(Wow, just looked at my watch... sorry, it seems I wandered off for a few years...)
I’m back because this needs consideration, now more than ever.
Our Founders considered the House of Representatives the most important of our three branches of government. This is clear from the fact that The House is the first institution for which they published specifications in the Constitution.
Article I Section 2 defines The House. (Section 1 simply says all laws will be made by a House and a Senate.) Article I Section 2 also creates the Census, for the express purpose of determining our nation’s number of Representatives in The House.
And Clause 3 of Article I Section 2 states "The Number of Representatives “… shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand...”
Yes, our Founders specified a maximum number of Representatives, proportional to the population. They meant to specify a minimum number too, but they fucked up, which is the great untold story of the Constitution (maybe another time*).
So let's go with their maximum, the only number they left us with.
As of the 2010 Census, the Apportionment Population of the United States was 309,183,463. (See https://www.census.gov/population/apportionment/files/Apportionment%20Population%202010.xls)
This means, roughly, our Constitution allows for 10,300 Representatives in the House.
But let’s make it 10,001.
10,000 because it's a nice even number... for example, if 5,432 Representatives vote for a bill, you immediately know it got 54.32% of the vote.
Plus one more Rep to break those pesky 5,000-5,000 ties.
I've done the math, and imported a table I created below showing every State's representation in our New House.
But why undertake this massive expansion? Because the House of Representatives with its pathetic 435 Members has become horribly unrepresentative. We all can feel it, but the math proves it.
The sole Representative from Montana now "represents" over 994,000 people.
Seven states, like Montana, still have only one Representative.
The lowest number of people "represented" by a Representative are the lucky 527,000 people "represented" by each of the two Reps from Rhode Island.
And on average across the United States, our Representatives each now "represent" over 710,000 people each.
This is very far from the one Representative per 30,000-60,000 people clearly envisioned by our Founders... numbers easily found in the Federalist Papers (55-58), the Constitution itself, and later proposals* for the Bill of Right.
And before we leave Montana and Rhode Island... while Montana shows how outright unrepresentative the House can be... comparing it to Rhode Island shows how unequal is the power of our citizens' votes.
Almost twice as many people's votes are needed to elect a Montana Rep vs. a Rhode Island Rep... but those “Representatives” of course both have equal votes, once they reach the current House...
So.
We need massive expansion just to approach the "one person one vote" and "equal representation under the law" we so solemnly claim, in court and in Congress, as our nearly-achieved goals.
We need massive expansion simply to provide physical access to Representatives. With 10,001 of them, how far away would yours be? Maybe you'll actually meet her. And her opponent. And have a chance at a truly informed choice… and some constituent services.
(My town has 45,000 people. It alone would have a Rep and a Half in the New U.S. House. That would certainly make my vote for U.S. Representative feel more vital, and I think might make my neighbors’ votes more likely. Especially since we would probably be voting for a neighbor. “Ease of entry,” as the saying goes, into the United States House of Representative would be nicely improved.)
We also need massive expansion to remedy the gerrymandering currently maddening us. This proposal would crush the gerrymanderers. Let them try gerrymandering 10,001 “contiguous and compact” districts, 23 times more than they engineer today: Instead of street by street they would have to go house by house. Let them try getting that past a court of law.
And let the real powers, the contributors, the “bundlers,” try dividing their lobbying money between 23 times more Representatives. Perhaps they do have 23 times more money since Citizens United… but let them enjoy employing their tactics and logistics across 10,001 Representatives, who now might have time to really do their jobs and earn votes the right way, instead of just by raising money to sell themselves.
Let’s see the oligarchs try to keep electing people using cynical, destructive TV ads – which is where most of All That Money goes -- when Representatives actually outnumber commercial TV stations by a factor of more than five.
Let them try preventing third parties, in locales where they might truly represent their neighbors better than Ds and Rs. Let them try excluding "minorities" where they are in fact a majority.
And... big finish now... let them try rigging an Electoral College with 10,101 Electors!
Let's see THAT vote mismatch the popular vote.
If this idea had been in effect in this century, Presidents Albert Gore Jr. and Hillary Rodham Clinton, and their aligned Congresses, probably would have kept us out of most of the trouble we’re in now.
But enough, the math:
|
STATE
|
POPULATION
|
REPS
|
POP PER REP
|
NEW # REPS
|
NEW POP PER REP
|
|
Alabama
|
4,802,982
|
7
|
686,140
|
155
|
30,986
|
|
Alaska
|
721,523
|
1
|
721,523
|
23
|
31,370
|
|
Arizona
|
6,412,700
|
9
|
712,522
|
207
|
30,979
|
|
Arkansas
|
2,926,229
|
4
|
731,557
|
94
|
31,130
|
|
California
|
37,341,989
|
53
|
704,565
|
1,210
|
30,861
|
|
Colorado
|
5,044,930
|
7
|
720,704
|
163
|
30,950
|
|
Connecticut
|
3,581,628
|
5
|
716,325
|
116
|
30,876
|
|
Delaware
|
900,877
|
1
|
900,877
|
29
|
31,064
|
|
Florida
|
18,900,773
|
27
|
700,028
|
612
|
30,883
|
|
Georgia
|
9,727,566
|
14
|
694,826
|
315
|
30,881
|
|
Hawaii
|
1,366,862
|
2
|
683,431
|
44
|
31,065
|
|
Idaho
|
1,573,499
|
2
|
786,749
|
51
|
30,852
|
|
Illinois
|
12,864,380
|
18
|
714,687
|
417
|
30,849
|
|
Indiana
|
6,501,582
|
9
|
722,398
|
210
|
30,959
|
|
Iowa
|
3,053,787
|
4
|
763,446
|
99
|
30,846
|
|
Kansas
|
2,863,813
|
4
|
715,953
|
92
|
31,128
|
|
Kentucky
|
4,350,606
|
6
|
725,101
|
141
|
30,855
|
|
Louisiana
|
4,553,962
|
6
|
758,993
|
147
|
30,979
|
|
Maine
|
1,333,074
|
2
|
666,537
|
43
|
31,001
|
|
Maryland
|
5,789,929
|
8
|
723,741
|
187
|
30,962
|
|
Massachusetts
|
6,559,644
|
9
|
728,849
|
212
|
30,941
|
|
Michigan
|
9,911,626
|
14
|
707,973
|
321
|
30,877
|
|
Minnesota
|
5,314,879
|
8
|
664,359
|
172
|
30,900
|
|
Mississippi
|
2,978,240
|
4
|
744,560
|
96
|
31,023
|
|
Missouri
|
6,011,478
|
8
|
751,434
|
194
|
30,987
|
|
Montana
|
994,416
|
1
|
994,416
|
32
|
31,075
|
|
Nebraska
|
1,831,825
|
3
|
610,608
|
59
|
31,047
|
|
Nevada
|
2,709,432
|
4
|
677,358
|
87
|
31,142
|
|
New Hampshire
|
1,321,445
|
2
|
660,722
|
42
|
31,462
|
|
New Jersey
|
8,807,501
|
12
|
733,958
|
285
|
30,903
|
|
New Mexico
|
2,067,273
|
3
|
689,091
|
67
|
30,854
|
|
New York
|
19,421,055
|
27
|
719,298
|
629
|
30,876
|
|
North Carolina
|
9,565,781
|
13
|
735,829
|
310
|
30,857
|
|
North Dakota
|
675,905
|
1
|
675,905
|
22
|
30,722
|
|
Ohio
|
11,568,495
|
16
|
723,030
|
375
|
30,849
|
|
Oklahoma
|
3,764,882
|
5
|
752,976
|
122
|
30,859
|
|
Oregon
|
3,848,606
|
5
|
769,721
|
124
|
31,037
|
|
Pennsylvania
|
12,734,905
|
18
|
707,494
|
412
|
30,909
|
|
Rhode Island
|
1,055,247
|
2
|
527,623
|
34
|
31,036
|
|
South Carolina
|
4,645,975
|
7
|
663,710
|
150
|
30,973
|
|
South Dakota
|
819,761
|
1
|
819,761
|
26
|
31,529
|
|
Tennessee
|
6,375,431
|
9
|
708,381
|
206
|
30,948
|
|
Texas
|
25,268,418
|
36
|
701,900
|
819
|
30,852
|
|
Utah
|
2,770,765
|
4
|
692,691
|
89
|
31,132
|
|
Vermont
|
630,337
|
1
|
630,337
|
20
|
31,516
|
|
Virginia
|
8,037,736
|
11
|
730,703
|
260
|
30,914
|
|
Washington
|
6,753,369
|
10
|
675,336
|
219
|
30,837
|
|
West Virginia
|
1,859,815
|
3
|
619,938
|
60
|
30,996
|
|
Wisconsin
|
5,698,230
|
8
|
712,278
|
184
|
30,968
|
|
Wyoming
|
568,300
|
1
|
568,300
|
18
|
3
|
|
TOTAL
|
309,183,463
|
435
|
710,766
|
10,001
|
31,0
|
Here’s are some highlights: The horribly gerrymandered state of Texas goes from 36 to 819 Representatives. Pennsylvania goes from 18 to 412, Ohio from 16 to 375, North Carolina from 13 to 310, and South Carolina from 7 to 150.
What would it take to make this happen?
Just an Act of Congress. This is already shiningly Constitutional.
Congress merely needs to undo their Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, which randomly fixed the number of Representatives at 435. (June 1929, it was… what a lovely Summer… remember how well things went after that?)
Then, to make this work requires competent, honest, secure use of the internet, and use of existing and new state and regional assemblies for physical meetings of U.S. Representatives, if and as needed. (One last benefit: consider how, in our age of terrorism, the risk of full decapitation of our government would be reduced.)
Now, who would support this? Every American who believes they would be better represented in our National government by a U.S. Representative beholden to only about 30,000 nearby neighbors as our Founders intended... rather than a highly engineered, vaguely local populace of 700,000+.
And who would oppose this?
Every single person with a vested interest in our current political system, which includes every person currently elected or with political power or influence that might be reduced by our factor of 23, particularly including the very people who would have to vote to approve this change.
So.
I won’t be holding my breath until this happens, but unlikely things do come to pass (I understand Donald Trump is now the President), and it’s a nice illustration of what our government was meant to be.
Credit to thirty-thousand.org, whom I recently discovered and with whom I have no affiliation, especially *this page: http://thirty-thousand.org/pages/QHA-04.htm
Credit also to Stephen Nelson who recently posted It's Past Time to Increase the Number of Representatives in the House (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/1/9/1731297/-It-s-Past-Time-to-Increase-the-Number-of-Representatives-in-the-House)
