PDA

View Full Version : Constitutional size of the House of Representatives




swiftfoxmark2
02-03-2012, 08:28 AM
Under Article 1, section 2 of the United States Constitution it reads in part:


The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative

I could not find an amendment that changes that ratio. But given that there are 310 million people in the United States, this means that there should be about 10,334 members in the House of Representatives.

During the progressive era, that number of capped at 435 but not by amendment, just by a simple act of Congress. There is no language in the relevant section or any other which states that Congress gets to regulate the size of the House other than what I have quoted above, so I am wondering why don't have more members in the House.

As it stands right now, representation is at a ratio of 1 representative for every 712,644 individual (divide 310 million by 435 rounded up).

I am curious as to what people think about this. I'm sure most people don't give it much thought at all, but it would be interesting to see what people have to say.

aGameOfThrones
02-03-2012, 08:34 AM
Repeal Public Law 62-5!

swiftfoxmark2
02-03-2012, 08:46 AM
I'm actually wondering if people have any ideas on what would happen, should the House suddenly find itself to be 10,334 members strong. I think lobbyists would lose a lot of power for one thing since they would have to influence more and more people.

Nastynate
02-03-2012, 08:50 AM
I'm actually wondering if people have any ideas on what would happen, should the House suddenly find itself to be 10,334 members strong. I think lobbyists would lose a lot of power for one thing since they would have to influence more and more people.

Very true, and the representatives would be much more receptive to their constituents. I'm sure it could easily be done also in that they could do all their work from home and have congress over the internet instead of spending millions of transporting people back and forth and would keep the representative at home. But the establishment definitely doesn't want this, the people to actually be represented at the federal level. I really don't see many down sides to this.

Krugerrand
02-03-2012, 08:52 AM
Look into:
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/graphics/chart_US1a.png

pacu44
02-03-2012, 09:13 AM
This is a great thread ;)

pacu44
02-03-2012, 09:16 AM
Laws would not be swept through in hours as each of the 10,000 would want thier say... THIS NEEDS TO HAPPEN

brushfire
02-03-2012, 09:18 AM
It would clost lobbyists a lot more too...

Harder to pass laws, more room for freedom advocates - I like it!

Top notch thread!

luctor-et-emergo
02-03-2012, 09:25 AM
Look into:
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/graphics/chart_US1a.png

So the number of representatives was capped in 1913 ?
What else happened that year... Hmmm ;)


The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative

I could not find an amendment that changes that ratio. But given that there are 310 million people in the United States, this means that there should be about 10,334 members in the House of Representatives.
'Shall not exceed' is a limit, not a ratio. This means that there shall be at least 50 representatives and a maximum of around 10.344 at the moment. But I don't see a minimum ratio.

aGameOfThrones
02-03-2012, 09:29 AM
I really liked this podcast from Lew on this topic.

69. The Case for Bigger Government (http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2008/11/17/69-the-case-for-bigger-government/)

pahs1994
02-03-2012, 09:35 AM
Look into:
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/graphics/chart_US1a.png

for once i want the government to grow!!

Matthew5
02-03-2012, 09:38 AM
Nice catch...so sounds like we either need a Constitutional amendment, or start looking for a bigger warehouse to hold the 10k. :p

brushfire
02-03-2012, 09:43 AM
Nice catch...so sounds like we either need a Constitutional amendment, or start looking for a bigger warehouse to hold the 10k. :p

They should work from their districts. They would "telecommute" leaving an electronic paper trail. After all, dont they really want to "go green"?

Icymudpuppy
02-03-2012, 09:44 AM
Nice catch...so sounds like we either need a Constitutional amendment, or start looking for a bigger warehouse to hold the 10k. :p

Why? As mentioned above, everything that congress does can just as easily be done via the internet. Committees can meet in video chat rooms. Floor meetings in regular chat rooms. Voting can take place through encrypted internet servers. I don't see a need for a central meeting location.

aGameOfThrones
02-03-2012, 09:47 AM
What's the difference between New Hampshire's house of rep and the U.S house of rep? 35 members!

green73
02-03-2012, 09:49 AM
I really liked this podcast from Lew on this topic.

69. The Case for Bigger Government (http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2008/11/17/69-the-case-for-bigger-government/)

Beat me to it!

Pericles
02-03-2012, 09:49 AM
Would fundamentally change the dynamic.

Matthew5
02-03-2012, 10:01 AM
I was just teasing about the warehouse idea. I agree, they can easily meet using current technology.

andrew1229649
02-03-2012, 10:05 AM
I don't think anyone said this but, notice the year it stopped getting bigger? Anyone noticing a trend here??? lol

swiftfoxmark2
02-03-2012, 10:09 AM
I don't think anyone said this but, notice the year it stopped getting bigger? Anyone noticing a trend here??? lol

Yeah, that was devastating year for liberty....

green73
02-03-2012, 10:09 AM
I don't think anyone said this but, notice the year it stopped getting bigger? Anyone noticing a trend here??? lol

The republic really took a kick to the nuts that year.

andrew1229649
02-03-2012, 10:12 AM
Seriously, it did...every chart of just about anything that matters shows a swing in the wrong direction right around 1913.

RileyE104
02-03-2012, 11:02 AM
I had a conversation about this with a teacher of mine once...

His argument was that there would be over 4,000 Representatives and that nothing would get done.

Had I known then what I know now... I would have replied that maybe that would be a good thing? :)

After all, would the Patriot Act have passed if there were 4,000+ heads doing their research as opposed to 435?


Also consider that these Representatives would actually be TRUSTED by their populace because the entire district would probably know them.

I mean, it wouldn't take millions to run for office, so HONEST PEOPLE could seek to represent their districts once again.

harikaried
02-03-2012, 11:22 AM
So the number of representatives was capped in 1913 ?
What else happened that year... Hmmm ;)The 17th amendment was also ratified that year. If you think each representative caring about 700k+ individuals in a district, how about 2 senators caring about ~38m people in California.

(And yes, both the federal reserve was created and 16th amendment were also ratified in 1913. :p)

ifthenwouldi
02-03-2012, 11:38 AM
The better idea is to have smaller republics. Brutus was right:


The territory of the United States is of vast extent; it now contains near three millions of souls, and is capable of containing much more than ten times that number. Is it practicable for a country, so large and so numerous as they will soon become, to elect a representation, that will speak their sentiments, without their becoming so numerous as to be incapable of transacting public business? It certainly is not.


In a republic of such vast extent as the United-States, the legislature cannot attend to the various concerns and wants of its different parts. It cannot be sufficiently numerous to be acquainted with the local condition and wants of the different districts, and if it could, it is impossible it should have sufficient time to attend to and provide for all the variety of cases of this nature, that would be continually arising.


In so extensive a republic, the great officers of government would soon become above the controul of the people, and abuse their power to the purpose of aggrandizing themselves, and oppressing them. The trust committed to the executive offices, in a country of the extent of the United-States, must be various and of magnitude. The command of all the troops and navy of the republic, the appointment of officers, the power of pardoning offences, the collecting of all the public revenues, and the power of expending them, with a number of other powers, must be lodged and exercised in every state, in the hands of a few. When these are attended with great honor and emolument, as they always will be in large states, so as greatly to interest men to pursue them, and to be proper objects for ambitious and designing men, such men will be ever restless in their pursuit after them. They will use the power, when they have acquired it, to the purposes of gratifying their own interest and ambition, and it is scarcely possible, in a very large republic, to call them to account for their misconduct, or to prevent their abuse of power.

http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus01.htm

heavenlyboy34
02-03-2012, 11:48 AM
Under Article 1, section 2 of the United States Constitution it reads in part:



I could not find an amendment that changes that ratio. But given that there are 310 million people in the United States, this means that there should be about 10,334 members in the House of Representatives.

During the progressive era, that number of capped at 435 but not by amendment, just by a simple act of Congress. There is no language in the relevant section or any other which states that Congress gets to regulate the size of the House other than what I have quoted above, so I am wondering why don't have more members in the House.

As it stands right now, representation is at a ratio of 1 representative for every 712,644 individual (divide 310 million by 435 rounded up).

I am curious as to what people think about this. I'm sure most people don't give it much thought at all, but it would be interesting to see what people have to say.
I've looked into this myself, and you're right. I'm not entirely convinced that adequate representation would justify the system, but it would make it harder for tyrannical legislation to be passed. It's a good start.

aGameOfThrones
02-03-2012, 11:57 AM
Sixty or seventy men may be more properly trusted with a given degree of power than six or seven. But it does not follow that six or seven hundred would be proportionably a better depositary. And if we carry on the supposition to six or seven thousand, the whole reasoning ought to be reversed. The truth is, that in all cases a certain number at least seems to be necessary to secure the benefits of free consultation and discussion, and to guard against too easy a combination for improper purposes; as, on the other hand, the number ought at most to be kept within a certain limit, in order to avoid the confusion and intemperance of a multitude. In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever character composed, passion never fails to wrest the sceptre from reason.

Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.

It is necessary also to recollect here the observations which were applied to the case of biennial elections. For the same reason that the limited powers of the Congress, and the control of the State legislatures, justify less frequent elections than the public safely might otherwise require, the members of the Congress need be less numerous than if they possessed the whole power of legislation, and were under no other than the ordinary restraints of other legislative bodies. With these general ideas in our mind, let us weigh the objections which have been stated against the number of members proposed for the House of Representatives. It is said, in the first place, that so small a number cannot be safely trusted with so much power. The number of which this branch of the legislature is to consist, at the outset of the government, will be sixty five. Within three years a census is to be taken, when the number may be augmented to one for every thirty thousand inhabitants; and within every successive period of ten years the census is to be renewed, and augmentations may continue to be made under the above limitation. It will not be thought an extravagant conjecture that the first census will, at the rate of one for every thirty thousand, raise the number of representatives to at least one hundred. Estimating the negroes in the proportion of three fifths, it can scarcely be doubted that the population of the United States will by that time, if it does not already, amount to three millions. At the expiration of twenty-five years, according to the computed rate of increase, the number of representatives will amount to two hundred, and of fifty years, to four hundred. This is a number which, I presume, will put an end to all fears arising from the smallness of the body. I take for granted here what I shall, in answering the fourth objection, hereafter show, that the number of representatives will be augmented from time to time in the manner provided by the Constitution. On a contrary supposition, I should admit the objection to have very great weight indeed. The true question to be decided then is, whether the smallness of the number, as a temporary regulation, be dangerous to the public liberty? Whether sixty-five members for a few years, and a hundred or two hundred for a few more, be a safe depositary for a limited and well-guarded power of legislating for the United States? I must own that I could not give a negative answer to this question, without first obliterating every impression which I have received with regard to the present genius of the people of America, the spirit which actuates the State legislatures, and the principles which are incorporated with the political character of every class of citizens I am unable to conceive that the people of America, in their present temper, or under any circumstances which can speedily happen, will choose, and every second year repeat the choice of, sixty-five or a hundred men who would be disposed to form and pursue a scheme of tyranny or treachery. I am unable to conceive that the State legislatures, which must feel so many motives to watch, and which possess so many means of counteracting, the federal legislature, would fail either to detect or to defeat a conspiracy of the latter against the liberties of their common constituents. I am equally unable to conceive that there are at this time, or can be in any short time, in the United States, any sixty-five or a hundred men capable of recommending themselves to the choice of the people at large, who would either desire or dare, within the short space of two years, to betray the solemn trust committed to them.

Fed papers #55

K466
02-03-2012, 12:12 PM
Doesn't look like the Constitution mandates 1:30,000, it just sets that as the minimum. That said, it seems more than 435 would be better. I have trouble imagining how 10,000+ would work, but going up to 500 or 1000 might be more reasonable.

Of course this may help demonstrate the the U.S. is too big to be one country.

TomtheTinker
02-03-2012, 12:15 PM
Tom woods talks about this in his book nullification.

Philhelm
02-03-2012, 12:36 PM
I don't think anyone said this but, notice the year it stopped getting bigger? Anyone noticing a trend here??? lol

And guess what year we're approaching...

swiftfoxmark2
02-03-2012, 12:41 PM
Doesn't look like the Constitution mandates 1:30,000, it just sets that as the minimum. That said, it seems more than 435 would be better. I have trouble imagining how 10,000+ would work, but going up to 500 or 1000 might be more reasonable.

Of course this may help demonstrate the the U.S. is too big to be one country.

I think it sets the maximum. It states "Shall not exceed" preceding the ratio, so I'm guessing that it is merely saying it shouldn't exceed the given ratio.

gerryb
02-03-2012, 01:04 PM
IF the State Reps and Sheriff's the various states elected would keep the FedGov in check with it's constitutionally authorized power, 435 would be just fine, I think. Good size for a bracket for poker tournaments every week or something to pass the time.

Hitman83
02-03-2012, 01:23 PM
10,000 sounds chaotic, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I think 1/30k puts drastic pressure on Rep Joe down the street, so he'll do his job better. I would be in favor of at least passing a range, say 1/100k - 1/30k count. 3,000 representatives isn't out of control by any means. But by setting a range or a standard max, who is in control of that changing beyond the minimum number of representatives. It's all too vague, and Public Law 62-5 locks us in to an arbitrary number (arbitrary now anyway, since we are 99 years farther). They need to define their rules in an exact manner. If you give a politician wiggle room, they'll escape and eat your children. I've seen it hundreds of times on the Discovery Channel...although that could have been wolverines, but they're similar.

Zippyjuan
02-03-2012, 01:39 PM
This seems to be arguing that bigger government (more members of the House of Representatives in this case) would mean better government?

harikaried
02-03-2012, 01:45 PM
Fyi, the first proposed amendment was to address this, and it hasn't been ratified:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_the_First

Congressional Apportionment Amendment

Article the first... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

Bonnieblue
02-03-2012, 02:05 PM
Of course, Aristotle had thought this through; Jefferson had thought this through; Jeffersonians like John Randolph had thought this through; and Dr. Donald Livingston of the Abbeville Institute -www.abbevilleinstitute.org - has thought this through.

It is hardly a representative government in which over 700,000 people are represented by one may; and it is hardly a government which can function at all if there are nearly 10,000 representatives.

Aristotle noted that a republic, to function for the common good of its social members - citizens and non citizens - should not be over about 300,000 people. Colonial America, in the British idiom, was a confederation of republics (colonies and later states) under the Crown. Those republics seceded from the Crown as sovereign republics and acceded to a new union under the Articles of Confederation. They then, some of them quite reluctantly, seceded from that union and acceded to a new union of constitutionally federated/confederated republics under that document which we refer to as "The Constitution." Jefferson envisioned and expansion of this republics as states to the west, and he envisioned up to five confederations of those republics on what is now the territory called the United States. Thus, there would be five general governments which would be the agents of those particular republics which had chosen to constitute a particular confederation. Jefferson saw them bound together by common traditions, customs and habits.

The other way that Jefferson sought to maintain the republican balance was to begin to consider ward republics within states. He hoped that his own state of Virginia would become a model. Indeed, under the leadership of John Randolph and others, Virginia secede that which we refer to as the Northwest Territory. Randolph gave two reasons: Virginia could never be a true republic with a territory so vast; such large territory was against the Aristotelian economy of scale which Randolph understood to be true; and that territory, later itself to become states (republics) would be a place to diffuse slavery, i.e. a home for freed slaves, and thereby make an eventual end of slavery possible. In the Jeffersonian/Randolph tradition, Virginia ceded its Kentucky county to become a new republic. Massachusetts eventually ceded that territory which would become Maine.

Remember that the general government for the United States is not a republic, nor is the aggregate of the state a republics. The states themselves are republics in federation or confederation -AT LEAST AS HISTORICALLY ENVISIONED AND PRACTICED UNTIL 1860. That union of constitutionally federated republics no longer exists.

In 1865, Lincoln and the Republican Party, having seized the general government as a regional and factional party unleashed a war which destroyed two unions of constitutionally federated republics: the United States of American and the Confederate States of America. He and his cronies replaced them with a nascent Hobbesian state which has a monopoly on coercion and which has the ability to define the limits of its own power.

If the Constitution was ultimately ratified to craft a new relationship among the then existing republics and to create a general government, i.e. an agent for the republics with the republics or states being the principals, and if the states delegated only those expressed powers so enumerated in the Constitution to ensure that the general government would pursue the common good for all of the states and not just a portion of them, then today, the Constitution is a dead letter because the union of constitutionally federated republics for which it was ratified is gone. The Constitution has no modern context.

Four years ago, I was privileged to participate in a conference on the Confederate Constitution in Athens, Georgia, where one of the originals of that document is archived. I was, along with others at the conference, privileged to view it, a document in many ways superior to its predecessor. What struck me then and stays with me today is that the Confederate Constitution died with its union in the crucible of war thrust upon its constituents. It lies archived in peace. The United States Constitution has had a different fate. Lincoln and the Republicans murdered its mate - the union of constitutionally federated republics called the United States - and has made it the unwilling whore of the Hobbesian state, the Leviathan, whose elites, agents and thralls take a mocking oath to her while plying their nefarious schemes under her very skirts, raping her, yet presenting her to us mortal fools as a goddess to whom we genuflect. The only way to "restore the Constitution" and to restore a truly representative polity is to return to the Jeffersonian and Aristotelian ideals by restoring one or more unions of constitutionally (not necessarily written) federated republics.

The problem is that I see no way back. I support Dr. Paul because by referring to the Constitution he gives of a glimpse of what was and a hope of what might come. But none of us, not even Dr. Paul, know was is actually going to come. We simply act on what we think to know for the good that we hope to come.

xFiFtyOnE
02-03-2012, 02:23 PM
I wonder if FedEx Field would be so kind as to let our new 10k member strong Congress use its facility until we could build a bigger Capitol building...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_SPY5-z18DBU/TT4PmaEMOMI/AAAAAAAAAuU/OAPZeANm3AU/s1600/washington_redskins_stadium_wallpaper_1280x1024.jp eg

mosquitobite
02-03-2012, 02:29 PM
So let me ask this...
if all that passed was a simple act of Congress...

Has any state ever fought it on Constitutional grounds?

swiftfoxmark2
02-03-2012, 02:48 PM
So let me ask this...
if all that passed was a simple act of Congress...

Has any state ever fought it on Constitutional grounds?

It's not really a State's Rights issue since they aren't represented in that House of Representatives.

mosquitobite
02-03-2012, 02:51 PM
It's not really a State's Rights issue since they aren't represented in that House of Representatives.

Huh? I'm saying that Indiana currently has NINE representatives. Based on our population we should have over 200. Couldn't a single state take this up as a cause to fight against the federal government?

If not, WHO has the power to start a fight to the Supreme Court over it?

KingRobbStark
02-03-2012, 02:54 PM
I asked a professor about that a year back. He said it didn't matter. What a douche.

John of Des Moines
02-03-2012, 04:42 PM
Increasing the Congress size per the never ratified first article of amendment would be nice with some tweaks. Just having more single member districts would not necessarily equal a better representation of the people of any State. It was not until 1843 or so that Congress required the State legislatures to establish single member House districts - Madison was elected from the state of Virginia - not from a district composed of a smaller geographic area of Virginia. And there where times that States has both State-wide members and single member district members serving at the same time.

I favor a mixed approach to Congressional representation.

Assuming Iowa got 87 Representatives in a 6,000 member House Iowa could have 40 single member districts, then 2 multi-member districts with 20 members elected from each and one State-wide district electing 7 members.

mosquitobite
02-03-2012, 04:45 PM
Increasing the Congress size per the never ratified first article of amendment would be nice with some tweaks. Just having more single member districts would not necessarily equal a better representation of the people of any State. It was not until 1843 or so that Congress required the State legislatures to establish single member House districts - Madison was elected from the state of Virginia - not from a district composed of a smaller geographic area of Virginia. And there where times that States has both State-wide members and single member district members serving at the same time.

I favor a mixed approach to Congressional representation.

Assuming Iowa got 87 Representatives in a 6,000 member House Iowa could have 40 single member districts, then 2 multi-member districts with 20 members elected from each and one State-wide district electing 7 members.
sounds like district and at large delegates!

mosquitobite
02-03-2012, 06:40 PM
So I asked elsewhere and got this response:


Wendelken v. Bureau of the Census, N.Y.,
N.Y. 582 F.Supp. 342 D.C.N.Y.,1983. Sep 21, 1983

Whelan v. Cuomo
415 F.Supp. 251 D.C.N.Y. 1976 June 15, 1976

Anyone want to tell me if those are indeed arguments against raising the 435 limit?

GeorgiaAvenger
02-03-2012, 08:54 PM
Wait, if it cannot exceed more than 1 per 30 K, then aren't we right as it is?

Pericles
02-03-2012, 09:37 PM
Wait, if it cannot exceed more than 1 per 30 K, then aren't we right as it is?

That argument would be based on:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers,

and

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members,


Subject to each state having proportional representation. So - whatever the rule is, it must be uniform. One state can not have a Representative per 30K population unless they all do.