535

How Congress is elected, how it functions, and institutional mechanisms that shape policymaking: the House, the Senate, the 17th Amendment, the filibuster, and sub-committees.

Welcome to the 535 section — an overview of the United States Congress (the 535 voting members in the House and Senate), how representatives and senators are chosen, how institutional rules shape outcomes, and where reform debates are focused.

This section covers how members of the House and Senate are elected and apportioned, the 17th Amendment and the shift to direct election of senators, the filibuster and its history, and how sub-committees can act as barriers to policy and become venues for entrenched interests.

The U.S. Congress: 535 Members

House of Representatives

  • •435 voting members (plus 6 non-voting delegates)
  • •Elected by congressional districts within each state
  • •2-year terms
  • •Representation proportional to state population
  • •Reapportioned every 10 years after the census

Senate

  • •100 senators (2 per state)
  • •Originally chosen by state legislatures (until 1913)
  • •Since 1913: directly elected by popular vote
  • •6-year terms (staggered; 1/3 elected every 2 years)
  • •Equal representation regardless of state size

The 17th Amendment

How the 17th Amendment changed Senate elections from selection by state legislatures to direct election by the people.

The 17th Amendment (ratified 1913) shifted the election of U.S. Senators from state legislatures to direct popular vote. This was a major change in federal-state relations and the democratic franchise.

Key Effects

  • ✓Increased direct accountability of senators to voters rather than state legislatures.
  • ✓Reduced the influence of state political machines and legislative bargaining on Senate composition.
  • ✓Altered the balance of state-versus-federal influence in national lawmaking.

Critical Perspective on Federalism

Many scholars and critics argue the 17th Amendment substantially weakened American federalism. Prior to 1913, state legislatures selected senators, which created an institutional check: states could influence national policy through their legislative choices. By transferring that selection power to the nationwide electorate, the amendment:

  • •Removed an avenue through which states could counterbalance federal centralization. Senators no longer directly represented state legislatures' preferences in Washington.
  • •Brought senators into the same electoral incentives as House members, reducing a structural difference that previously encouraged attention to state interests.
  • •Consolidated electoral pressure: because the same electorate chooses both representatives and senators, national political coalitions and party organizations have increased leverage over both chambers.

Consequences

  • •With senators responsive directly to popular national campaigns, the formal institutional mechanism that tied senators to state governments was weakened, and with it a check on federal aggrandizement.
  • •The change also made it easier for national interests, parties, and well-funded campaigns to shape Senate composition, arguably diluting local or state-specific counterweights.

The Filibuster

What the filibuster is, its history, why it's not in the Constitution, and how it allows a minority to block legislation.

The filibuster is a Senate rule and practice that allows extended debate and — in its modern form — requires a supermajority (usually 60 votes) to invoke cloture and end debate on most legislation. It is not a provision in the Constitution; rather, it is a Senate-created rule that evolved over time.

Why It Matters

  • ⚠The filibuster enables a minority of senators to block legislation the majority supports.
  • ⚠Its procedural origins date to changes in Senate rules in the 19th century; it was neither contemplated nor mandated by the Constitution.
  • ⚠The United States is unusual among democracies for giving such a persistent blocking tool to a minority in a legislative chamber's upper house.

History and Key Dates

Early 19th century

The Senate's rules allowed for extended debate; the formal removal of the 'previous question' rule in 1806 removed a mechanism that had limited debate, opening the door to the filibuster as a tactic.

1837–1841

Early sustained uses of filibuster-style tactics occurred, but the practice was not yet a central institution.

1917

The modern cloture rule was adopted (Rule XXII) after repeated filibusters obstructed wartime legislation; the rule initially required two-thirds of those present to end debate.

1975

The Senate reduced the cloture threshold for most legislation from two-thirds to three-fifths (60 votes), which remains the standard for terminating debate on most matters.

Late 20th to early 21st century

The norm of the spoken, continuous filibuster largely faded as the Senate shifted to procedural holds and silent filibusters, where the mere threat of extended debate suffices.

The End of the Verbal Filibuster

By the mid-20th century the classic image of a senator speaking for hours on the floor declined. Modern obstruction is typically performed through procedural tactics and the threat of extended debate rather than sustained, public floor speeches. The change reflects both the increasing complexity of Senate procedures and deliberate rule adaptations.

Exceptions and Limitations

  • •Budget reconciliation: Since the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, reconciliation bills are limited in scope and (by Senate rules) are not subject to filibuster on their core budgetary instructions, allowing passage with a simple majority under certain procedural constraints.
  • •Nominations: Senate rules changed in the 2010s to reduce the filibuster for most executive branch nominations and judicial nominations (the "nuclear option" was invoked in 2013 for most nominations and in 2017 for Supreme Court nominees), allowing these confirmations by simple majority.

Sub-committees

The role of sub-committees in Congress and their impact on policy.

Sub-committees are smaller groups within congressional committees that focus on specific areas of legislation. They play a crucial role in shaping policy and can significantly influence the legislative process.

How Sub-committees Can Fail in Practice

Originally designed to distribute workload and provide subject-matter focus, congressional sub-committees were intended to make legislating manageable and to surface expert testimony. In practice, critics argue they frequently become:

  • •Gatekeepers: Members of sub-committees — often junior or less experienced members of Congress — can control which bills advance. That gatekeeping can slow or prevent reform even when there is broader support.
  • •Capture points for lobbyists: Sub-committees with narrow jurisdictions attract concentrated attention from industry lobbyists and special-interest groups who can present technical expertise, model legislation, and funding details tailored to committee staff.
  • •Engines of opacity: Major policy changes increasingly arrive in large omnibus bills or appropriations packages that bundle unrelated items together. These 500–1000+ page packages are difficult for the public and many members to parse, enabling hidden riders and funding earmarks that bypass full deliberation.

Resulting Harms

  • ✗Policy complexity and bill length can hide unrelated spending or regulatory changes, slowing democratic oversight.
  • ✗Lobbyist networks gain outsized influence where expertise is concentrated and staff capacity is limited.

Reform Ideas

  • →Increase transparency for sub-committee markup and require public posting of amendments before votes.
  • →Strengthen staff support and nonpartisan review to reduce reliance on outside expertise.
  • →Limit omnibus bundling and require more targeted, single-purpose bills where possible.

Sources & Further Reading