Posted on 09/26/2003 11:06:57 AM PDT by 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 |
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 |
Tradition!
Source: Growth in U.S. Population Calls for Larger House of Representatives by Margo Anderson.
Bottom line, if we follow the 'cube-root' model, we would now have 588 Representatives based on the 2000 census, instead of the current number of 435 dating from 1910. Sounds about right to me...
dvwjr
To an analytical scientist, "happiness is a straight line correlation". Thanks for the graph. 588 would be an improvement
Congresscritters would never have to leave their districts, but could stay home listening and interacting with their 29,999 other constituents. Then they could participate in Congress via PC.
Congressional committees and subcommittees could meet in different cities to do business, rather than in DC.
One benefit to a "distributed" Congress of thousands of members would be that it would make the job of the K Street lobbyists impossible. Buying influence and passing out "campaign contributions" would be prohibitive due to the cost of servicing so many congresscritters. And the ever-present voice of the constituents next door and down the block would drown out the influence of the lobbyists.
This would also solve the problem of a terrorist taking out the Capitol building. There would be too many targets distributed all over the country.
Food for thought.
That's right sports fans, that would put the number of representatives at 666!!! Finally, you'd have a bunch of folks really disturbed at what's coming out of DC!
Remember, the Constitution does not require 1 rep/30,000 - it requires that there be at least 30,000 people per rep. I'm not advocating a 10,000 person legislature, but something greater than 435 would be good. A virtual congress (with a lot less speecifying) would be interesting to try, though I think congress-critter ego and the lust for "facetime" make it highly unlikely.
The fewer people in the district, the more important you are.
I think we should personally set it to the smallest state size. Whatever that number is in the census, that should be the size of the district. It also helps larger states in a sense. If a state has 100,000 or 600,000, they still get the same pull in the house. The senate is supposed to accomplish that task of equal representation by each state.
I know Wyoming was 493,000 in the 2000 census, so use that as a baseline. Divide the national population by 493,000, and apportion accordingly. 567 or so seats would work.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.