Americans Have Less Say About Their Own Governance Than Any Other Idustrialized Democracy

When a member of a legislative body has 100,000 or 200,000 constituents, the voter takes on more significance. Average citizens can hope to sway public policy in a way Americans now cannot.

Hundreds of thousands of dollars are no longer necessary to mount a campaign. Networking, word-of-mouth and personal reputation become essential for a successful run. Election of a Geroge Santos becomes unthinkable.

In a district of 100,000 or 200,000 a representative must be aware that the smaller body of voters allows dissatisfied constituents to effectively promote an opponent. It’s about accountability to those who are supposed to be represented. The small body of voters also may serve as insurance for a representative. It enables development of a personal rapport with constituents which may shield him or her from the threats of billionaire bullies and other high power special interests.

By comparison, United States House districts contain an average of 761,000 constituents. And there are virtually no limitations on bribes paid to representatives in the form of so-called contributions. Ordinary Americans get short shrift, and they know it.

Then there is the problem of the Constitution. While it leaves decisions about precise numbers to future congresses, the apportionment of House members must fall within three parameters:

• “The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand”
• “[E]ach State shall have at Least one Representative”
• “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers”

House membership spectacularly fails to meet the third requirement. The distribution of representatives among the states is wildly disproportionate. And has been for decades.

Usurpation Drives a Wedge Between People and Government

Compromise between the small and large states drove the system of government defined within the Constitution. The small states opposed any plan which did not give them an equal place at the table in a new government. Therefore the Senate was configured as a federation with each state having an equal say. To satisfy the large states, House membership was based on population so that each person would have roughly equal representation. Thus, Congress and its derivative, the Electoral College, were a balance of federalism and representative democracy.

Easily hard-coded, the Constitution simply states that each state will have two senators. In addition this provision is not subject to the usual amendment process. All fifty states must agree to any changes in the Senate.

House membership, on the other hand, was shooting at a moving target. It was expected to change as the population grew and shifted westward. To prompt regular re-evaluation, a census was required every ten years. Re-evaluated membership must fall within three broad parameters: every representative must represent at least 30,000 people; every state must have at least one representative; the representatives are to be apportioned among the states based on population.

The drafters anticipated a healthy population growth. In Federalist 55 James Madison forecasts a House with 400 members in 50 years, that is by 1838. Alexander Hamilton's Federalist 77 puts the number at 300 or 400 in “half a century”. Nathaniel Gorham, who represented Massachusetts and played a leading role at the Constitutional Convention, told that state’s ratifying convention there would be 360 representatives in 50 years and 1,800 or 1,900 within 100 years. These projections track roughly with Benjamin Franklin’s population forecast. The House was envisioned as a robust voice for ordinary people in a government from which they were otherwise largely shut out.

Today, 238 years later, we have just 435 representatives to speak for 331 million people—not even a respectable sample size for polling. What happened? To put it plainly, in 1929 a rising professional political class quietly usurped the power of the people.

From 1790 through 1910, after every census but one, the number of representatives increased, going from 105 to 435. After the 1920 census, for the only time in our history there was no reapportionment. Forty-two apportionment bills failed to pass. With the next census in view, Congress and the President enacted the Reapportionment Act of 1929 , freezing the size of the House at 435 seats. This fundamental unbalancing of the interests between the large and small states did not became part of the Constitution. When Alaska and Hawaii became states in 1959, the Senate increased from 96 to 100. The House increased from 435 to 437 until the next census, after which it returned to 435.

Stunting the growth of representative democracy has consequences. The American people have less representation than any other major industrial democracy. Also, four hundred thirty-five House seats are not sufficient to enable each person to have equal representation. The number people in a congressional districts varies from state to state by 448,000.

How Much Bigger Should the House Become?

The long, red S-shaped plot line starts with Montana at 543,000 constituents per representative and ends at Delaware’s 991,000—a difference of 448,000, that is 83 percent. In 1964, the Supreme Court ruled that within each state the districts must contain roughly the same number of people. As the graph illustrates the distribution of 435 seats among 331 million people in 50 states does not constitute seats “apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State.”

So the question becomes just how many representatives must there be to comply with constitutional requirements. To answer this question, three hypothetical House memberships have been considered. First, what if the House were twice its current size? Second, what if the House were three times its current size ? And third, what if the House were four times its current size?

In all three cases the actual 2020 Census results were used and the graphs used the same scale. Only ordinary arithmetic is required to reproduce the results. A link to a description of the calculations can be found at the end of this essay.

The series of graphs illustrate the relationship between the size of the House and the degree to which seats are fairly distributed among the states. As the size of the House increases, the blue-green plot line flattens out, becoming less S-shaped. It also slides down as districts become smaller.

When each state has roughly the same size congressional districts, the seats will have been distributed in proportion to the population. To reflect a proportional distribution, the plot line will be straight and parallel to the horizontal axis. Of the three graphs, only the hypothetical 1,740-member House comes close. From this it can be argued 1,740 or more members are necessary to satisfy the Constitution’s specifications.

The resulting smaller congressional districts enable a legitimate “consent of the governed” every two years. Constituents could expect direct personal accountability from representatives and in turn must accept their own greater responsibility for choosing those who govern. Today’s bloated, gerrymandered, money-infected districts no longer ensure that legitimacy

Fastest, Safest, Manageable Reform

With elections every two years and control of the purse strings, the House is supposed to be the People’s check within the system of checks and balances. It was to be the safety valve to prevent a strong national government running amuck. The thing about safety valves is that if they aren’t maintained and inspected from time to time, they may malfunction when most needed.

This essay is about more than conforming to a 238 year old piece of paper and its amendments. The already somewhat limited democracy function within our system of government appears to be out of order. Proposed “fixes” generally require amendment or replacement of the Constitution or even a complete bust up of the nation. Such radical changes require literally thousands of people, years of time, and enormous risk.

Refurbishing the safety valve is the fastest, safest, most manageable fix of the democracy function.

First, the change can happen at once. The path to its execution is straight and narrow. The Constitution was not amended to freeze House membership in 1929 so it does not need to be amended to unwind the damage. The passage of a bill into law will suffice.

Second, the change is safer because it takes place within the existing constitutional infrastructure. The Senate as well as the Executive and Judiciary branches with the surrounding checks and balances provide institutional stability

Third, the change could be managed. One possibility might be to make the change in stages. Say, for example, add 435 seats before the 2026 congressional election, add another 435 before the 2030 congressional election, and so forth until an agreed on goal is reached. The election officials in the states can manage the more frequent redistricting the same way they now do after each census. As this kind of a plan rolls out, it could be modified, slowed down or reversed without crashing the whole government.

Finally, people are accustomed to a congressional district with a single representative. It is not complicated; it is easy to understand; it is transparent.

Fear and Hope

Fear: Each day as the number of people climbs and House membership remains frozen, our nation becomes more and more a Potemkin democracy.

Hope: May James Madison's words ring as true today as they did when they first appeared on November 30, 1787 in Federalist 14:

…Is it not the glory of the people of America, that, whilst they have paid a decent regard to the opinions of former times and other nations, they have not suffered a blind veneration for antiquity, for custom, or for names, to overrule the suggestions of their own good sense, the knowledge of their own situation, and the lessons of their own experience?… They accomplished a revolution which has no parallel in the annals of human society.… They formed the design of a great Confederacy, which it is incumbent on their successors to improve and perpetuate…