To continue on yesterday's theme, I generally believe that the country would benefit from a closer adherence to the Constitution. Thus, instead of slowly, apathetically drifting away from the rules set forth in the Constitution, perhaps we should try to think about the spirit of the document as well. Contrary to Bill Maher, I think one of the biggest problems in government today is the lack of representation. Instead of abolishing or completely restructuring the Senate, let's try to find ways of giving people a (slightly) more direct voice in their government. I agree with the founders that the vox populi ought to be represented by . . . Representatives. For some idea of how to increase representation without compromising the republican nature of our government, let's consider the issue from the founders perspective.
The framers fought contentiously over the issue of how many people should be in each Representative's perspective district. While it was generally agreed that each state should have at least one Representative, a debate raged as to how big or small to make the final number. In order to clarify the discussion below the fold, since ratios are fractions and, in this discussion, the numerator will always be one, the following holds: a given ratio 1:A is smaller than 1:B if and only if A is greater than B. That is to say, the larger a ratio is in the following discussion, the resulting democracy would be more representative or more direct. [More below the fold]
The general tension in the constitutional debate - at least with respect to the legislature - was the result of wanting to have the best of both types of democracy. The bicameral nature of Congress would fix that by having the Senators try to do what they see as best for the country, and the Representatives vote based on the interests of their district. You can see proof of this in the length of the offices' respective terms, which make Senators relatively impervious to decisions they make and Representatives very accountable. So the issue was really how directly democratic to make the House. The Federalists typically wanted a smaller ratio, and the Anti-Federalists wanted a larger ratio.
The issue was important enough to warrant a discussion in The Federalist No. 55. Therein, James Madison argued that the problems with a ratio of one Representative to thirty thousand citizens (1:30,000) would even out thanks to the decennial census. The concerns he sought to address were those of the Anti-Federalists who thought this would result in too little representation. Nevertheless That ratio won at the end of the day. It is worth noting that a ratio of 1:40,000 was ruled out (by Federalists!) as being too small, so there was clearly some idea of a minimum. Unfortunately, a minimum was not fixed in the Constitution. All that is left in the Constitution from this debate is the notion that the ratio cannot exceed 1:30,000 (resulting in a total of 65 Representatives at the country's birth reboot).
Please take a wild guess at the average ratio now. For any math nerds out there, here's a decent hint: if we followed the 1:30,000 ratio today we ought to have 10,234 (rounding up) Representatives today. If those numbers didn't give it away, the current ratio is 1:705,762. As Lewis Black says, I will repeat this because it bears repeating: 1:40,000 was seen by a majority in 1787 to be too small and now the ratio of 1:705,762 makes us happy 224 years later. The problem with this ratio is that one Representative cannot possibly hear the concerns of 705,762 citizens. Thus, we must call into question his/her ability to effectively represent his/her constituents.
The reason the number grew to be so out of whack was that the population grew exponentially (as populations tend to do) and erratically (as more states joined the union). Interestingly, there is some evidence that the number was fixed at 435 in 1929 for purely political reasons. The Republicans feared a large electoral shift if they reapportioned the House in 1913. As usual, Congress was too lazy to fix it, so 16 years later it became law. To be fair, the ratio at the time was roughly 1:212,407 (which would mean 1,445 Representatives today).
To make it absolutely clear, what I want is an increase the size of the House of Representatives. How much we should increase it I will leave up to debate. I personally believe we should try for the 1:30,000 ratio. But the main point is that a ratio 1:212,407 is more than three times more fair than the current system. I understand practical concerns, but anyone who doesn't think that the Congress is in need of a dramatic technology upgrade is not thinking clearly. With current technology we could easily accomodate 10,234 members. In the interest of fairness, Madison himself implied that this would probably be impractical. He wrote in The Federalist No. 55:
"Sixty or seventy men may be more properly trusted with a given degree of power than six or seven. But it does not follow that six or seven hundred would be proportionably a better depositary. And if we carry on the supposition to six or seven thousand, the whole reasoning ought to be reversed. [. . .] In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever character composed, passion never fails to wrest the sceptre from reason."
If I were to try to argue with Father of the Constitution, it would be on the grounds of increased technological capacity. That, coupled with the generally positive trajectory of human behavior, would allow thousands of representatives to be manageable. But, the admittedly more reasonable number of 700, would mean a two fold increase in the amount of representation in this country.
In any case, the real obstacle in the way of such a change is the fact that such a reapportionment would drastically reduce everyone's power on the hill. But the good news is: that includes lobbyists! Let's see the special interests try to keep shelling out an average of $4.58 million/year** to each Representative then. That would force them to spend a total of $47,329.72 million/year with a 10,234 member House and the 100 member Senate. As a final note, such an increase would also vastly increase the diversity of Congress, both ethnically and professionally. While I think the former is less important than the latter, and that diversity should not be a goal in and of itself, injecting new blood into the system is probably a good idea at this point.
Besides the practical issue of paying off over 10,000 people, if the Representative actually knows a significant portion of his constituents and is part of that small community, the people can hold him accountable for his decisions. If your Representative was your neighbor, you might talk to him about his conduct.
ReplyDelete