According to the Boston Globe (registration may be required), there's a strong chance that after the 2010 census the US House of Representatives will increase in size from 435 to 437. The additional two seats would be a voting member for the Washington, D.C. area (an addition that has been shamefully long overdue), and another representative for Utah (to pacify Republicans since the DC seat would almost certainly be a Democratic one).
The 437 members would still be a ridiculously small number for a country the size of the United States. We have been at 435 since 1911 (except for 1959-1963 when the size increased to 437 because of Hawaii and Alaska), when the nation's population was around 100 million.
Each member of congress today represents, on average, anywhere from 450,000 to 800,000 constituents. That's absurd, and makes a mockery of the entire idea of representative democracy. As I said in a previous post: "Contrast that with the United Kingdom, which has a population of just under 59 million yet 646 members of the House of Commons. Germany has a population of around 80 million with a 603 member Bundestag (parliament). The United States has a population of about 282 million with a 435 member House of Representatives. Do US citizens get better representation from their relatively small legislature than the British and Germans get from their large parliaments? I don't think anyone can say "yes" to that with a straight face."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Editorialize? ME?? :-)
Ther story says this:
"A Republican, Representative Tom Davis of Virginia, is brokering a deal that would give the district's delegate full representative status, a change that would give the overwhelmingly Democratic district a vote in the House. In exchange, another seat would be awarded to Utah, a heavily Republican state expected to gain a new seat in Congress after reapportionment following the 2010 Census."
And: "The political trade-off has helped Davis (Republican from Virginia) build support for his measure, including from high-profile conservatives."
So it's clear that the Utah seat is only in play as a means of getting support for the DC seat. Meanwhile DC will still be without two US Senators, making it a lame proposal imho.
Tony, What would be the correct formula in your view for representative government on the federal level? Perhaps you believe that Winnebago County Board has already discovered the proverbial "Holy Grail" of democracy...in that case our federal government should be comprised of a combined total of 68,256 Senators and Representatives. Only someone with myopic vision can conclude that we have anything approaching a representative democracy. The American empire has long since crossed over that Rubicon. In my view, our current governmental model closely resembles that of ancient Rome - complete with a spineless Senatus and all powerful Tyrannus. V
In the Federalist Papers, Madison said there ought to be one representative per every 30,000 inhabitants which, he said, will render the House of Representatives "a safe and competent guardian of the interests which will be confided to it."
I don't think that 1 per 30,000 is today practical, but neither is one per 700,000. I don't know what right number is, but it just seems crazy to me that we have almost tripled our population in 100 years and yet still have the same number of representatives.
The Constitution states (Art.I,Sec.3): "The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative."
This sets a maximum number of Representatives at just under 10,000 today. There are no provisions for a minimum number of Representatives. Expanding the current house from 435 to 437 is primarily an effort by the DC Statehood folks to get their foot in the door with a Representative - I support that.
What will be interesting though is that it also throws off the Electoral College in 2008, where Utah will now be worth 1 more vote, but DC already has 3 Electoral votes. Will they now get 4?
I like Nate's idea - get some true representation in the House through a combination of expanding the House size and building some proportional representation into it.
I am less worried about the "proportional" aspect of our federal representatives than I am about the fact that you have to belong to the millionaires club to get there in the first place. Once these millionaire representatives are elected to Congress, short of an egregious personal scandal (i.e., romping in the tidal basin with women of questionable virtue), it is almost impossible to involuntarily dislodge them from their elected posts due to the many advantages of incumbency and access to campaign dollars. To me, the real scandal of our so-called representative democracy lies in the fact that it is essentially a closed system in which we have little opportunity to "throw the rascals out" until we get so totally disgusted (as it appears the electorate was in '94 with the Dems and will be again this year with the Republicans). The real shame of our system is not with the lack of "one man, one vote" or even "30,000 men, one vote" but rather that without meaningful campaign finance laws, our governement continues to remain in the hands of oligarchic thugs/plunderers of both major parties. V.
Post a Comment