h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: The United States House of Representatives - A31388150
Author: Jordan - Hell Hath No Fury Like West Virginia Scorned - U201497

A companion piece to my US Senate entry It's fairly straightforward, tried to avoid getting bogged down in the unimportant minutiae of the House. I decided not to worry too much about Committees, Leadership and debate rules (including the Previous Question rule versus the filibuster) because I think those things are really only interesting to people like me (and I'd be repeating a lot of things from the Senate entry). If someone thinks I've left out something important, though, let me know.

This, by the way, counts as only the second time I've ever written an entry without having to do any research (other than peeking at the Constitution)

Forgive me if my questions sound stupid, but I've never really understood the American version of democracy, which seems to me best expressed by - the richest wins.

Are there a spate of national elections every 2 years, or is there a continuous round of elections taking place in various states all the time ?

Are constituencies decide purely upon headcount ? If so what is the number ?

Why 465 members ?

I understand Gerrymandering took its name from a senator Gerry (Elmore Gerry ?) but why Gerry mandering ? and not Gerryrigging (say) ?

Does one serve in the HoR before rising to the Senate, or do senators come from a different political pool ?

A lot of what I know about American politics comes from popular culture - so effectively I'm ignorant.

Hey McKay Thanks for reading the entry.

"Are there a spate of national elections every 2 years, or is there a continuous round of elections taking place in various states all the time ?"

2 years. The entire House is elected every two years. And I think I'll put that in the entry, since it's a fairly elementary point and I neglected to mention it

"Are constituencies decide purely upon headcount ? If so what is the number ?"

They're decided by the Census, which is based purely on headcount. Right now, the number is around 600,000 or so per Congressional district (though it varies by state a bit), and that numbers changes rapidly.

"Why 465 members ?"

435 And I don't think there is a good reason for that. None that I'm aware of anyways. Maybe someone else in this thread will know of one.

"I understand Gerrymandering took its name from a senator Gerry (Elmore Gerry ?) but why Gerry mandering ? and not Gerryrigging (say) ?"

Ah, good question. It's from a guy named Eldridge Gerry. I thought he was the governor of Massachusetts, but maybe he was a Senator too. There was an oddly shaped district that I believe he drew which resembled a salamander, and the local papers dubbed it a Gerrymander, and the name stuck. I left that out of the entry for a couple of reasons. I may want to do an entry on Gerrymandering in the future and it's not strictly relevant to the subject of the House of Reps.

"Does one serve in the HoR before rising to the Senate, or do senators come from a different political pool ?"

No, any American can run for the Senate or House at any time (given certain age and residency requirements). Quite often, a Representative will run for Senate, but it's not a requirement. Senators don't usually run for Representative, because it's seen as a big step down.

"A lot of what I know about American politics comes from popular culture - so effectively I'm ignorant."

I'm pretty ignorant of how the rest of the world's political system works, to be honest. I have a fair picture of how a parliamentary system works, but when it comes to specifics, I'm stumped.

Do you think all of these things need to be worked into the entry?

Well writen, informative post! I think it might be nice to have an "In Practice" section where you might write about lobbyists, ect-- just to explain where things stray from the theory of how things 'should' work.

Thanks Jordan.

I think you should put in that it's a national election, and perhaps a footnote to Mr Gerry. I was working from memory and I may have made the mistake of assuming a politician was a senator - I got his christian name wrong as well I see.

The rest is up to you.

As I'm here I spotted a typo - "In the same sense, branch of the United States government is like a particular kind of person"

I think that should be each branch.

P.S. I know you mentioned these things, but if they had a section for themselves?

Well, it's not a national election. It's really 435 separate elections, held simultaneously. I'll add that they all vote on the same day though.

Fixed the 'each' typo.

Lobbyists are an influence on Representatives, just like the party and the people. You're right to say that they're often an example of how the system can go wrong. But I dunno. Giving them a section might be over-promoting their importance. I mean, they get all kinds of media attention for causing problems and ensuring the corruption of elected officials, but that doesn't mean they're more important to the picture of Congress as a whole than the people or the party.

Great as ever, J. It made me want to watch The West Wing episode Mr Willis of Ohio again.

"only that he is a resident of the state which his district sits."
-> "in which..."

Aren't members of the House of Representatives usually called Congressman/woman?

"The power of impeachment resides solely in the House of Representatives. If a majority of the House of Representatives vote to impeach, or accuse, a Federal official (including the US President) of a crime, the trial takes place in the Senate. Contrary to popular belief, impeachment doesn't actually remove a federal official, it simply makes it possible for the Senate to remove the official." I'm a bit confused about this. Any crime? If they kill someone, they're tried in the Senate?

The smallest states get only one Representative, to serve the entire state. The largest states can get 25-50 Representatives." I think you need to make it clear that this is smallest by population, not size.

Could you explain what state legislatures are, please?

"Republicans tend to try to manipulate the map of districts so that there are some districts which have a 70-90% Democratic lean, so that there can be more districts with a comfortable 55%+ Republican lean. Those 70-90% Democratic districts are in big cities, which tend to be home to racial minorities."

I'm not certain I understand this. Is it because minorities tend to vote Democrat, so by making very high Democratic voting districts in places they won't win anyway, they can ensure that they win more comfortably elsewhere?

"Representative also serve the people" -> "Representatives..."

"Aren't members of the House of Representatives usually called Congressman/woman?"

Yes, but technically a Senator can also be called that and I wanted to avoid confusion. I think I only used 'Congressman' where even if the reader took it to mean "Representative or Senator" it works either way.

"I think you need to make it clear that this is smallest by population, not size."

Good point. Changed.

"I'm a bit confused about this. Any crime? If they kill someone, they're tried in the Senate? "

The Constitution says an official can be impeached for High Crimes and Misdemeanors. That's up for interpretation. If it's just any old Federal official, they can be tried in a normal court for murder. I think that if they're convicted, they're pretty much out of a job no matter what, so impeachment would be unnecessary. I've added a footnote for clarification.

"I'm not certain I understand this. Is it because minorities tend to vote Democrat, so by making very high Democratic voting districts in places they won't win anyway, they can ensure that they win more comfortably elsewhere?"

Yes. I've included the fact that minorities tend to vote for Dems now.

And I've fixed the two minor corrections

""Aren't members of the House of Representatives usually called Congressman/woman?"

Yes, but technically a Senator can also be called that and I wanted to avoid confusion. I think I only used 'Congressman' where even if the reader took it to mean "Representative or Senator" it works either way."

Is it worth mentioning this then?

I don't think so. Do you?

Yes. Sorry.

What does everyone else think?

Dunno about the point raised.

Just wanted to say this is interesting but also disturbing. Does a puported democracy really work like this? Sounds more like institutionalised corruption than democracy.

The phrase "While no Congressman must belong to a party..." is confusing. Suggest replacement with "While it is not obligatory for a Congressman to belong to a party..."

Alright, fixed Pin.

What part is disturbing? The Gerrymandering? Yeah, it's something that nobody likes, but Democrats don't trust Republicans to stop and Republicans don't trust Democrats to stop. There was a ballot initiative in California (which is gerrymandered to favor Democrats) which would have made the district drawing nonpartisan, but it was defeated by the voters. Another one like that was defeated in Ohio in 2005. I think there's a sentiment saying 'If they're not going to play fair, why should we?' I'm in favor of a constitutional amendment, really whatever it takes, to ban Gerrymandering. There's just no traction for that. Most people don't know about Gerrymandering, but it's a real part of what makes Representatives unaccountable to voters. Someone said, it used to be that voters pick their Representatives, but now Representatives pick their voters.

That and pork-barreling.
More particularly, the institutionalised presumption that if you govern with a properly balanced collective of local interests, the outcome will be in the national interest. Pretty dodgy idea, that.
The US of A is a contradiction in the eyes of its aliens. It acknowledges, even celebrates, its status as a melting pot of peoples, creeds and cultures. But at the same time, unless you have representation you don't exist.
This Entry suggests that it's worse than that. If you're not powerful enough to coerce your Representative, your existence is pretty insubstantial anyway

Anyhow - don't let me take thos off-topic. Debate on outside perceptions of US politics (another one!) welcome elsewhere. For the purposes of PR, this is a fine Entry with a good hook in that clever if tangentional introduction.

Actually, there's some progress being made towards pork-barreling if that makes you feel better. Representatives in both parties (this week) are moving towards a deal to place a moratorium on all earmarks (which are individual appropriations for local items) for a year. I'm not sure if it'll happen, but I hope so. The frontrunner for the Republican nomination for President, McCain, is very much anti-pork, which is one of the only good things you can say about him . The Democrats running for President have talked about the issue, but not very much.

I agree, it's a real problem. It's wasted money. I think it adds up to something like 20 billion dollars per year.

"If you're not powerful enough to coerce your Representative, your existence is pretty insubstantial anyway"

If you don't have money, you can use strength of numbers. Congressmen will listen to polls and marches.

I try to recognize the corrupt reality, but I'm secretly an optimist. I think that someday the US government will be cleaned up (to some extent) and this entry will need a rewrite.

<>

Bullseye Pin

Your Guide Entry has just been picked from Peer Review by one of our Scouts, and is now heading off into the Editorial Process, which ends with publication in the Edited Guide. We've therefore moved this Review Conversation out of Peer Review and to the entry itself.

If you'd like to know what happens now, check out the page on 'What Happens after your Entry has been Recommended?' at EditedGuide-Process. We hope this explains everything.

Thanks for contributing to the Edited Guide!

Thanks.