November EPortfolio paper
In 1789 the First Congress convened, with a size of 59 members coming from 11 newly formed states. During the term of the First Congress, North Carolina and Rhode Island each grew to add six more seats into this First Congress. Time passed until Congress would grow by 370 new seats, bringing the total to 433. However, in 1911 Congress passed The Apportionment Act of 1911, which would prove to be the last time that Congress would grow due to apportionment through the Census. As Arizona and New Mexico became states, two new seats were added to bring the total to 435. Congress would be unable to reach an agreement on the number of congressional seats after the 1920 Census, so the number would remain at 435 through that census period. In 1929 Congress passed The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, freezing the House membership at 435.
According to Article I, Section 2 of the US Constitution “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner, as they shall by Law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative” (Art. 1, Section 2). Read directly, this means that the representatives of the House are elected among the states, and are tied to the number of whole free people plus three-fifths of all other inhabitants (slaves), and excludes Indians. There can not be more than one representative for every 30,000 people but one representative can ,. Also, each state will have at least one representative.
When the Constitution was passed, we had one member for every 33,000 people. Holding to that original ratio, we would have nearly 10,000 people in the House with our 325.7 million people. That is not an option that is reasonable for a simple, organized House. As of right now, the US has a national ratio of 1 member per 700,000 citizens, which is too many people to represent the diverse interests of. Since each state also has its number of seats allocated roughly based on the population at the time of the last census, which is when the 435 seats are moved around between states, some states, such as Montana, even have over 1,000,000 people per representative. For comparison, the constituency in the U.K. House of Commons is roughly 90,000 people. Also, the constituency of the Iraqi government that was set up was one member per 100,000 which is seven times less than a US representative. Overall it is evident that congressional members represent too many citizens. Among democracies, the United States is very clearly less representative per person than its fellow countries, and so a fix is needed in able to ensure that Washington represents its constituents.
Of course, another problem for the US regarding representation is the 16 US territories, five of which are currently inhabited, and the District of Columbia. While these are territories under the federal government, they are not granted a voting representation in Congress, despite being under Congressional power. As territories of the US, they are not states, and so are not granted the right of citizens within states, but Puerto Rico is given one nonvoting representative. Likewise, the District of Columbia is granted a member of Congress who cannot cast votes. Overall it is unlikely that any action will be made in either place. Although DC has 601,767 who do not have full voting rights, and the territories contain around 4 million people who are not given voting rights as US citizens, Congress, particularly a Republican one, is unlikely to extend voting rights to the liberal DC. Congress also is unlikely to extend those rights to the territories because of their disconnect from the US states. So a simple solution to the problem of representation there is to grant them voting representation as another state, either individually or collectively. Individually Puerto Rico, Guam, and the other territories would each have their representatives based on population, or they would collectively share one group of representatives as one collective body.
The easiest solution to the problem of representation is to increase the House to a ratio of 1 representative for every 300,000 people. This would bring the House to over 1,000 members, but large representation is also the intended idea of the House of Representatives. While the Senate has a fixed size, the house is supposed to give a higher amount of power to the people and the larger states, at least that was the idea of the Connecticut Compromise. By increasing the size of the House, we would increase the connection between lawmakers and their constituents. The House is meant to be the voice of the people, so the connection is vital. This would raise the precision of the House as Montana would have a more accurate three delegates rather than the 1, and Wyoming would only have 1 for the relatively short future until they cross the 600,000 threshold. We would continue to expand the House appropriately and adjust the ratio as time passes, but this idea would work very well. Overall this would bring voters closer to their representatives, which is precisely what we want.
This idea, although the fairest, is unlikely, as is any reasonable expansion of the House possible, because of the politics of our country. The first problem is that it is much easier to buy 218 votes than it is to buy over 500. Another argument against expansion is that it would lower the connection between our lawmakers. Due to high quantities and with moderate turnover rates, the house would be very disconnected. Another argument against this is the salary. Not only is the house member’s salary to be accounted for but also their staffs. With a smaller constituency, they could probably have a smaller average staff, but there would be a substantial demand for a higher number of staff, as well as travel costs and other costs for these staff members. This would create new jobs, but it would be all at the taxpayers’ expense. Overall although this idea is fair and popular among political scientists, it is very much unlikely to any degree.