Since the dawn of our nation’s existence, representation has been one of the core values of American government. The revolution itself did after all stem in large part from the complaint, “No taxation without representation!” Thus, it’s truly thought provoking to reflect on the current apportionment of representatives in our nation. Although I don’t necessarily think the algorithm currently used to assign seats is “wrong,” it’s clear that huge population disparities exist among representatives, inherently decreasing the legitimacy of our democracy. I think instead, the true problem lies with the quota of representatives. Since the Reapportionment Act of 1929 (yes, 1929 when the American population was 121.8 million as opposed to today’s 327.2 million) the congressional body has been capped at 435 members. Due to such a rapidly growing population, this is a clue that already the representation of citizens is compromised. In my eyes, no matter how you divide that 435, it’s impossible for majority interests to be accurately represented by the same small number of representatives. According to Time, a hypothetical 930 seat house would significantly decrease the disparity among states even while maintaining the current algorithm to apportion them. In this case, all states would actually have at least 2 representatives, and they’re all much closer to the target representation of citizens. Not only would this numerically and statistically better the representativeness of congress, but it would also open doors for more varied political representation. With smaller populations being more fairly represented, these populations would likely be able to more easily elect representatives that accurately reflect their own demographic. Additionally, more seats in congress would bring an influx in numbers that could help in hearing new ideas, cross-the-aisle voting, and more. Additionally, I think that the District of Columbia should be included in the reapportionment of representatives. Having a voting representative would be helpful not only to actually represent the district’s opinion in legislation through a vote, but also to defend against a potential problem which I see in the current system. Congress is currently allowed “exclusive jurisdiction over the district in all cases whatsoever.” Without the autonomy that having at least a voting representative in congress symbolizes, it’s easy to see how the District could potentially be used as a political pawn. Additionally the District pays the second highest per capita income tax in the nation but have no voting voice in congress as to how the budget should use their tax dollars. Especially due to truly being at the heart of US policy, I think that it’s more logical for the District to set the tone for accurate representation in our nation. If congress can’t execute on its promise of no taxation without representation in its own backyard, where can it?  It’s my opinion that the unincorporated territories, which neither pay taxes to US government nor follow all provisions of the constitution, and have their own government and laws should maintain representation in congress, but not as voting members. The current representation allows the territories to have a voice in legislation matters and speak on influential policy, but does not give them voting rights. I think that this is fair considering the autonomy under which they operate.

References

Wilson, Chris. “How to Fix the House: Add About 500 Seats.” Time, Time, 15 Oct. 2018, time.com/5423623/house-representatives-number-seats/.