Does an 18th Century System work for the 21st Century?

I was recently at a conference with legislators from around the country. Beyond policy discussions, we talk about what each other’s legislature looks like. There is a wide variety across the country. For instance, many states budget on a two year cycle and have shorter off year sessions. Oftentimes, legislators are shocked to find out Vermont legislators have no staff, no office, no benefits and low pay.

Another topic of conversation is how many legislators are in each assembly. California has 80 house members and 40 senators. Each house member represents about 500,000 people! Vermont’s 150 Representatives represent about 4,000 people. What is the right number for Vermont in 2026?

Before 1965, Vermont had 246 Representatives – one for each town. So Stratton, with 38 people, had the same representation as Burlington. That was declared unconstitutional and we reformed the system to be properly representative and came up with 150 members. It fit Vermont scale. The people still could know their Rep well and have their voice heard. And it worked fine for many years when the government was focused on roads and the budget and outlawing billboards.

Does this system work now that the state is trying to navigate the complexity, speed and interconnected issues of the 21^st century? For instance, is it sufficient to address a byzantine health care landscape involving reimbursement rates and rules set by the Federal Government, pharmaceutical companies, multi-state hospital networks, insurance companies, an aging population, a shortage of primary care physicians, an evolving and confusing oversight structure, financially weak rural hospitals amongst other considerations?

As a reminder, your citizen legislature has 9 or 10 weeks (4 days/week) to pass bills out of committee to send them to the other house. So we have a group of people, often without a background in the Committee’s jurisdiction, coming together to form policy about very complex systems in a matter of 40 workdays. Without our own professional staff (which most states have) we rely on testimony from advocates (lobbyists), professionals in the field and citizens. For some issues this works OK, but for most issues the results are incomplete, hurried and sometimes misguided. For issues as complex as health care, data privacy in the age of social media and AI, wholesale education reform, building resilience in the era of climate chaos, tax policy in the age of inflation, supporting farming and forestry as national market dynamics shift, etc, etc… your representatives would benefit from more professionalism.

Perhaps we can design a better system? Fewer Representatives with better support would be a good start.

I welcome your thoughts.

I hope you are enjoying summer and staying dry,

Chris Morrow