an upward adjustment in size of the House is that it would increase representation for women and minorities (Glassman 1990; Kromkowski and Kromkowski 1991; Rule 1991; Yates 1992). The logic behind this argument is that most members are elected to the House not by defeating a sitting incumbent, but rather when a seat becomes open either by retirement, resignation, or death. Women have traditionally made noticeable gains in the first election following reapportionment when there are more open-seat contests (Burrell 1994). After each census the number of new seats apportioned would rise, creating additional opportunities for women and minorities to run. It is easier to create majority-minority districts likely to elect African Americans and Latinos in less-populated congressional districts.⁵

While the concept of descriptive representation is frowned upon by many normative political theorists, Mansbridge (1999) observes that it may allow for unarticulated interests to be heard in the deliberative process and may give chances for members of groups systematically excluded from full participation in politics to demonstrate their ability to participate effectively in the governing process. Furthermore, when racial congruity is present, citizens are more likely to express approval of their representatives, all else equal (Box-Steffensmeier, Kimball, Meinke, and Tate 2003; Gay 2002; Tate 2003). The same relationship exists for women represented by a female member of Congress (Lawless 2004b). Thus, enlarging the size of the House may increase the level of political efficacy underrepresented citizens feel toward the political system. The third survey question discerned whether there is support for increasing the size of the House on the basis of descriptive representation: “Some argue that increasing the numerical size of the U.S. House of Representatives would create more opportunities for members of underrepresented groups such as women and racial minorities to get elected. Would you be very supportive, somewhat supportive, somewhat opposed or very opposed to increasing the size of the House for this purpose?”⁶

Conclusion

The absence of available survey data gauging public attitudes toward increasing the size of the U.S. House necessitated gathering a systematic estimate of where Americans stand on this crucial issue. Simply because national lawmakers have taken it off the decision agenda does not mean it is unworthy of attention for survey researchers. The permanence of the 435-seat threshold and public and attitudes toward it are deserving of empirical investigation. The evidence supplied in this study has gone a long way toward expanding knowledge of public opinion on this subject. Serious political observers who have weighed in on this debate have not had the benefit of public opinion data to shape their arguments. The results presented in this article show that many of the individual reasons for an increase articulated by advocates of House enlargement do not reflect the will of the people, even if those supporters seek to improve the representative quality of the institution. A larger House may be more representative, but it represents a policy option that much of the public holds in disfavor. However, even though in each instance a majority of respondents opposed an increase, taken together about 55% of the individuals surveyed backed an increase based on one of the justifications provided. Nevertheless, if members of Congress were to enact a sizable increase in the size of the U.S. House, unless the case for this action was framed in a way that emphasized a multiplicity of reasons, it might provoke a backlash and further undermine the level of trust in the national government.¹⁰

When the question providing each side of the legislative tradeoff argument was posed, the vast majority of citizens selected the status quo. Less than 20% want an increase in the size of the House membership even if it would help counter the growth in the average size of congressional districts and improve the quality of representation. In the minds of respondents, the financial costs and possible damage to the legislative operations of the U.S. House of Representatives outweighed the possible benefits that would accrue for representation. The U.S. public sees no pressing need for an expansion of the House beyond the 435-seat limit. Americans are highly concerned with legislative stalemate in Washington (Hibbing and Theiss-Morse 1995), and this idea seems likely to intensify the problem in most people's eyes. It must also be noted in this discussion that there is also no clamor among American citizens for a decrease in the size of the House. Most of the U.S. public is not reflexively anti-politician nor do they seek to make radical changes to the institutions of the U.S. political system based on their dissatisfaction with the behavior and motivations of members of Congress.

There is no widespread support for an increase to remedy the recurring phenomenon of House seats being transferred from the Midwest and Northeast to the South and West. Most Americans see this outcome as a legitimate result of shifting migration patterns in the country and harbor no desire to reverse it. Even residents in the slowest growing regions of the country or in states that have had their House delegations slashed due to reapportionment are not motivated to support House enlargement. It is a plausible argument that the issue is not particularly salient to most Americans, and that were political leaders in these states to mount a concerted campaign to change the existing policy, opinion would shift in favor of an increase. That may be a reasonable assumption regarding the citizens in states where population growth trails the national average, but not necessarily in the rest of the country. The more likely outcome is that most citizens in all states will continue voicing opposition on these grounds, if they contemplate the issue at all. Geographic representation in the context of increasing legislative size is poised to galvanize neither wide nor deep support in the U.S. population.

Without question, the reason for increasing the size of the House that gathered the highest level of support in this study was the prospect that it would potentially enhance descriptive representation for women and minorities. Though a slim majority was against an increase on these grounds, the results revealed that this argument has resonance for many members of society. Women and minority groups displayed the highest level of support for expansion for this reason. These results are an indication that these groups feel underrepresented in the nation's political institutions and sense that an increase in the size of the U.S. House of Representatives would increase the possibility that they would be represented by someone of their own social group. Beyond a more ample level of support for this rationale, what distinguished the responses to this question was the polarization it generated. Republicans and conservatives overwhelmingly reject this proposition, while Democrats and liberals openly embrace it. A similar divide is felt along racial and gender lines. Hence, the justification for increasing the size of the House that has the most support also stokes highly partisan reactions. House enlargement advocates will find little to gain from including descriptive representation as a part of their argument as long as Republicans and conservatives control key positions within the national political system. The Democratic takeover of Congress following the 2006 elections does, however, offer these backers a more receptive audience among national policymakers.