On November the second, 2010, citizens of the United States voted in their midterm elections. Re-elected, or newly elected were all four hundred and thirty five members of the house of representatives and one third of the senate. The United States holds elections for its houses of congress every two years, where in all representatives of the people all elected concurrently. One third of the states' representatives (at least that was the function originally intended for the senate) are elected by the citizens of the states. What many Americans do not realize however, is that they are grossly underrepresented in their legislature. The framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights intended that the total population of Congressional districts never exceed fifty or sixty thousand. George Washington himself wanted the proposed maximum district size to be lowered from forty thousand to thirty thousand. The very first proposed amendment to the constitution, as it was originally drafted, declared that there would be no less than one representative for every sixty thousand people. Currently, the average house constituency is roughly seven hundred thousand people.
The text of 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
From Wikipedia (I know, I know, but at here at least they provide citations):
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_the_First#Text)
Were the amendment ratified while the 2010 United States Census population figure of 308,745,538 was current, the 1:50,000 Representative to constituent ratio maximum would allow up to 6175 Representatives. This is more than 14 times the cap of 435 self-imposed by Public Law 62-5, which as of the 2010 Census translated on average to each Representative in Congress representing 709,760 persons.[1]
Thus, had article the first been ratified as amended, there could be up to 6000 plus Representatives in the House. There probably wouldn't be one for every fifty thousand as the same people who passed Public Law 62-5 in power would still limit representation as much as possible. However, there would almost certainly still be several times the number of Representatives in the House over that of the current statuary four hundred and thirty five.
However, had article the first been ratified as originally written, there would need to be at least 6175 Representatives according to the most recent census. Further, there would be no constitutional restrictions on how many members of the House there could be above that. When first hearing this, it may sound like a preposterous figure. However, when you consider that the United States has a population two thirds the size of the European Union, which is comprised of twenty seven independent countries, it becomes apparent upon reflection that it is a very reasonable number to expect. The German Bundestag, the lower house of the German parliament, alone has six hundred and twenty two members. At roughly eighty one million, Germany possesses less than one third of America's population. The House of Commons of Canada has three hundred and eight members. This averages out to roughly one mp for every one hundred, seven thousand citizens. My personal riding only has seventy thousand citizens. Thus Canada has an average of seven times the number of legislative representatives per ca pita compared to the Untied States.
This brings me to my other major point about how Americans are not adequately represented.
According to section two of the Fourteenth Amendment:
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.
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.
Pending the failure of article the first to be ratified, the minimum and maximum district size mandated by the Constitution is very broad. Article 1 stipulates:
The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative.
Thus a representative is guaranteed for every state but cannot represent a district with less than thirty thousand people. Though never explicitly stated, it was the intention and expectation of the founders that after each census, there would be a reasonable increase in the number of House members to adequately represent the change in population. It wasn't stated because it was assumed such was a given. After every census, from the very first following ratification of the constitution, through the nineteenth century (with one exception) until nineteen ten, there was a moderate increase in the number of Representatives to better reflect the greater size of the population, as well as the admission of new states. After the census of nineteen ten, in nineteen eleven congress passed Public Law 62-5, which increased the number of Representatives to 433, with a provision to add one permanent seat each upon the admissions of Arizona and New Mexico as states. As provided, membership increased to 435 with the convening of the 63rd Congress on May 4, 1913. This was the last time the size of the House was increased following a census. In 1920, for the first time, the Congress failed to carry out the constitutionally mandated decennial census. Thus there could be no reappointment until the census of 1930. However, in 1929, a law was passed called Public Law 62-5. This permanently set the number of seats at 435, with a provision to allow an additional one for newly admitted states until the next census following statehood. At the time of the first census after the new state is formed, that additional seat is abolished and the number of seats returns to 435. Thus, except for a brief period after the admittance of Alaska and Hawaii as states, the number of congressmen in the lower house has remained static since 1913. The population in 1910, according to the census, was 92,228,496. The population in 2010 is over three hundred million. The population has more than tripled since it was last permanently increased. Therefor, your vote is only a third as influential as your great grandfathers was. And it just keeps getting less so as the population gets bigger and bigger, yet congressional districts are only readjusted to be larger and less representative each time. This may not be against the letter of the constitution, but it is certainly against its spirit.
As an aside, while this strictly speaking legally acceptable, perhaps it won't always be be given that American judges have a history of favouring interpretations that seem to fit better with the notion of natural rights than legal positivism.
As an aside, while this strictly speaking legally acceptable, perhaps it won't always be be given that American judges have a history of favouring interpretations that seem to fit better with the notion of natural rights than legal positivism.
Now I'd like to compare the American situation with the status of my country. Canada has a census every five years and redistributes House seats according to changes in the populations of the provinces. Notice that we do not limit the number of MPs and then just keep redrawing larger and larger electoral districts as happens in the United States. The 37th Canadian Parliament lasted from January 29, 2001 until May 23, 2004. At the time there were three hundred and one seats in the House of Commons. During that period we had our census and it was determined Canada's population had grown since the previous one. Consequently, beginning with the opening of the 38th Canadian Parliament, which lasted from October 2, 2004 until November 25, 2005, the number of MPs was increased to the current number of three hundred and eight. We Canadians gained seven additional parliamentary seats within the period of one election cycle. If this happened in the United States, you can bet that there would be a big media storm publicizing that small measure as a major historic change to Congress. But in Canada, it's such a normal, procedural thing that no one gives it any head and it receives little media coverage. It is simply how the system is expected to function.
All of this doesn't even touch upon the inequality of House districts. Unrepublican distortions arise from substantial fluctuations in the voting populations of different districts. That, however, is another kettle of fish.
Something must be done to restore proper reprensation to the people of America like the founding fathers intended. You can read more here:
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/
