Tag: house

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.