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/
Nice job. This issue popped into my head while driving one day. I wondered if anyone had written about it. After 40 minutes of Googling, your summary is a gem. Thanks.
ReplyDelete