Strengthen the Presidency?

I really appreciate articles that strive to improve our federal government, because they are more concerned with fixing problems than blasting opponents.  I'll give David Brooks, New York Times Op-Ed columnist, points for trying, with his recent article, Strengthen the Presidency.  

In his article, David suggested that a stronger executive branch could overcome the gridlock of government and enable the nation to develop the necessary reforms to deal with todays issues.  His reasoning is that the presidency can mobilize and organize quickly; has abundant specialized knowledge to deal with the problems; and it is more immune to political pressures and influence. 

While his reasons about the executive branch are partly true, I oppose this solution as would most Americans.  Dictatorships are very efficient and as one commented on his article, maybe we should just crown a king.  If maximum efficiency of government is all we are looking for then maybe he has a point.  However, our government is based on democracy which necessary makes governing more cumbersome and less efficient.  And that is why so many believe in limited government.

My thoughts are more in line with President and Founder James Madison, who said, “Numerous bodies are less subject to venality and corruption,” which pretty much nixes "more power to the president".  The smaller the body where power resides, the greater the chance for corruption.  George Washington understood this and declined the offer to become King of the United States.  

Our founders took Madison's admonition seriously and built in checks and balances to limit the dominance of any one branch of government.  Increasing the number of representatives in the people's house, as the nation grew, was another way to assure power would never be concentrated in just a few.  Unfortunately, in 1913 Congress thought it best to permanently maintain the number of representatives at 435 members. (The actual law was passed in 1929.)  From then to now, the people's power has been slowly slipping away.

The average size of a congressional district today is 710,767 - more than triple the average district size (225,500) of 1910.  From an individual’s prospective, citizens influence has diminished by two-thirds. 

What does this have to do with how our government runs?  The influence we lost (and continue to lose) didn’t just disappear.  It transferred from citizens to those willing to buy influence with money.  Corporations, unions, political pacs, foreign governments all compete for that 2/3 influence with money. 

My solution to fixing our federal government is not to increase the power of the presidency but to restore the power to the people by creating smaller congressional districts as was originally intended.