Morgan Brykein
12-28-2009, 03:55 PM
I wrote this up to post on my website (in my sig), but I like to get feedback before I publish, because quite frankly my writing sucks. What do you think? Both of the article itself and of my concept, of increasing the size of the House?
In 1929, Congress passed the Reapportionment Act, which set the size of the House at 435 seats. This act was passed because the Republican-controlled Congress did not want to reapportion, because many incumbents would have been redistricted out of their seats. For the next eighty years, the U.S. population grew, and the size of the House stayed the same. At the time, each member of Congress represented around two-hundred thousand people. Now, each member of Congress represents six-hundred fifty thousand people, and that number will only grow after next year's census.
Today, Congress receives dismal approval ratings, and over ninety percent of incumbents get reelected. Political careerism is rampant, and the consensus is that something needs to be done. Many propose term limits as a solution to the underrepresentative Congress, but I say that will only cure the symptoms, not the disease. The real way to give Congress back to the people, is to increase the size of the House.
When the Bill of Rights was passed by the First Congress and sent out to be ratified by the states, there were twelve proposed amendments, not ten. One of these was not added to the Constitution for another two hundred years - we know it today as the Twenty-seventh Amendment. The other was lost in the annals of history. It was known as the Congressional Apportionment Amendment, or <i>Article the First</i>. It's intent was to set a minimum apportionment - one representative for every fifty thousand people.
If the Congressional Apportionment Amendment were ratified today, the House would have to consist of 5,628 members. That is an insane number - it would require a Capitol the size of a stadium. Or would it? With modern technology, it can be possible to have several meeting-places for the House, and a central location where all the votes are aggregated electronically. Not only would it make things easier, but having say, four buildings in different locations where 1,407 representatives meet would ensure for continuity of government in a worst-case scenario such as a terrorist attack or invasion by a foreign army.
Having districts each with fifty thousand people would truly allow for citizen legislators, something term limits would not create. It would also make it easier for different views to be represented in Congress - if there are only fifty thousand people, a candidate would not need millions of dollars to campaign. You could see a lot more third party or independent members of Congress. And a Congressperson would not routinely be re-elected.
Gerrymandering would probably be hard, with such small districts. Currently, gerrymandering is a major reason why incumbents are routinely re-elected. Districts are drawn to benefit one party or another, and term limits will not change that. It would be especially hard to gerrymander these small districts if they have to be contiguous.
With a representative for every fifty thousand people, <i>everyone</i> will be represented in Congress. Even Compton would have it's own representative, two, actually. The problem of minority representation in Congress would disappear - you would no longer need districts drawn as minority-majority districts. The House of Representatives would truly represent the people, and we will see a return of responsible government, which does not exist with a House of 435.
The reason why Congress is out of touch with the people, is because a single person cannot represent the interests of two-thirds of a million people. And because you need backing from special interests in order to run a successful campaign. I wish people would realize that there is a better solution to the problems effecting today's Congress.
In 1929, Congress passed the Reapportionment Act, which set the size of the House at 435 seats. This act was passed because the Republican-controlled Congress did not want to reapportion, because many incumbents would have been redistricted out of their seats. For the next eighty years, the U.S. population grew, and the size of the House stayed the same. At the time, each member of Congress represented around two-hundred thousand people. Now, each member of Congress represents six-hundred fifty thousand people, and that number will only grow after next year's census.
Today, Congress receives dismal approval ratings, and over ninety percent of incumbents get reelected. Political careerism is rampant, and the consensus is that something needs to be done. Many propose term limits as a solution to the underrepresentative Congress, but I say that will only cure the symptoms, not the disease. The real way to give Congress back to the people, is to increase the size of the House.
When the Bill of Rights was passed by the First Congress and sent out to be ratified by the states, there were twelve proposed amendments, not ten. One of these was not added to the Constitution for another two hundred years - we know it today as the Twenty-seventh Amendment. The other was lost in the annals of history. It was known as the Congressional Apportionment Amendment, or <i>Article the First</i>. It's intent was to set a minimum apportionment - one representative for every fifty thousand people.
If the Congressional Apportionment Amendment were ratified today, the House would have to consist of 5,628 members. That is an insane number - it would require a Capitol the size of a stadium. Or would it? With modern technology, it can be possible to have several meeting-places for the House, and a central location where all the votes are aggregated electronically. Not only would it make things easier, but having say, four buildings in different locations where 1,407 representatives meet would ensure for continuity of government in a worst-case scenario such as a terrorist attack or invasion by a foreign army.
Having districts each with fifty thousand people would truly allow for citizen legislators, something term limits would not create. It would also make it easier for different views to be represented in Congress - if there are only fifty thousand people, a candidate would not need millions of dollars to campaign. You could see a lot more third party or independent members of Congress. And a Congressperson would not routinely be re-elected.
Gerrymandering would probably be hard, with such small districts. Currently, gerrymandering is a major reason why incumbents are routinely re-elected. Districts are drawn to benefit one party or another, and term limits will not change that. It would be especially hard to gerrymander these small districts if they have to be contiguous.
With a representative for every fifty thousand people, <i>everyone</i> will be represented in Congress. Even Compton would have it's own representative, two, actually. The problem of minority representation in Congress would disappear - you would no longer need districts drawn as minority-majority districts. The House of Representatives would truly represent the people, and we will see a return of responsible government, which does not exist with a House of 435.
The reason why Congress is out of touch with the people, is because a single person cannot represent the interests of two-thirds of a million people. And because you need backing from special interests in order to run a successful campaign. I wish people would realize that there is a better solution to the problems effecting today's Congress.