On Dec. 27, The Wall Street Journal reported that businessman John H. Cox has a ballot initiative in the state of California cleared for circulation (No. 1615) that would increase the size of the state legislature about a hundredfold. The idea is to shrink the size of each legislative district so that a smaller number of people will be represented, which will improve democracy in the state, according to Mr. Cox.

At first glance, the idea seems outlandish. But a bit of analysis shows that there is nothing radical about it at all. In fact, there are good arguments for increasing the size of many state legislatures and perhaps the House of Representatives as well.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, the number of seats in the lower house of state legislatures varies from a high of 400 in New Hampshire to a low of 40 in Alaska. But what really matters is how much population each legislator represents. The table lists the 10 states with the highest and lowest populations and the population per legislator. California has by far the largest population per district, New Hampshire the lowest.

National Conference of State Legislatures and Census Bureau

The Cox proposal would reduce the population of each California Assembly district to approximately 5,000 and each state Senate district to 10,000. This would be on the very low side of the states and may be impractical, given California’s size. Those states with the lowest population/legislator ratios are very small states in terms of geography or population. But increasing the California State Assembly by a multiple of five, so that each assemblyman represents about 100,000 people, seems reasonable, based on how other large states operate.

The National Conference of State Legislatures lists the following arguments in favor of legislative districts with smaller and larger populations:

Smaller Populations
• The more the members, the fewer the constituents. With fewer constituents, a legislator is more likely to have face-to face dealings with them.
• One political party can more easily dominate a small legislature. A smaller-sized legislature also may increase regional rivalries, particular between rural and urban areas.
• Relatively few political positions are well known by the general population. Reducing the number of legislators probably will not change this fact.
• The legislative process was not intended to be neat and efficient. The legislature is designed to provide a cross-section of all points of view. Legislators are to study, debate and argue, and finally reach a compromise position that is acceptable to a majority of members.
• A large number of members allows for a more effective division of labor and specialization. The oversight of administrative agencies is greater among larger legislatures.
• There is a greater correlation between a state’s population and legislative costs than between legislative size and cost.

Larger Populations
• Fewer legislators does not mean less responsive legislators. Using modern communication mechanisms, a legislator can easily reach, and be reached by, many more constituents.
• Legislative elections will be more competitive.
• In a smaller body, the role of a legislator will be more prestigious and more satisfying. A smaller legislature increases the responsibility of each member. Individual legislators have more opportunity to influence decisions. Each legislator should be more visible and therefore more responsive to the voting public.
• With a smaller legislature, there will be better discussion and clearer debate. There is more opportunity for each member to make his or her views known, to have his or her voice heard.
• Larger legislatures tend to have more committees. Too many committees result in overlapping and fragmentation of work — making it more difficult for a legislature to formulate coherent, comprehensive policies on broad public questions.
• Large legislative bodies cost more.

Looking at the academic literature, there appear to be both liberal and conservative arguments for reducing the population in each legislative seat. A 1999 study by the economists Mark Thornton and Marc Ulrich found that government size is positively correlated with the size of legislative districts. That is, the more population per district, the bigger the size of government. A 2006 study by Mr. Thornton, Mr. Ulrich and George S. Ford, which examined Britain, confirmed this result.

However, a 2010 study by the political scientist Karen L. Remmer came to the opposite conclusion. “Politicians elected in smaller political units face greater incentives and/or opportunities to expand the public sector,” she found.

It is undoubtedly the case that historical, demographic and geographical factors are critical in determining the impact of a legislature’s size on public policy, from either a liberal or conservative point of view. For example, academic research has shown that the more homogeneous a population is the more likely voters are to support redistribution, because they view the benefits as going to people like themselves. This suggests that more heterogeneous states will be less supportive of redistribution.

Geographically small states are more likely to be homogeneous, large states more heterogeneous. California is the largest state in population and third largest in area, and probably the most heterogeneous state as a consequence. Yet big government policies have long been popular there.

One thing is clear, however: California is an outlier among states in having extremely large populations in its State Senate and Assembly districts. Its districts are three times as large as those in the state with the second largest number of people per district, Texas. Only a couple of states have as many as 100,000 people per legislative district, and the bulk have fewer than 50,000.

The resolution of this debate in California may have national implications. In a future post I will discuss the case for enlarging the United States House of Representatives.

Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul. He is the author of “The Benefit and the Burden: Tax Reform — Why We Need It and What It Will Take.”