The bipartisan task force would investigate structural reforms like multimember districts and adding more House members in an effort to address growing polarization and distrust of Congress.
Over the last two elections, Democratic Rep.
Marie Gluesenkamp Perez has shown that she knows how to win in a largely rural, Republican-leaning district. Now, she’s proposing a bipartisan House task force to consider reforms to the current winner-take-all electoral system.
The resolution, which NOTUS obtained exclusively, is cosponsored by fellow Blue Dog co-chair, Rep. Jared Golden, and is set to be announced by Gluesenkamp Perez on Tuesday afternoon.
The initiative comes as Democrats have begun to look at Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez with wonder after both lawmakers defeated their GOP opponents in R+6 and R+5 districts, respectively, while Vice President Kamala Harris underperformed with just about every demographic.
“We need that competition,” she said. “We need that urgency.”
She added that one of her goals is to “open the field” and get more candidates with working-class backgrounds running for Congress, “to have people who have turning wrenches, change diapers, drive trucks at the table.”
She said that, if members know they have “lifetime tenure,” they don’t have the urgency to do constituent casework and understand where the system is failing communities.
Many of the electoral reforms mentioned as potential topics for the task force to investigate aren’t new.
Democratic lawmakers have floated similar proposals for years, drawing little to no attention.
Some of the proposals in this resolution for the task force to investigate include holding nonpartisan open primaries, establishing independent commissions for redistricting to prevent gerrymandering, to have congressional districts with multiple members and to increase the number of seats in the House beyond 435 representatives.
.Here are the top political news stories for today.
Expanding past 435 is bold and necessary
Representatives serve more people than ever, and this size skews their workload too heavily in the “fundraise” direction
Most members have little actual congressional work to do. That’s in part why they mostly fulfill political functions of public outreach and fundraising. Bills are written and decided upon by leadership and the average house member is useless. The average house member is also of subpar intellect. I fail to see how increasing the number, cost and complexity would improve anything.
@ZealousBitternGreen1yr1Y
This is the *only* positive development post-election I've seen from Dems. This is one of the few times reforms are proposed that actually increases election competition and removes the incumbency-protection racket gerrymandering creates for both parties.
why is increasing reps past 435 good?
@ZealousBitternGreen1yr1Y
More effective representation of lower population states and conceivably, more likely 3rd parties gain congressional representation
Finally, someone in Congress talking about structural reform! Multimember districts and ending gerrymandering? Yes, please! But let’s be real—Republicans will never let this happen. They rely on the broken system to cling to power while ignoring the will of the people.
Join in on more popular conversations.
