Hello, my faithful readers! I apologizes for the brief hiatus (though many of you likely didn’t notice). This weekend was the start of college football, so my Saturday was full of game preparation and cheers. Go Gators!
Last time I sent out a newsletter, all the way back to last Wednesday, I wrote an article defending the Senate as constructed and why it matters how both you as an American and you as a member of your state. My focus in that newsletter was on the Senate, as the house of Congress most threatened by future trends. Today, I want to shift to the House. Like I said last week, long-term problems, and long term reforms, are my focus. The House represents both.
In the last newsletter (found here for those who haven’t read it; I humbly encourage you to) I outlined how I believe power is delegated under our current system. As I noted, the Senate exists to represent you as a member of your state (or rather, the state governments as a reflection of you). The House, on the other hand, was designed specifically with the intention to represent, as a body, the American people at large. While seats are apportioned by state, the House is the first, most direct, and most democratic connection that the American people have to their governance. Its elections are done as a whole, every two years, with the express intent of making it responsible and answerable to the will of the people directly.
The most important constitutional provision on this point falls under Article One, Section Two, Clause Three; that, “The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand [citizens]”. In case anyone was unaware, we no longer follow that provision. As of today, there are roughly 758,000 American citizens for every one House member.
Think about that for a second. 758,000 people, one representative (on average; state apportionment messes with those numbers some). We have gone above the constitutionally-mandated ratio by a factor of 25.
Now, I would be foolish to simply say we should return to the Constitution’s discretion on what the ratio should be. If we did that, we would be looking at roughly 11,000 House members, which on its face seems unwieldy (not to mention expensive). However, it does not seem unreasonable to suggest that our current ratio hinders the democratic nature of the House. I am not omniscient, and I will not pretend to know what the exact number should be, but I am of the belief that having one representative responsible for the voices of in some cases an entire state’s worth of people is a problem, and one that we should actively seek to fix.
Which begs the question; why is our representation ratio so large? Why does the size of the House never change? And what can be done to fix that?
From the Founding until the 1920s, the size of the House of Representatives grew steadily as the population did, with few exceptions. In 1793, the first year the House was reapportioned, there was one representative for every 37000 people. In 1850, it was one for every 100,000. In 1900, it was one for every 190,000 (all of these numbers come from this Pew Research article, which is worth a look at; it also has data on how we compare to other nations). The ratio grew, but its growth was kept in check by regular congressional input on how large the House should be and regular growth of the House itself. In 1929, however, due in part to the protestations of rural representatives worried about losing their influence, the number of representatives was capped at 435. Since then, the ratio has grown four times over, with no change in the size of the House to reflect even part of that.
The effects of this lack of change are mixed, and there are arguments for and against expanding the House, but I have two points here. My first, as has been my issue with unrelated matters, is that this abrogation of congressional duty is distinctly undemocratic. The House has not debated its size in almost a century. It is within its rights to follow the current law, but in my opinion that goes against the spirit of the body itself. The House of Representatives is meant to be our most democratic institution, and refusing to even debate its size, let alone expand it in regards to our expanding population, betrays that democratic nature. Democracy changes; it is constantly in flux, and something as important as how many representatives we have should be up for a vote on a regular basis.
My second point is less broad and more biased. Gerrymandering has become, as anyone who follows the news can attest, a controversial issue in today’s America. While I am of the opinion that it is largely legal and should be dealt with on a state-by-state basis, it strikes me as odd that expanding the House is not seen as a partial remedy to this problem. Gerrymandering occurs, in part, because these districts have become so populous that it is vital to draw them in such a way as to maximize political favor. While expanding the House would not change this basic calculus, I do think that it would help to alleviate some of the pressure; if more seats are up for grabs, it becomes less important who actually resides in each of those seats.
As always, I encourage dissent and disagreement with my positions, so I want to leave you guys with a question; why 435? Also, if you guys enjoy my writing, or at least think it interesting enough to note, please like, subscribe, and share. I appreciate all of your comments and support, and I hope my writing facilitates discussion and debate on ideas not usually thought about.
You won’t find any dissent from me. Make the more democratic house more democratic and the more republican house more republican (lowercase intentional).