"For many years the House increased its size as the nation’s population grew, but in 1911 the number of representatives was fixed at 435 (together with non-voting delegates representing several territories and the District of Columbia)"
Evolution of the size of the House (from Riddick)
Year Ratio of Representatives No.
1789 one for each 30,000 65
1790 33,000 105
1800 33,000 141
1810 35,000 181
1820 40,000 212
1830 47,700 240
1840 70,680 223
1850 93,423 234
1860 127,381 241
1870 131,425 293
1880 151,911 325
1890 173,901 357
1900 194,182 391
1910 211,877 435
1920 no reapportionment 435
1930 279,712 435
The number has been fixed at 435 since 1911. The current ratio is roughly 1 to 650,000 after the 2000 census.
=================
So, my question to you is: Why not have a ratio of 1 to 295,514,948?
We'll still all be represented, and you'll still be able to petition our common Representative for a redress of situations like this... ;-)
Is your claim the US government is no longer a representative republic ?
This is one of my pet peeves.
We might just as well have the one representative, rather than continuing the fiction that we're adequately represented by 435 people.