On this Sunday, November 1 at 2 a.m. local time, daylight saving time ends in most of the United States. While more U.S. residents will turn back their clocks before going to sleep on Saturday, people in Hawaii, Arizona, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands will remain on their standard time.
Despite this biannual tradition, no federal law requires that states observe daylight saving time. A federal law originally passed in 1918 and revised in 2005 mandates that areas which observe daylight saving time must switch to standard time at 2 a.m. on the first Sunday in November and that these same regions must “spring forward” and lose one hour at the same time on the second Sunday in March.
The origination of daylight savings time is strange, as Congress transferred oversight from the Interstate Commerce Commission to the Department of Transportation in 1966. While the Department of Transportation may seem unfit to deal with time laws, the delegation of daylight saving time dates back to railroads.
Before the regulation, each locality set their own time, which proved difficult when setting railroad schedules. In 1883, the railroad industry established official, national time zones, which Congress eventually adopted into law in 1918.
Part of this law included an observance of daylight saving time, but that section was repealed the next year and ever since, daylight saving time has been up to the discretion of local jurisdictions. The time was finally standardized with the Uniform Time Act in 1966, which allowed states to remain on standard time. Few changes have been made, and the recently set dates for changing clocks remain.
Daylight saving time aims “to adjust daylight hours to when most people are awake and about,” says Bill Mosley, an officer at the U.S. Department of Transportation. The time change decreases daylight in the early morning, therefore making it available during the evening.
Daylight savings may bring many benefits. Some experts claim that it saves energy (though others say it cancels out any savings because people use more electricity in the morning). Research has proven than daylight saving time has reduced traffic accidents as well as crime. And, lastly, more daylight provides more opportunities for children to play outside and use parks.
I much prefer daylight saving time to standard time—I like sunny, warm weather—but at least when switching back to standard time we gain hour.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Friday, October 23, 2009
Census Season Beginning with a Murder Doesn’t Bode Well for Turnout
On September 12, the body of William “Bill” Sparkman was found bound and hanged, with “FED” written across his chest and his Census Bureau identification card taped to his forehead. Was this just a random killing or a political statement? With the Census ID and “FED” covering Sparkman’s chest, it’s hard to believe this murder is anything but politically motivated.
This homicide brings to light a frightening possibility that Sparkman was targeted because of his part time job at the Census Bureau. The Census Bureau is under increasing fire from conservatives and some fear that the hundreds of other Census employees may be in danger. The bureau has many reasons to worry: the U.S. is facing unprecedented homeless rates, illegal immigrants are planning a boycott of the census, conservatives claim it's rigged in favor of the Obama administration and some extremists even claim it’s even unconstitutional; and, for the first time in recent memory, census season has begun not with a mailing, but with a murder.
Law enforcement officials are keeping most details surrounding the killing secret, causing conclusions that the anti-government atmosphere recently escalated in the Obama era is resulting in anti-government violence.
As more details emerge regarding Sparkman's death, Village Voice Media's True Crime Report blog cited the recent "rage against Washington . . . especially in the rural South," and said the death had "all the makings of some anti-government goober taking his half-wit beliefs way too far."
The death has spurred debates from all sides of the political spectrum—liberals stating the murder was politically motivated while conservatives are accusing the media of trying to politicize Sparkman’s death.
The death is a hint at the conservative attempt to undermine the government by not participating in the Census. According to the Census bureau, both a rise in identity theft and a mounting mistrust of the government discourage people from completing their Census forms.
While some citizens are skeptical of sending their personal information to the government, it is essential for their states and counties to receive funds. Monica Davis, the spokeswoman for the U.S. Census Bureau's Philadelphia Regional Census Center said, "The Census really boils down to power and money for the community.” Conservatives may be trying to make a statement, but ultimately, not completing a census form causes harm to the community rather than sending a political message.
Some conservatives are publicizing their refusal to complete the Census form. Most notably, Representatives Michele Bachmann, a republican from Minnesota, declared on Fox News that she would not fully fill out her Census form, accusing the government of abusing the obtained information.
Despite their desire to make a political statement, in not completing a census form, conservatives may be “cutting of their nose to spite their face.” Over $400 billion of federal funding will be affected by the data from the 2010 Census—everything from school districts to representatives in Congress, to housing for low-income families, to senior citizen centers. Congressional representation is also determined by Census results, so incomplete Census forms may alter the distribution of representatives. Monica Davis, the spokeswoman for the U.S. Census Bureau's Philadelphia Regional Census Center said, "The Census really boils down to power and money for the community.” Essentially, the Census has been a crucial source for determining demographic, education, and employment data in the U.S.
The Census bureau must emphasize the Census is a tool for obtaining demographic information about the country, not for the government’s ulterior motives.
This homicide brings to light a frightening possibility that Sparkman was targeted because of his part time job at the Census Bureau. The Census Bureau is under increasing fire from conservatives and some fear that the hundreds of other Census employees may be in danger. The bureau has many reasons to worry: the U.S. is facing unprecedented homeless rates, illegal immigrants are planning a boycott of the census, conservatives claim it's rigged in favor of the Obama administration and some extremists even claim it’s even unconstitutional; and, for the first time in recent memory, census season has begun not with a mailing, but with a murder.
Law enforcement officials are keeping most details surrounding the killing secret, causing conclusions that the anti-government atmosphere recently escalated in the Obama era is resulting in anti-government violence.
As more details emerge regarding Sparkman's death, Village Voice Media's True Crime Report blog cited the recent "rage against Washington . . . especially in the rural South," and said the death had "all the makings of some anti-government goober taking his half-wit beliefs way too far."
The death has spurred debates from all sides of the political spectrum—liberals stating the murder was politically motivated while conservatives are accusing the media of trying to politicize Sparkman’s death.
The death is a hint at the conservative attempt to undermine the government by not participating in the Census. According to the Census bureau, both a rise in identity theft and a mounting mistrust of the government discourage people from completing their Census forms.
While some citizens are skeptical of sending their personal information to the government, it is essential for their states and counties to receive funds. Monica Davis, the spokeswoman for the U.S. Census Bureau's Philadelphia Regional Census Center said, "The Census really boils down to power and money for the community.” Conservatives may be trying to make a statement, but ultimately, not completing a census form causes harm to the community rather than sending a political message.
Some conservatives are publicizing their refusal to complete the Census form. Most notably, Representatives Michele Bachmann, a republican from Minnesota, declared on Fox News that she would not fully fill out her Census form, accusing the government of abusing the obtained information.
Despite their desire to make a political statement, in not completing a census form, conservatives may be “cutting of their nose to spite their face.” Over $400 billion of federal funding will be affected by the data from the 2010 Census—everything from school districts to representatives in Congress, to housing for low-income families, to senior citizen centers. Congressional representation is also determined by Census results, so incomplete Census forms may alter the distribution of representatives. Monica Davis, the spokeswoman for the U.S. Census Bureau's Philadelphia Regional Census Center said, "The Census really boils down to power and money for the community.” Essentially, the Census has been a crucial source for determining demographic, education, and employment data in the U.S.
The Census bureau must emphasize the Census is a tool for obtaining demographic information about the country, not for the government’s ulterior motives.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Moving on from "Wife Swap"
On Wednesday night, I wandered into the living room when I heard my roommate laughing at something on TV. I asked her what she was watching and she announced, “Wife Swap.” I left the room after approximately 10 seconds. I’ve never been a huge reality show fan—and that’s an understatement—but this show was especially terrible. I read about it on abc.com, which brags, “two families with very different values are chosen to take part in a two-week long challenge. The wives from these two families exchange husbands, children and lives (but not bedrooms) to discover just what it's like to live another woman's life. It's a mind-blowing experiment that often ends up changing their lives forever.” I instantly lose respect—and interest—in any show that boasts that a season will bring, “tears, tantrums and raised voices as the wives clash with their new families.” And here I thought “Jon and Kate Plus Eight” was bad. Maybe it’s because I’ve been raised with a “we keep family matters in the family,” mentality, but I immediately thought, “who would ever be on this show?”
The next day, I was on the phone with my mom stressing about my study abroad visa, and she interrupted me to announce that a six year old Colorado boy was floating away in a helium balloon. Obviously very confused, I spent my next class reading about it on cnn.com on my phone. Immediately, a few concerns crossed my mind: a. What was this family doing with a large helium balloon in their backyard? b. The child’s name is Falcon. c. Where is Falcon??
Hours later, after planes were grounded, people were spanning the potential radius of the balloon for 6-year-old Falcon, and the nation watched in fear, the balloon landed—empty. Soon, however, during the desperate manhunt, Falcon is found, hiding in a box in the attic of the garage.
Doubts about the truth of the entire event arose, stemming from Falcon’s comment, “you guys said that, um, ‘we did this for the show’” when asked why he didn’t come out if he heard his parents calling for him. And with that one line, Falcon destroyed another of his parents’ apparently never ending schemes for publicity. Here is the video of the Heene family on “Larry King Live” being interviewed by Wolf Blitzer.
Since this confession, the general consensus is that this was a hoax and a desperate cry for attention. The credibility of the story decreases with each exposed detail of the family. According to TMZ, the family approached TLC (the station broadcasting “Jon and Kate Plus Eight”) about a reality TV show and even the station which seems to have impossibility low standards with shows like “Toddlers and Tiaras” and “I Didn’t Know I Was Pregnant” rejected the idea. Apparently, ABC had a different opinion on the family. Before the balloon hoax, the Heene family appeared on "Wife Swap" not once, but TWICE. I guess that answers my question of who would volunteer for that show.
With new reports that Flacon may not have even been hiding, local sheriffs have announced that they plan to press charges. The sheriff in Larimer County, where the Heenes reside, announced the family may face up to three felonies: conspiracy to commit a crime, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and attempting to influence a public servant. While the first two are misdemeanors, the last charge carries a possible sentence of six years in prison.
While the whole situation is truly bizarre, this hoax is simply another incident proving the sad trend away from truth and responsibility and toward reality TV and desperate attention cries. From Heidi and Spencer to Patti Blagojevich, everyone seems to want the same thing: attention. The Heene family had a taste of fame on their first stint on “Wife Swap” but apparently their insatiable thirst for publicity. Obviously, their second experience on “Wife Swap” wasn’t enough either. These reality TV veterans still weren’t satisfied, and after proposing a reality show premise to various networks and achieving nothing, they finally have their 15 minutes of fame. And sadly, maybe more. Despite the legal problems the Heenes may face, their name and their story have been given worldwide exposure. Especially with the hoax allegations and the extremely low standards of reality TV, producers may see the Heenes as profitable and marketable. This whole situation may boost the “career” of the Heenes remarkably.
While their actions are truly abominable, the continued attention is only fueling their fire. Each article or broadcast news piece grants them more exposure and keeps their name in the minds of everyone. A Wikipedia page already exists, titled “Colorado Balloon Incident,” which cites 65 articles. The attention they are gaining from the alleged hoax, sadly, may be exactly what they need to finally achieve a TV career outside of “Wife Swap.”
The next day, I was on the phone with my mom stressing about my study abroad visa, and she interrupted me to announce that a six year old Colorado boy was floating away in a helium balloon. Obviously very confused, I spent my next class reading about it on cnn.com on my phone. Immediately, a few concerns crossed my mind: a. What was this family doing with a large helium balloon in their backyard? b. The child’s name is Falcon. c. Where is Falcon??
Hours later, after planes were grounded, people were spanning the potential radius of the balloon for 6-year-old Falcon, and the nation watched in fear, the balloon landed—empty. Soon, however, during the desperate manhunt, Falcon is found, hiding in a box in the attic of the garage.
Doubts about the truth of the entire event arose, stemming from Falcon’s comment, “you guys said that, um, ‘we did this for the show’” when asked why he didn’t come out if he heard his parents calling for him. And with that one line, Falcon destroyed another of his parents’ apparently never ending schemes for publicity. Here is the video of the Heene family on “Larry King Live” being interviewed by Wolf Blitzer.
Since this confession, the general consensus is that this was a hoax and a desperate cry for attention. The credibility of the story decreases with each exposed detail of the family. According to TMZ, the family approached TLC (the station broadcasting “Jon and Kate Plus Eight”) about a reality TV show and even the station which seems to have impossibility low standards with shows like “Toddlers and Tiaras” and “I Didn’t Know I Was Pregnant” rejected the idea. Apparently, ABC had a different opinion on the family. Before the balloon hoax, the Heene family appeared on "Wife Swap" not once, but TWICE. I guess that answers my question of who would volunteer for that show.
With new reports that Flacon may not have even been hiding, local sheriffs have announced that they plan to press charges. The sheriff in Larimer County, where the Heenes reside, announced the family may face up to three felonies: conspiracy to commit a crime, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and attempting to influence a public servant. While the first two are misdemeanors, the last charge carries a possible sentence of six years in prison.
While the whole situation is truly bizarre, this hoax is simply another incident proving the sad trend away from truth and responsibility and toward reality TV and desperate attention cries. From Heidi and Spencer to Patti Blagojevich, everyone seems to want the same thing: attention. The Heene family had a taste of fame on their first stint on “Wife Swap” but apparently their insatiable thirst for publicity. Obviously, their second experience on “Wife Swap” wasn’t enough either. These reality TV veterans still weren’t satisfied, and after proposing a reality show premise to various networks and achieving nothing, they finally have their 15 minutes of fame. And sadly, maybe more. Despite the legal problems the Heenes may face, their name and their story have been given worldwide exposure. Especially with the hoax allegations and the extremely low standards of reality TV, producers may see the Heenes as profitable and marketable. This whole situation may boost the “career” of the Heenes remarkably.
While their actions are truly abominable, the continued attention is only fueling their fire. Each article or broadcast news piece grants them more exposure and keeps their name in the minds of everyone. A Wikipedia page already exists, titled “Colorado Balloon Incident,” which cites 65 articles. The attention they are gaining from the alleged hoax, sadly, may be exactly what they need to finally achieve a TV career outside of “Wife Swap.”
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Expanding the House of Representatives
Our nation was founded upon the principals of “one person, one vote.” While this saying once rang true, this staple of American democracy may not be as true now. For example, if you live in Rhode Island, your vote in the House of Representatives carries almost twice as much weight than someone living in Montana. Or, the votes of Utah residents count almost two-thirds more than those of Iowans.
With only 435 members of the House of Representatives and a constantly-shifting population, equal representation may be a concept of the past. As the institution of the House of Representatives has evolved, it has encountered a problem balancing a need for representation versus legislative efficiency. Historically, this tradeoff has contributed to a struggle between serving constituent interests and maintaining and organized and functional body. Ultimately, expanding the House of Representatives would lead to greater representational equality but may only make the institution more unwieldy.
For almost a century, the House of Representative has been comprised of 435 members. Until 1920, the seats of the House were reapportioned based on population following each decennial census. Between 1850 and 1910, the population of the United States quadrupled, booming from not even 22 million to over 91 million people. While the House of Representatives did not exactly parallel the exponential increase of the population, it did attempt to match the substantial expansion by doubling. By 1920, over 60 new seats were established for the House to correspond to the growing population. However, in 1920, dissent from publications and prominent society members fearing an even less effective Congress curtailed the growth of the House. Except for the temporary addition of two representatives in the 1950s to accommodate Alaska and Hawaii, the House has remained at 435.
The initial census of 1790 indicated that the US population was 3,615,823. This population was divided into 105 districts with one representative each, or approximately 34,436 people per representative. In 1920, when, for the first time, the size of the House was not increased and remained at 435 members, the population was 106,021,537. This divides out to 243,728 people per district or representative, an obvious great increase over the not even 35,000 people originally represented by one House member. A substantial population growth and no change in the House of Representatives for 90 years has led to even less representation. The 2000 census indicated the US population is 281,422,177. With 435 districts, each district should theoretically contain 646,498 people, though most districts’ populations fall far from that number. Here is a table and a graph charting the exponential increase of population and the stabilization of the House of Representatives:
With the 2010 census approaching, state populations will soon determine congressional districts throughout the country. This ineffective system will continue to inaccurately represent Americans. As has been the case for almost one hundred years, political leaders will, as Peter Baker put it in this New York Times article, “[prepare] to cobble together a patchwork quilt of districts that will leave some Americans underrepresented.” The districts truly are a patchwork quilt, but with significantly sloppier stitching.
While reapportionment may solve some of the discrepancies in representation created by the population growth and shift, much of the disparity is inevitable. Theoretically, each House member should represent an equal number of people. However, because each state, regardless of its population, is guaranteed one representative and the size of the House remains the same, the number of people represented by one representative can vary greatly.
For example, the most recent census indicated that Nevada’s Third District is the most populous in the country, with 960,000 people. They are all represented by one member of the House. Similarly, Montana’s entire 958,000 person population also has just one vote through their one representative. These districts remain incredibly similar in size, but compared to other districts, the under-representation is clear. Wyoming’s population of 523,000 and each of Rhode Island’s districts of 527,000 and 531,000 all receive a separate vote.
Since 1920, suggestions of increasing the size of the House of Representatives have not been seriously considered. Recently, the idea of expansion has been proposed but has garnered little support. Columnist George Will proposed expanding the House to 1000 seats, or one for about every 281,000 people, and Florida Representative Alcee Hastings proposed that it be studied, but ultimately each effort has been ignored. Jane S. De Lung, the president of the Population Resource Center, states, “we have tripled our population since 1910,” and notes that representatives already have difficulty responding to constituents as it is, let alone with a growing population. She asks, “If you can’t do it with 700,000, how in the world are you going to do it with 1 million?”
Recently, some citizens have acted on these concerns and on September 17, 2009, five plaintiffs from the five most under-represented states (Delaware, Mississippi, Montana, South Dakota, and Utah) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Mississippi challenging the constitutionality of the size of the House of Representatives. They argue that the current House size of 435 violates the “one person, one vote” principal and hope to remedy this inequality by adding more members. The lawsuit is the first of its kind, and a victory would require the House to increase its size to provide equal representation throughout the country. This table illustrates the discrepancy between states’ current district size and the national average of 646,952 people per district. Most notably, Montana’s one district has 258,364 people over the national average, while Wyoming has 151,648 less than average.
Supporters of the lawsuit claim there are a variety of problems with over-sized Congressional districts. Most obviously, the greater number of constituents in the district, the less accessibility each person has to his or her representative. With less people per district, each House member could be more attentive to his or her district. Representatives could focus on the prime duty that they were elected to fulfill: expressing constituent interest at the national level. Additionally, if representatives served smaller districts, they would not have to solicit as much funding for their reelection and could save time and money fundraising and campaigning. Because elections are held ever two years, representatives are constantly campaigning, instead focus on primary responsibilities, like making legislation. Less voters allow hopeful candidates and incumbents to focus on a more concentrated area and ultimately campaign less. Many people believe that the huge number of constituents per district is homogenizing the diverse beliefs of the American people, and with more representatives, citizens would have a greater chance of having their interests expressed in Congress. Some even believe that an increased House of Representatives would lead to significant changes in the Electoral College and may have even resulted in alternative outcomes in the 2000 Presidential Election.
However, if the size of a House were increased, the entire legislative process could be harmed. The initial limitation of 435 seats was rooted in the fear that enlargement would restrict deliberation and limit the time for speeches and debates. Congress members thought an enlarged House would lead to an unmanageable federal government. With the controversies and questions about the alleged incompetence already surrounding Congress members, does the country really want or need more politicians? Logistically, increasing the House would be challenging, as accommodating potentially thousands of legislators in the would be nearly impossible. Not only would an increase require a larger chamber for meetings, but new offices for legislators and their staff would also have to be created. Many people, like those bringing the suit, wish for the House to more than double—bringing its total to over 1000. Congress simply does not have the capacity to facilitate that many legislators and their entourages. Also, with more representatives, each House member would have less relative power and the majesty of membership would be diluted, making it unattractive to incumbents. With only 435 members, the House of Representatives is well-respected and elite. Being elected into it requires hard work and determination, and vastly increasing the size would inherently decrease the significance of membership.
However, proponents of expanding the House argue that with technological advances, it is no longer necessary to force all representatives into one room. Though Winston Churchill legislated in a different country, his insights still hold true to the United States House of Representatives. As he said regarding reconstruction of the House of Commons, “we shape our buildings, and afterwards our buildings shape us. The House of Commons…should not be big enough to contain all its Members at once without overcrowding, and there should be no question of every Member having a separate seat reserved for him.” He defends his statement by saying that a House with a huge capacity would lead to the vast majority of the debates conducted in a depressing atmosphere with an over half-empty room. Churchill continues by saying that parliamentary conversation ``requires a fairly small space, and there should be on great occasions a sense of crowd and urgency.'' Despite that a small room may induce a more intimate and productive setting, eventually, a larger facility would be needed for important matters.
Essentially, the system may be more equitable but less governable. Congress, and especially the House of Representatives, is already considered an unwieldy organization. The various committees and the red-tape bureaucracy make the current House of 435 cumbersome. While each constituent may have better accessibility to his or her representative, those interests would doubtfully be recognized amongst the other thousands of representatives.
More districts would also lead to less funding per district. Especially with the current budget crisis, federal funding would doubtfully increase significantly (if at all), and the money would be distributed amongst literally over one thousand districts. The small allocation would not aid the districts.
Obviously discrepancies in representation in the House of Representatives exist throughout the country, and reform is necessary. An expansion of the House could introduce more members into Washington, providing a new perspective and perhaps less corruption. More minorities, third party candidates, and people from all different backgrounds who appeal to a smaller political market would have a chance to run, therefore diversifying Congress. However, an increase in membership could also harm the House of Representative and only slow the legislative process. A proposal to increase the size of the House of Representatives has never been seriously considered, but with the lawsuit and the only-increasing disparity of representation between the states, now may be the time for drastic reform.
Works Cited
Baker, Peter. “Expand the House?” The New York Times. September 17, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/us/politics/18baker.html
Frederick, Brian. “Constituency Population and Representation in the U.S. House.”
Frederick, Brian. "Frozen at 435: The Size of the United States House of Representatives and the Impact upon Legislative Representation." April 07, 2005.
Goldberg, Jonah. “We need a bigger House.” Los Angeles Times. October 6, 2009. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-goldberg6-2009oct06,0,5681017.column
Ladewig, Jeffrey W. and Mathew P. Jasinski. “On the Causes and Consequences of and Remedies for Interstate Malapportionment of the U.S. House of Representatives.”
Schaller, Tom. “Getting a Bigger House.” FiveThirtyEight. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/09/getting-bigger-house.html
http://thirty-thousand.org/
With only 435 members of the House of Representatives and a constantly-shifting population, equal representation may be a concept of the past. As the institution of the House of Representatives has evolved, it has encountered a problem balancing a need for representation versus legislative efficiency. Historically, this tradeoff has contributed to a struggle between serving constituent interests and maintaining and organized and functional body. Ultimately, expanding the House of Representatives would lead to greater representational equality but may only make the institution more unwieldy.
For almost a century, the House of Representative has been comprised of 435 members. Until 1920, the seats of the House were reapportioned based on population following each decennial census. Between 1850 and 1910, the population of the United States quadrupled, booming from not even 22 million to over 91 million people. While the House of Representatives did not exactly parallel the exponential increase of the population, it did attempt to match the substantial expansion by doubling. By 1920, over 60 new seats were established for the House to correspond to the growing population. However, in 1920, dissent from publications and prominent society members fearing an even less effective Congress curtailed the growth of the House. Except for the temporary addition of two representatives in the 1950s to accommodate Alaska and Hawaii, the House has remained at 435.
The initial census of 1790 indicated that the US population was 3,615,823. This population was divided into 105 districts with one representative each, or approximately 34,436 people per representative. In 1920, when, for the first time, the size of the House was not increased and remained at 435 members, the population was 106,021,537. This divides out to 243,728 people per district or representative, an obvious great increase over the not even 35,000 people originally represented by one House member. A substantial population growth and no change in the House of Representatives for 90 years has led to even less representation. The 2000 census indicated the US population is 281,422,177. With 435 districts, each district should theoretically contain 646,498 people, though most districts’ populations fall far from that number. Here is a table and a graph charting the exponential increase of population and the stabilization of the House of Representatives:
With the 2010 census approaching, state populations will soon determine congressional districts throughout the country. This ineffective system will continue to inaccurately represent Americans. As has been the case for almost one hundred years, political leaders will, as Peter Baker put it in this New York Times article, “[prepare] to cobble together a patchwork quilt of districts that will leave some Americans underrepresented.” The districts truly are a patchwork quilt, but with significantly sloppier stitching.
While reapportionment may solve some of the discrepancies in representation created by the population growth and shift, much of the disparity is inevitable. Theoretically, each House member should represent an equal number of people. However, because each state, regardless of its population, is guaranteed one representative and the size of the House remains the same, the number of people represented by one representative can vary greatly.
For example, the most recent census indicated that Nevada’s Third District is the most populous in the country, with 960,000 people. They are all represented by one member of the House. Similarly, Montana’s entire 958,000 person population also has just one vote through their one representative. These districts remain incredibly similar in size, but compared to other districts, the under-representation is clear. Wyoming’s population of 523,000 and each of Rhode Island’s districts of 527,000 and 531,000 all receive a separate vote.
Since 1920, suggestions of increasing the size of the House of Representatives have not been seriously considered. Recently, the idea of expansion has been proposed but has garnered little support. Columnist George Will proposed expanding the House to 1000 seats, or one for about every 281,000 people, and Florida Representative Alcee Hastings proposed that it be studied, but ultimately each effort has been ignored. Jane S. De Lung, the president of the Population Resource Center, states, “we have tripled our population since 1910,” and notes that representatives already have difficulty responding to constituents as it is, let alone with a growing population. She asks, “If you can’t do it with 700,000, how in the world are you going to do it with 1 million?”
Recently, some citizens have acted on these concerns and on September 17, 2009, five plaintiffs from the five most under-represented states (Delaware, Mississippi, Montana, South Dakota, and Utah) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Mississippi challenging the constitutionality of the size of the House of Representatives. They argue that the current House size of 435 violates the “one person, one vote” principal and hope to remedy this inequality by adding more members. The lawsuit is the first of its kind, and a victory would require the House to increase its size to provide equal representation throughout the country. This table illustrates the discrepancy between states’ current district size and the national average of 646,952 people per district. Most notably, Montana’s one district has 258,364 people over the national average, while Wyoming has 151,648 less than average.
Supporters of the lawsuit claim there are a variety of problems with over-sized Congressional districts. Most obviously, the greater number of constituents in the district, the less accessibility each person has to his or her representative. With less people per district, each House member could be more attentive to his or her district. Representatives could focus on the prime duty that they were elected to fulfill: expressing constituent interest at the national level. Additionally, if representatives served smaller districts, they would not have to solicit as much funding for their reelection and could save time and money fundraising and campaigning. Because elections are held ever two years, representatives are constantly campaigning, instead focus on primary responsibilities, like making legislation. Less voters allow hopeful candidates and incumbents to focus on a more concentrated area and ultimately campaign less. Many people believe that the huge number of constituents per district is homogenizing the diverse beliefs of the American people, and with more representatives, citizens would have a greater chance of having their interests expressed in Congress. Some even believe that an increased House of Representatives would lead to significant changes in the Electoral College and may have even resulted in alternative outcomes in the 2000 Presidential Election.
However, if the size of a House were increased, the entire legislative process could be harmed. The initial limitation of 435 seats was rooted in the fear that enlargement would restrict deliberation and limit the time for speeches and debates. Congress members thought an enlarged House would lead to an unmanageable federal government. With the controversies and questions about the alleged incompetence already surrounding Congress members, does the country really want or need more politicians? Logistically, increasing the House would be challenging, as accommodating potentially thousands of legislators in the would be nearly impossible. Not only would an increase require a larger chamber for meetings, but new offices for legislators and their staff would also have to be created. Many people, like those bringing the suit, wish for the House to more than double—bringing its total to over 1000. Congress simply does not have the capacity to facilitate that many legislators and their entourages. Also, with more representatives, each House member would have less relative power and the majesty of membership would be diluted, making it unattractive to incumbents. With only 435 members, the House of Representatives is well-respected and elite. Being elected into it requires hard work and determination, and vastly increasing the size would inherently decrease the significance of membership.
However, proponents of expanding the House argue that with technological advances, it is no longer necessary to force all representatives into one room. Though Winston Churchill legislated in a different country, his insights still hold true to the United States House of Representatives. As he said regarding reconstruction of the House of Commons, “we shape our buildings, and afterwards our buildings shape us. The House of Commons…should not be big enough to contain all its Members at once without overcrowding, and there should be no question of every Member having a separate seat reserved for him.” He defends his statement by saying that a House with a huge capacity would lead to the vast majority of the debates conducted in a depressing atmosphere with an over half-empty room. Churchill continues by saying that parliamentary conversation ``requires a fairly small space, and there should be on great occasions a sense of crowd and urgency.'' Despite that a small room may induce a more intimate and productive setting, eventually, a larger facility would be needed for important matters.
Essentially, the system may be more equitable but less governable. Congress, and especially the House of Representatives, is already considered an unwieldy organization. The various committees and the red-tape bureaucracy make the current House of 435 cumbersome. While each constituent may have better accessibility to his or her representative, those interests would doubtfully be recognized amongst the other thousands of representatives.
More districts would also lead to less funding per district. Especially with the current budget crisis, federal funding would doubtfully increase significantly (if at all), and the money would be distributed amongst literally over one thousand districts. The small allocation would not aid the districts.
Obviously discrepancies in representation in the House of Representatives exist throughout the country, and reform is necessary. An expansion of the House could introduce more members into Washington, providing a new perspective and perhaps less corruption. More minorities, third party candidates, and people from all different backgrounds who appeal to a smaller political market would have a chance to run, therefore diversifying Congress. However, an increase in membership could also harm the House of Representative and only slow the legislative process. A proposal to increase the size of the House of Representatives has never been seriously considered, but with the lawsuit and the only-increasing disparity of representation between the states, now may be the time for drastic reform.
Works Cited
Baker, Peter. “Expand the House?” The New York Times. September 17, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/us/politics/18baker.html
Frederick, Brian. “Constituency Population and Representation in the U.S. House.”
Frederick, Brian. "Frozen at 435: The Size of the United States House of Representatives and the Impact upon Legislative Representation." April 07, 2005.
Goldberg, Jonah. “We need a bigger House.” Los Angeles Times. October 6, 2009. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-goldberg6-2009oct06,0,5681017.column
Ladewig, Jeffrey W. and Mathew P. Jasinski. “On the Causes and Consequences of and Remedies for Interstate Malapportionment of the U.S. House of Representatives.”
Schaller, Tom. “Getting a Bigger House.” FiveThirtyEight. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/09/getting-bigger-house.html
http://thirty-thousand.org/
Saturday, October 3, 2009
To Rio the Olympics Go
Chicago had the Obamas and Oprah. Tokyo had $4 billion. Madrid made it to the final run-off vote. But all three cities lost the bid to host the 2016 Olympic games to Rio de Janeiro. While all cities boasted hopeful citizens cheering, no city offered the passion and story of Rio. The exciting, fun-loving city erupted when the president of the International Olympic Committee announced the final verdict.
The 2016 games will mark the first Olympics ever held in South America. While the Olympics pit countries against each other and focus on sports at an international level, since the Olympic revival in 1896, only four continents (North America, Europe, Australia, and Asia) have hosted the games. Rio de Janeiro bid—unsuccessfully—for the Olympics in 1936, 1940, 2004, and 2012. Finally, they will have there chance, but it won’t be easy. Brazil currently has the tenth largest economy in the world—and is projected to grow by 2016—but the country is plagued by unemployment and poverty.
Despite the plan that Rio proposed to the IOC, some doubt the facilities and the city can manage the volume of people. Rio plans to use the stadium built for the 2007 Pan Am Games, but this facility has only staged a few athletic events. Brazil claimed athletes and spectators would be very close to the stadium, but given traffic and the isolated facilities, the actual commute could be hours. Brazil has been struggling for years with public transportation, with a metro service still failing to reach suburbs. The main airport is also in dire need of repair, especially considering the throngs of people expected.
However, Brazil claims through their growing economy they have direct funding and investments in the facilities that still need to be built. While opponents argue against the games in Rio, the games will actually increase Brazil’s presence in the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
