Government Without Adequate Representation

Our Constitutional Republic provides for a bicameral legislature with a lower house, the House of Representatives, where members are apportioned based on population. Well... it is supposed to be based on population.

When the House was originally set up, it had 65 members who each represented approximately 30,000 citizens. The size of the House grew with the population, but over time the proportion of citizens to representatives has risen dramatically. This is especially the case since 1910 when a law was passed to cap the number of representatives at 435. At that time there was approximately one representative per 200,000 citizens. It was about 645,000:1 based on the 2000 census, but will probably be more than 700,000:1 after the 2010 census.

For more detailed information, check out Wikipedia and Thirty-Thousand.org.

Today, Wyoming has one representative for its population of 494k; Montana has one for its population of 902k. This is almost a two to one ratio which is seriously unfair. The only way to remedy this is by increasing the number of representatives. This will also increase our ability to make our voices heard in Washington as each representative has a smaller constituency.

I ran three quick scenarios using a simple apportionment method (divide and round to the nearest whole number). This is all using the 2000 census data.

A simplified Wyoming Rule gives one seat for every 494k (the population of Wyoming). This yields 569 seats, but still results in sever over- and under-representation. South Dakota gets two seats (377k per rep) and North Dakota gets one seat (642k per rep).

The next approach was the "1000 Seat Rule". This gives one seat per 281k. This still allows for distorted representation.

Finally, I tried the "One Rep per 100k Rule". I think that one is self-explanatory. This one under-represents North Dakota with six seats for a ratio of 107k per rep. It over-represents South Dakota with eight seats - a ratio of 94k per rep. Now, this is starting to be a little more acceptable in my opinion. This would put the House of Representatives at 2,807 seats.

I think this could also allow minor parties to have a stronger voice in Washington. It will be much more difficult for the Republicans and Democrats to maintain their duopoly when they have to fight almost 3,000 congressional battles. I'd actually endorse a more parliamentary style election - or at least a modified one - in order to better reflect representation of the public.

To get an idea of what this type of system might be like, consider these statistics about my home state of Indiana. Indiana would have 61 seats using the third approach (population 6.08M). Hamilton County, where I work, would have two or three reps. Marion County, where I live, would have eight or nine reps. In fact, my home township, Perry Township, may even get its own rep with a population of 93k.