It might help if there weren’t hundreds of thousands of constituents for every one U.S. Representative. Maybe if each congressional district contained no more than 30,000-40,000 constituents for every U.S. Rep., our congressmen and congresswomen would be better equipped to respond to EVERYONE instead of lucky few. One of the very few times that our Representatives hear us was during both the Immigration bill and the recent Obamacare socialized medicine debacle. In both cases, the congressional switchboards went apoplectic with activity, eventually shutting down due to massive activity. It is a shame that the only time our representatives respect their constituent’s wishes is when there is massive outrage. What would life be like in America if our reps ACTUALLY heard from most of their constituents and governed accordingly?
James Madison, considered by many to be the "The Father" of the Constitution, argued for a small government that did not take an active role. This view was most undoubtedly due from his own view of Great Britain and how he wanted to avoid big government that Great Britain represented. With that in mind, Madison proffered to start the newly formed United States of America with 65 United States Representatives in totality. This relatively low number of representatives was to control the size of the congressional districts. Madison felt that, these 65 Reps wasn’t a static figure. To the contrary, Madison argued that every ten years there should be a census, in order to adjust taxes and representatives across all the states proportionally, the number of representatives of each district will adjust according to population increases/decreases within each district.
For example, Congressional District X had 3 U.S. Reps and 90,000 people according to the 1990 census. Now, the 2000 census shows that Congressional District X has 120,000people, a 30,000 increase, with still just 3 U.S. Reps. According to Madison, District X would now apportion 1 more rep, giving the district a total of 4 reps for 120,000 people or a ratio of 1:30,000. Under this method of apportionment, Madison showed that, if done in this manner, representation would be spread out equally amongst Americans at a 1:30,000 ratio thereby assuring Article 1, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, “One man, One Vote.”
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons
Now, let’s flash forward to 2009. Do we have properly apportioned representatives that Madison and the Constitution required? Hardly. Where Madison’s idea of apportionment on population would, every ten years, change the number of congressmen in order to keep the 1:30,000 ratio. Today, due to a 1929 congressional bill, government was forever to have a set 435 congressmen, period, no care to as to how large the districts become. Out of this entirely arbitrary set number of 435, congress adjusts representation accordingly. For example, the 1990 census shows that California had 52 U.S. Reps and a population of just shy of 30,000,000. The 2000 census showed an increase in population to the tune of 4,091,548. While using Madison’s goal of 1:30,000 apportionment, California would have added 136 representatives. Under the current mode of apportionment, California got just one. ONE! Adding just one stinking rep for 4 million additional people is appalling.
Summary
1. There are just too many people in congressional districts without proper representation. Having 200,000-700,000 people per one U.S. Representative is the epitome of under representation. How in the world can one man adequately represent hundreds of thousands of people? Would you let you child swim in a pool with 10,000 other children while there’s just one lifeguard?
2. James Madison argued that having a low ratio of congressmen and constituents would lead to superior representation where the people and the rep would not be so estranged from one another. This “close” feeling between each would cause the congressman to take an active role with his voters.
3. No taxation without representation was a key and vital philosophy within James Madison’s “nation founding” mental framework. As such, Madison thought that a ratio of 1:30,000 was just large enough to foster good and fair representation. Currently, in 2009, we have an immense and highly under represented ratio of 1:690,000
4. While technically in violation of Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 or “One Man, One Vote, because there is at least one representative in all states, the districts are considered properly apportioned.
Final Remarks
As you can see from the facts presented, we Americans need to be more vocal and demand to be properly represented. Americans went to war over no representation, should we not march on Washington, D.C. over under representation? Look at what this close-knit “country club” of 435 members has wrought: Bridges to nowhere? Stimulus bills? Obamacare? I would wager that it would make it much more difficult, if not impossible, to pass “pet projects” and other such nonsense if there were 1,600 reps rather than 435. Food for thought, for those of you who still think the House impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton was a right-wing witch hunt, would the Republicans have had the needed 801 votes (simple majority) if there were 1,600 congressmen voting? It would have definitely been a more daunting task.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment