We are all "Disenfranchised" (Too Few Representatives)--Vanity

9-26-03 | FairWitness

[FairWitness]

I can already hear the chorus: We have too many politicians now! They already cost too much! Why would we want more of them? (and those will be the polite comments).

The fact is, however, compared to the first half of our history, and to most of the rest of the major countries of the world, we currently have too few representatives for our population (see tables below).

This idea is not particularly original; a quick search turned up the following article which says the same thing at more length and with more eloquence than I can muster; (THE REAL SOLUTION TO CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM: Increase the Size of Congress.

The founding fathers set the lower limit of representatives at one per 30,000 people, and they were concerned that was too few! The number was increased to 105 following the first census, and increased steadily (though not in direct proportion to population) for the next 130 years, when it hit 435. At that point we had one representative per 240,000 people. Since then, population has almost tripled and we now have one representative per 647,000 people.

Even China has fewer people per representative than we do; only India has more. England, for example has 659 representatives for approximately 60,000,000 people, or about 90,000 people per rep.

Freepers are as a rule probably more active politically, and many of you may have met your representative, but what chance does a representative have of really "knowing" his constituents. I fully expect to hear many reasons why the House should not expand, but here are some reasons why it should:
1) It should decrease the cost of individual campaigns, and do it in a more "Constitutional" manner than campaign finance laws possibly could.
2) It should give individual citizens a greater chance of meeting and/or being heard by the candidates/representatives. Individual votes become more important if they are less "diluted".
3) It makes it easier in theory to achieve "minority" representation. It would be great if it would do away with the "disenfranchisement" arguments such as we have heard in this years Texas redistricting battle (hopefully coming to a close soon).
4) It also makes it easier, in theory, for third party candidates to be elected from at least a few districts (I'm not sure I personally think of this as a plus, but many will).
5) Finally, (wishful thinking) a significantly larger number of representatives would mean they could do their own homework rather than rely so heavily on congressional staff, which has grown almost ten-fold during the same period that the number of representatives has stayed frozen at 435.

Population Base for Apportionment, Representatives Apportioned and Ratio of Population (Pop) to Representatives (Rep) (1)

Census Year	Population Base (2)	Representatives	Pop/Rep Ratio
1789	Pre-Census (3)	65	30,000
1790	3,615,823	105	34,436
1800	4,879,820	141	34,609
1810	6,584,231	181	36,377
1820	8,972,396	213	42,124
1830	11,930,987	240	49,712
1840	15,908,378	223	71,338
1850	21,766,691	234	93,020
1860	29,550,038	241	122,614
1870	38,115,641	292	130,533
1880	49,371,340	325	151,912
1890	61,908,906	356	173,901
1900	74,562,608	386	193,167
1910	91,603,772	433	210,583
1920	105,210,729	435	241,864
1930	122,093,455	435	280,675
1940	131,006,184	435	301,164
1950	149,895,183	435	344,587
1960	178,559,217	435	410,481
1970	204,053,025	435	469,088
1980	225,867,174	435	519,235
1990	249,022,783	435	572,466
2000	281,424,177	435	646,952

1) Reference = Congressional Apportionment and Population Datasets
2) Population base excludes: The District of Columbia; the population of the territories, prior to 1940 the number of American Indians not taxed; prior to 1870, two-fifths of the slave population. For 1990 and 1970 includes selected segments of Americans abroad.
3) The minimum ratio of population to Representatives, as stated in Article 1, Section 2 of the United States Constitution.

Population, Number of Representatives in House (Lower Chamber) of Congress and Ratio of Population to Representatives for Major Nations of the World

Nation	Population (1)	Representatives (2) ("Lower" Chamber)	Pop./Representative
India	1,045,845,226	545	1,918,982
United States	280,562,489	435	644,971
Indonesia	231,328,092	500	462,656
Bangladesh	133,376,684	300	444,589
Pakistan	147,663,429	342	431,764
China (PRC)	1,284,303,705	2,985	430,252
Philippines	84,525,639	220	384,207
Nigeria	129,934,911	360	360,930
Brazil	176,029,560	513	343,138
Russia	144,978,573	450	322,175
Japan	126,974,628	480	264,530
Peru	27,949,639	120	232,914
Iran	66,622,704	290	229,733
Mexico	103,400,165	500	206,800
Saudi Arabia	23,513,330	120	195,944
S. Korea	48,324,000	273	177,011
Vietnam	81,098,416	498	162,848
Egypt	70,712,345	454	155,754
Venezuela	24,287,670	165	147,198
Argentina	37,812,817	257	147,132
Kenya	31,138,735	224	139,012
Germany	83,251,851	603	138,063
Ecuador	13,183,978	100	131,840
Australia	19,357,594	150	129,051
Chile	15,328,467	120	127,737
Thailand	62,354,402	500	124,709
Ethiopia	67,673,031	550	123,042
Turkey	67,308,928	550	122,380
Guatemala	12,974,361	113	114,817
Spain	40,077,100	350	114,506
Netherlands	15,981,472	150	106,543
Canada	31,902,268	301	105,988
France	59,765,983	577	103,581
Italy	57,715,625	630	91,612
United Kingdom	59,778,002	659	90,710
Poland	38,625,478	460	83,968
Belgium	10,258,762	150	68,392
Bolivia	8,300,463	130	63,850
Czech Republic	10,264,212	200	51,321
Israel	5,938,093	120	49,484
Austria	8,150,835	183	44,540
Portugal	10,066,253	230	43,766
Switzerland	7,283,274	200	36,416
Greece	10,623,835	300	35,413
New Zealand	3,864,129	120	32,201
Denmark	5,352,815	179	29,904
Norway	4,503,440	165	27,294
Hungary	10,106,017	386	26,181
Finland	5,175,783	200	25,879
Sweden	8,875,053	349	25,430
Ireland	3,840,838	166	23,138

1) Population (nations > 20,000,000) is the 2002 estimated population from GeoHive-Global Data-Top 50, or for smaller nations (nations < 20,000,000), from GeoHive-Global Data-All. 2) The number of members (Representatives) in the "Lower House" of each national parliament is taken from the PARLINE Database of the International Organization of Parliaments of Sovereign States (IPU).

[Phantom Lord]

To return to a House of Reps with a rep for every 30,000 people would give us a House of nearly 10,000 members! You think we have gridlock and special interest coercion now, imagine the mess that a House with 10,000 reps would cause.

[hedgetrimmer]

This is interesting. One argument against the Eurpean Union is that the individual has less representation precisely because the number of people an official represents is greater in the EU, than in a sovereign government. Same argument applies for world government.

[FairWitness]

I didn't say one per 30,000; it is not up to me to decide anyway. But it would be worth a public and a congressional debate to decide if it could be improved from the current rediculous ratio.

[FairWitness]

One argument against the Eurpean Union is that the individual has less representation precisely because the number of people an official represents is greater in the EU, than in a sovereign government. Just so.

I think one of the oddest outcomes of the current situation is the case were a state (I think six of them currently) has only one representative, but of course the usual two senators. This is the easiest case to visualize how the current situation will leave large segments of the population "unrepresented".

[TexasNative2000]

George Will had an excellent piece on this subject several years ago. Allow me some time to find and post.

[SwinneySwitch]

I don't see any country on this table I'd rather live in. Let's just leave it alone for now!

[Phantom Lord]

The only way that I would begin to consider a change in the number of reps is with a corresponding Constitutional amendment limiting the number of terms in the House to 6 and terms in the Senate to 2. Barring that, I have no interest in increasing the number of lifetime politicians in Washington.

[DLfromthedesert]

I have a better solution. Get the Federal Government out of health care, education, etc and let it stick to defense and interstate highways.

Then we'll all be well represented by our STATE legislators.

[FairWitness]

I don't see any country on this table I'd rather live in. Let's just leave it alone for now!

I am not saying that we should have governments like any of these other countries (and I know you would not want to put words in my mouth), only that we are the outlier in terms of number of people per representative. The current number is determined by statute, not by the Constitution, so there is nothing sacred about it.

[FairWitness]

The only way that I would begin to consider a change in the number of reps is with a corresponding Constitutional amendment limiting the number of terms in the House to 6 and terms in the Senate to 2. Barring that, I have no interest in increasing the number of lifetime politicians in Washington.

Sounds O.K. to me.

[Elliott Jackalope]

My wife and I were talking about this very subject earlier this morning. I was making the case that when governments of any type get too large they become indifferent to the needs of the people they are supposedly serving. It's like buildings that get too big, such as the giant glass towers of so many major cities. The ugliness and indifference of those edifices eventually led to a new way of thinking in architecture, called the "human-scale" movement, which means buildings designed to serve the needs of the people who use them daily, instead of the ego's of those who build them.

I submit that the real answer is not to add more representatives, but to break up the U.S. into about twenty or so smaller nations, each with its own independant government. Face it, when you are a part of nation of three hundred and fifty million people, you are as relevant as a grain of sand on an endless beach. If you are a citizen of a nation of ten or twenty million people, you might at least have a chance of being slightly relevant to the ruling elite. We need human-scale government!

[Gunslingr3]

I didn't say one per 30,000; it is not up to me to decide anyway. But it would be worth a public and a congressional debate to decide if it could be improved from the current rediculous ratio.

One ratio that has shifted that I'm more interested in is the Senate side. Each Senator and representative counts toward and electoral representative. The early growth of representatives has never been offset with a corresponding increase in Senatorial (sovereign State) represenation. Consider how Bush won 30 States, but nearly lost the election.

The amendment to make Senators popularly elected, instead of leaving it to State legislatures to determine, further weakened importance of State sovereignty as a check on federal excess.

Perhaps a return to more Republican methods is warranted. The push toward Democracy is, as the Founders warned, imperilling individual rights and leading us to bankruptcy.

[Liberal Classic]

To return to a House of Reps with a rep for every 30,000 people would give us a House of nearly 10,000 members! You think we have gridlock and special interest coercion now, imagine the mess that a House with 10,000 reps would cause.

That's not necessarily a bad thing. ;)

[Guillermo]

So, are you for reducing the number of Reps in DC?

[FairWitness]

I have a better solution. Get the Federal Government out of health care, education, etc and let it stick to defense and interstate highways.

I would have no problem with that, though I think it is far less likely even than an increase in the size of the House.

[Gunslingr3]

We need human-scale government!

That is the purpose of federalism and limited powers. What we need a return to the experiment in human liberty. We know how socialism turns out, no need to prove we can do it too.

[FairWitness]

I submit that the real answer is not to add more representatives, but to break up the U.S. into about twenty or so smaller nations, each with its own independant government.

Not a totally bad idea, though I would put it in terms of making more states (at least three - five for California) rather than Independent nations. But state pride will never allow it.

[FairWitness]

The amendment to make Senators popularly elected, instead of leaving it to State legislatures to determine, further weakened importance of State sovereignty as a check on federal excess.

Plus a popularly elected Senate, rather than one elected by state legislatures, is largely responsible for the huge cost of current Senate races (and the alleged "need" for campaign finance reform).

[Arrowhead1952]

To return to a House of Reps with a rep for every 30,000 people would give us a House of nearly 10,000 members!

YIPES!!!! That is scary, very scary.

How much bigger would the House Chambers have to be?

.....imagine the mess that a House with 10,000 reps would cause.

Imagine the mess in the bathrooms during breaks!!