The number of Representatives in Congress has been fixed at 435 since 1913, not long after the creation of the Federal Reserve and the income tax. Now originally, there were 30,000 people for every House Rep. When the number 435 was reached, there were about 212,000 people for every official in the House.
Today, there are over 700,000 people represented by only 1 congressman.
Does that sound right to you? Certainly not the original intent of the Founding Fathers. Now, I'm not advocating that we go back to the original ratio of 1/30000. That would be unwieldy, since we have at least 300 million Americans, resulting in a House with 10,000 members! Yikes!
Now why the heck am I bringing this apportionment issue up? Well many of you know that I want turnover in my political systems. Fewer voters means fewer voters to change their minds. Not only that, if you really want fresh blood and to minimize the effect of tenure, just make the pool larger.
The arbitrary number 435 is not written into the Constitution. Its merely an Act of Congress, so all it would take to change it is another Act. With the Democrats back in power (and feeling overconfident), and another census on the way, now is the time to build a bigger House. We can sell it as a way to cement their power, as well as being more democratic.
1500. That is how many house of Representative I want. Yes, this is a huge increase, but hey, so is the change from our population back then to now. The U.K. has 650 Members of Parliament, and we vastly outnumber them. Shouldn't we be more representative than merry ol England? With 1500 members of the house, we would be back to the ratio from the 1910's, about 1 to 200000. Less than the ideal beginnings, but not so large that it becomes impossible to work with.
Running some numbers: Wyoming would get at least 2 or 3, South Dakota gets 4, Montana 4 or 5. Previously all states under a million residents only got 1 representative! If we added Guam, US Virgin Islands, Northern Marianas Islands, and/or American Samoa (all with under 200,000) they would still only get one Rep, and not be in the same boat as the current 7 smallest states. Other potential states like Puerto Rico or New Zealand would get about 20 and 21 respectively. But I would probably fix the # at 1500 even if we added new states, but only by Act, not by changing the constitution.
California and Texas would have about 184 and 122 respectively, but they have gigantic populations. Of course, I would encourage large states to separate and add additional senators, but that's a separate argument. But larger state should have more of a voice in national politics. Plus more voices = more dissention.
So that's the thrust of my argument. More information in the websites listed below. All I want to do is make the government reflect the will of the people, and that's much easier when Representative actually represent small, specific populations. Of course, I still want them to run at large...
Lurker
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment
http://fruitsandvotes.com/?p=328
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)