< PREVIOUS ] [ 2001 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
After every decennial census, the U.S. House of Representatives must be reapportioned, and so our growing state will go from six to seven congressional districts. States that didn't grow as quickly, like New York and Pennsylvania, will lose seats.
Somehow, that doesn't seem quite fair. Sure, more population should mean more representation in congress, but should a state lose representation just because its population is more stable than Colorado's?
Actually, we all lose representation after every census, and it's the fault of Congress, not of the federal Constitution.
Article I of the Constitution only requires that each
state get at least one representative, and that The
Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every
thirty Thousand,
based on an actual Enumeration
-- the census.
And until the first census could be conducted in 1790, the Founding Fathers took their best guess as to how many representatives each of the 13 original states should get, and came up with a total of 65 representatives.
The population of the United States then was about 4 million people, so each House seat represented about 61,500 constituents. (Coincidentally, this is about the same ratio as Colorado's current situation for our legislature's House of Representatives -- population of about 4 million, and 65 house seats.)
Obviously, the writers of the Constitution believed that congressional districts should be much smaller than they are now: 30,000 people at minimum, and 61,500 in practice.
As the U.S. population grew through the 19th century, so did the number of representatives, until the results of the 1910 census came in. Congress then fixed the number of representatives at 435, and it has stayed there ever since with temporary exceptions when new states came into the union.
In 1910, there were 92 million Americans represented by those 435 congressmen -- one congressman for every 211,494 people.
Since then, four states have come into the union -- New Mexico and Arizona in 1912, and Alaska and Hawaii in 1959 -- and the population has tripled to nearly 280 million. But the number of representatives has remained the same at 435, and so each House member now has about 645,000 constituents.
That's about a tenth as much representation as citizens enjoyed when the Constitution was adopted, and only a third as much as Americans had 90 years ago when Congress limited the House to 435 representatives.
Thus as the population grows, we are being deprived of representation. Each individual becomes less significant as congressional districts grow in population.
Suppose we went to the constitutional minimum population for congressional districts -- 30,000 people. The U.S. House of Representatives would then have about 9,300 members.
That seems unwieldy and expensive, but let's look at the benefits, which would extend well past improved representation:
· Easier reapportionment. Just count the number of people in a state, divide by 30,000, and round the result. No more arguments between Utah and North Carolina over who gets a seat, based on overseas population, since the total number of representatives would be based on population, not on an arbitrary number like 435. Missing out on a fourth or fifth congressional seat is a lot worse than missing out on a 134th seat.
· Simpler redistricting. Dividing Colorado into seven congressional districts, each as geographically compact as possible, will be a monumental task for the legislature. Divide Colorado into 130 congressional districts, and they're already fairly compact.
· Cheaper campaigning. Representatives could practice retail politics, meeting constituents face to face -- they wouldn't have to buy expensive television time. Thus they wouldn't need to raise money, and without a need for campaign finance, there wouldn't be a need for campaign finance reform.
· Greater diversity. With 9,300 members, none of
whom needed to raise a lot of campaign money, the House
might become truly representative: Not just Republicans and
Democrats, but independents, Libertarians, Greens,
socialists, etc. American political thought is much
broader than what now appears in our representative
body.
· Governmental gridlock. It seems likely that a body with 9,300 members would have trouble getting anything done. And who among us would suffer if there were fewer federal laws?
The only downside appears to be the cost of maintaining 9,300 representatives as opposed to 435. Each representative now costs about $5 million a year, and so a bigger House might cost as much as $45 billion a year.
That's a lot of money, but the federal government is running at a surplus. So there is a choice between better representation and tax breaks for billionaires, and it seems obvious which course would be best for our republic.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 2001 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >