Full Version: Congressional Reapportionment
I've been doing a lot of research on Congressional Reapportionment lately in preparation for an upcoming segment on America's Debate Radio. I'm sure that most people here know that reapportionment is the process of redistributing Congressional representation among the states, and it occurs following every census.
The Reapportionment Act of 1929 permanently set the number of members of the US House at 435, regardless of national population. At that time, each Congressman represented roughly 200,000 citizens on average. With the recent announcement that the population nation-wide has exceeded 300 million people, each Congressman represents about 690,000 citizens on average.
As the population increases, the average Congressional district is estimated to grow by over 60,000 people per decade through 2050, at which time the average district will hold approximately 965,000 people.
To keep from writing a small book here on the forum, I offer the following questions:
1. Is 435 Congressmen enough to provide adequate representation?
2. If the number of Congressmen should be changed: When should it be done? How do we determine what changes to make?
3. If the number of Congressmen should be changed significantly: What is the best method to initiate this change?
I can't wait to read your responses!
Mike
The Reapportionment Act of 1929 permanently set the number of members of the US House at 435, regardless of national population. At that time, each Congressman represented roughly 200,000 citizens on average. With the recent announcement that the population nation-wide has exceeded 300 million people, each Congressman represents about 690,000 citizens on average.
As the population increases, the average Congressional district is estimated to grow by over 60,000 people per decade through 2050, at which time the average district will hold approximately 965,000 people.
To keep from writing a small book here on the forum, I offer the following questions:
1. Is 435 Congressmen enough to provide adequate representation?
2. If the number of Congressmen should be changed: When should it be done? How do we determine what changes to make?
3. If the number of Congressmen should be changed significantly: What is the best method to initiate this change?
I can't wait to read your responses!
Mike
OMG, Mike made a topic!!!! 
Great idea, btw:
1. Is 435 Congressmen enough to provide adequate representation?
Given how large our country is (300 million, wow!), I would say no. If my math is correct, our current headcount means that we have one representative for every 690,000 people. That seems way too large for it to truly be representative.
2. If the number of Congressmen should be changed: When should it be done? How do we determine what changes to make?
After the Democrats get in power
KIDDING! As for when, I'd say after the 2010 census. This is for two reasons. First, it gives us an adequate window of planning to account for the new Congresspeople. Second, hopefully it depoliticizes this a little as no one can say with any certainty what party would be in power at that point.
As for what changes, I think we should shoot for a bright line of representation. Perhaps we should start by at least reducing the representative proportion to 1 for every 300,000 people. Of course, that would bump the number of reps to at least 1000. Perhaps that's too aggressive, I think that number is certainly worthy of debate.
There is unquestionably a risk in doing this. First, it has the potential to make a bloated government even more so. Second, it can make the levels of corruption in Washington D.C. possibly even more rancid. It could also help with it. Because of that risk, I would include term limits in the reapportionment. Unfortunately, I also know that divorces this legislation from ever passing, but it would definitely help.
3. If the number of Congressmen should be changed significantly: What is the best method to initiate this change?
Well, can we trust Congress to properly amend the 1929 act? Probably not. So I guess the states would have to call a Constitutional Convention. Either avenue is pretty tricky.
Great idea, btw:
1. Is 435 Congressmen enough to provide adequate representation?
Given how large our country is (300 million, wow!), I would say no. If my math is correct, our current headcount means that we have one representative for every 690,000 people. That seems way too large for it to truly be representative.
2. If the number of Congressmen should be changed: When should it be done? How do we determine what changes to make?
After the Democrats get in power
KIDDING! As for when, I'd say after the 2010 census. This is for two reasons. First, it gives us an adequate window of planning to account for the new Congresspeople. Second, hopefully it depoliticizes this a little as no one can say with any certainty what party would be in power at that point.As for what changes, I think we should shoot for a bright line of representation. Perhaps we should start by at least reducing the representative proportion to 1 for every 300,000 people. Of course, that would bump the number of reps to at least 1000. Perhaps that's too aggressive, I think that number is certainly worthy of debate.
There is unquestionably a risk in doing this. First, it has the potential to make a bloated government even more so. Second, it can make the levels of corruption in Washington D.C. possibly even more rancid. It could also help with it. Because of that risk, I would include term limits in the reapportionment. Unfortunately, I also know that divorces this legislation from ever passing, but it would definitely help.
3. If the number of Congressmen should be changed significantly: What is the best method to initiate this change?
Well, can we trust Congress to properly amend the 1929 act? Probably not. So I guess the states would have to call a Constitutional Convention. Either avenue is pretty tricky.
1. Is 435 Congressmen enough to provide adequate representation?
Ain't no way. I can't add much more than that to Doclotus's answer.
2. If the number of Congressmen should be changed: When should it be done? How do we determine what changes to make?
There's no time like the present. As for specific changes, I think the 1/30,000 ratio that was set as a minimum by the Constitution is perfectly fine. If that means 10,000 representatives, then build a stadium. The important thing is that each district of 30,000 select one person from among them who's competent enough and honest enough to go to Washington, familiarize himself fully with the issues of the day, and cast informed votes and commentary on it.
As long as voters have the ability to do that, there doesn't need to be any limit to the number of representatives. Some people might object that 10,000 is too large a number for them to get anything done effectively, but that's not really true when you think about it. Of course 10,000 is too much when they're all trying to talk at once, but so are 435, or 5, for that matter. But when they have rules and committee assignments and orderly chains of communication, they can be as numerous as they wanna be.
3. If the number of Congressmen should be changed significantly: What is the best method to initiate this change?
Well, it would have to involve dragging politicians kicking and screaming into enacting it. That would mean launching a formidable movement among voters in that direction. The only way I know of to accomplish that is to get both Left and Right on board with the idea. We might as well start here on
. Thanks for posting it, Mike, and I hope this thread gets legs.
Ain't no way. I can't add much more than that to Doclotus's answer.
2. If the number of Congressmen should be changed: When should it be done? How do we determine what changes to make?
There's no time like the present. As for specific changes, I think the 1/30,000 ratio that was set as a minimum by the Constitution is perfectly fine. If that means 10,000 representatives, then build a stadium. The important thing is that each district of 30,000 select one person from among them who's competent enough and honest enough to go to Washington, familiarize himself fully with the issues of the day, and cast informed votes and commentary on it.
As long as voters have the ability to do that, there doesn't need to be any limit to the number of representatives. Some people might object that 10,000 is too large a number for them to get anything done effectively, but that's not really true when you think about it. Of course 10,000 is too much when they're all trying to talk at once, but so are 435, or 5, for that matter. But when they have rules and committee assignments and orderly chains of communication, they can be as numerous as they wanna be.
3. If the number of Congressmen should be changed significantly: What is the best method to initiate this change?
Well, it would have to involve dragging politicians kicking and screaming into enacting it. That would mean launching a formidable movement among voters in that direction. The only way I know of to accomplish that is to get both Left and Right on board with the idea. We might as well start here on
. Thanks for posting it, Mike, and I hope this thread gets legs.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.