Dan,

I’m not so sure about all of that. I laid out most of my arguments in that original piece and my thinking hasn’t changed all that much.

It almost sounds like you think the House should have fewer members. I suppose that’s fine, but we already have a shockingly unrepresentative House, where some members represent more constituents than some senators. That’s crazy, given the assigned roles of the two chambers (For the record, I’m one of those whackjobs who thinks the House should be much more democratic and the senate much less democratic). Right now the House is the least representative body of its kind in the first world. That’s unforgivable, if you ask me.

I’m not sure I buy your consolidation theory. But let’s assume you’re right. At least the more consolidated power of the leadership would be more representative and legitimate. Right now, thanks to the power of incumbency, gerrymandering and the like, many representatives aren’t very representative. I will admit that a better immediate term reform might be to have districting reform. But that’s a different conversation. Personally, I like the idea of congressmen representing authentic communities.

A more representative House would have more political clout because it would speak more authoritatively for the voters. It also might help with the political education of the American people. As it stands right now, many Congressmen seem like distant federal officials, whose job it is to deliver bridges and subsidies.