Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69
Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70
Federalist No. 55 and Federalist No. 56 explore a subject which has grown increasingly interesting and important to me the more I have studied – that is a consideration of the proper size of the House of Representatives. Here I find, unsurprisingly, that a few assumptions were made which have proven to be critically incorrect.
It will not be thought an extravagant conjecture that the first census will, at the rate of one for every thirty thousand, raise the number of representatives to at least one hundred. . . At the expiration of twenty-five years, according to the computed rate of increase, the number of representatives will amount to two hundred, and of fifty years, to four hundred. This is a number which, I presume, will put an end to all fears arising from the smallness of the body.
I found it ironic that the projections ended at 400 representatives because we now have 435 voting representatives and we can see that with our current population (exceeding 300 Million) that number is decidedly insufficient – not simply because 435 is not enough, but because 435 is not enough for the expanded (and expanding) role that government has come to take in our nation. The problems that have arisen through a House that is too small to be properly representative could have been prevented by including not only a minimum number which a representative could represent (thirty thousand) but also a maximum number they could represent. The range could even be fairly large (say a maximum of one quarter million active voters per representative – which is over eight times the minimum) to produce a body which could never become fully detached from the people they are meant to represent.
The first wrong assumption was that the ratio would bear some resemblance to the minimum of thirty thousand that had been specified. The second was that we could never have cause for concern with a representative body exceeding four hundred members.
Another wrong assumption is shown in this statement from Federalist No. 56:
It is a sound and important principle that the representative ought to be acquainted with the interests and circumstances of his constituents. But this principle can extend no further than to those circumstances and interests to which the authority and care of the representative relate.
The assumption was that the interests and authority of the representative body in question would remain limited according to the Constitution. Not only does this show a poor assumption but it exposes another avenue for alleviating the problems of our too-small representative body. A reduction in the scope of authority for Congress would also serve to make it possible for a body of 435 to be more faithfully representative of the populous.
A fourth false assumption was:
I am unable to conceive that the people of America, in their present temper, or under any circumstances which can speedily happen, will choose, and every second year repeat the choice of, sixty-five or a hundred men who would be disposed to form and pursue a scheme of tyranny or treachery.
Indeed we live in a time when the people of America choose and repeat the choice of over 400 representatives who consistently pursue some treacherous policies. Whatever changes we do see in the faces of the House it should be noted that attrition takes many more from their seats than being unseated by the vote of the people.
In fairness, our founders were aware of their limitations:
What change of circumstances, time, and a fuller population of our country may produce, requires a prophetic spirit to declare, which makes no part of my pretensions.
They also thought they had addressed the pitfalls before them by allowing for an increase in the number of representatives:
The foresight of the convention has accordingly taken care that the progress of population may be accompanied with a proper increase of the representative branch of the government.
What they missed was that we need to require increases at some point. Whatever their failings of foresight, their conclusion remains true:
a representative for every THIRTY THOUSAND INHABITANTS will render the {inhabitants} both a safe and competent guardian of the interests which will be confided to it.
Today we are in great need to pursue some combination of increasing the size of our representative body or decreasing the scope of authority for that body. There are indications that increasing the size may naturally result in pressures to decrease the authority that rests in the federal government – I would hope that to be the case.
2 replies on “Federalist Nos. 55 – 56”
Astute observations. This goes to show that, as brilliant as the writers of the Federalist Papers were, they were fallible men. If you study these men’s careers, you will see that as they operated in the new government, each of them discovered that some of their previous ideas were mistaken and that they had been blind to certain possibilities.
So, while the Federalist Papers are deeply important and indicative of what some supporters of the Constitution thought during the ratification process, they are by no means the be all and end all of thought on the matters they address.
Nor were these men’s opinions the only valid ones put forth at the time. Jefferson (at least at one time) favored an entire new constitutional convention every generation — say every 25 years. He felt that no generation has the right to bind a future generation to its ideals. For this line of thinking, Adams chided Jefferson for favoring anarchy.
While the Federalist Papers inform us as to the thoughts of certain factions about the Constitution, it is important to remember that each phrase was carefully crafted after long debate and much compromise. We must carefully hew to the actual language of the actual contract, regardless of what Hamilton, Madison, and Jay had to say on the matter.
I completely agree. The federalist papers and their writers do not have the final word on the Constitution. It is very instructive to understand the challenges they wrestled with and the thought they put into their final product.
You are also right that we must adhere to the actual language of the contract. If we try to read things into it the contract becomes worthless. If it needs changing we must write those things into it.