Brain Candy #50 - The Big House

The number of Representatives has been set by statute at 435 since 1911. It was felt that any larger body would be too unwieldy to govern effectively. In 1911, this was quite true, but in the last ninety years, the tools for organizing and managing large numbers of people have advanced radically. This number can be easily changed, yet we remain frozen at 435 Representatives.

The simplest reason that the number hasn't risen in the last nine decades involves power. Increasing the number of Representatives in the House dilutes the power of each. Given the near complete dominance of professional politicians in the House, we can expect no action that reduces the power of their offices from the Representatives themselves, at least not without irresistable public support.

One reason why this arrangement works at all is due to the development of mass media since 1911. Through the mass media, Representatives have easy access to ever larger numbers of constituents. Before the existence of mass media, a Representative just couldn't communicate with his constituents when the number of people he represented became too large. One significant negative characteristic of this reliance on the mass media is that it only provides one-way access. He can easily speak to you, but you don't have an effective way to speak back, unless he really wants to hear you. Needless to say, this doesn't further the cause of representative democracy.

Another issue of importance is the development of large, powerful and rich special interest groups. These groups find that lobbying 435 Representatives, providing them with sufficient money to influence their behavior, isn't particularly difficult to do. Money is an essential part of the system, since money is the key to mass media access. The special interest groups are the key to money. Professional politicians have to listen to the special interest groups if they want to win. This isn't malfeasance; the old ways of politicking just won't work anymore - the combined influence of money and mass media is just too effective at delivering votes.

The problem as I see it is that we've reached the point where individual votes count for very little. When our country was founded, the First House of Representatives had 65 members, representing 3.9 million people. The 2000 Census shows that there are now over 281.4 million people in the US, over 68.6 times more people, represented by 6.7 times as many legislators. Your vote is worth one-tenth of what it was when our country was established. Put another way, if our founding fathers had used the same ratio we now use, the US would have been governed in the First Congress by six Representatives. Using a more recent benchmark, your vote is worth one-third of that of an American living in 1911, when the limit was set.

Contrast this with the view of a special-interest lobbyist. The most important Representatives easily can be contacted in a single day, by a single lobbyist. Given a small staff, every Representative can be efficiently contacted in a short period of time. Lobbying groups have a wide array of tools, but one of their greatest assets is the combination of a small number of legislators in one place, far away from their "constitutents".

I see two separate areas for improvement. The 2000 Census ratio of one Representative per 647,000 people is patently unrepresentative. The original ratio of one Representative per 60,000 people is probably unattainable, at least in the short term. I believe that the first step should be to set by statute that the ratio should be no lower than one Representative per 250,000 people. This would yield a House of at least 1,126 Representatives. A longer range goal might be to set the limit to no lower than one Representative per 100,000 people. For the 2000 Census, this would mandate at least 2,814 Representatives. Individual votes become more important, while the mass media becomes less valuable, perhaps even becoming unnecessary. This could greatly reduce the cost of political campaigns for the House.

An even more fanciful reform I envision would greatly complement the effectiveness of a more valuable vote. I would like to see a mandate that Representatives permanently reside in their districts. The House of Representatives would meet electronically. This would make it much easier for constituents to gain access to their Representatives, and would complicate the job of the special interests. Implementing such a plan would take a lot of research, development and experimentation, but would be a much more worthy goal, than, say, a hundred billion dollar toy missile shield.

I've created a web page that has links to sites dealing with such issues. It's at home.neo.rr.com/catbar/BigHouse.htm. Visit if you would like more information.

Postscript 1: As it was, my column was running long, so I couldn't make a few comments that I can make here. There is no doubt that the column as written above proposes a system that would pose some enormous problems for smooth governance. In some degree, it is meant to. Efficient government, at the expense of more important concepts, like responsiveness to the "Will of the People", is a flaw, not a goal. On the other hand, chaos is certainly not what we're after. One idea that might help: my proposal does not involve any changes in the Senate. I would not make any. The Senate would remain at 100 (at least while we have 50 states) and would meet in Washington, DC. A teleconferencing system could be set up for them to talk with constituents, akin to what House members would be doing to talk to each other. With only 100 Senators for what will eventually be 300 million people, this body won't (and can't and perhaps shouldn't be) very responsive to the "Will of the People". They serve another role, which I feel shouldn't be tinkered with.

Another item I would have liked to discuss further - my one-sided discussion of lobbying groups. Special interest groups aren't evil. In my opinion, they've just grown far too powerful in influence relative to the general public. Their input is a necessary requirement if we are to have laws that special interest groups can live with. I'm specifically talking about business input - I've seen lobbying efforts by corporate groups that led to excellent legislation for both business and the general public - but it applies to other types of special interest group, also. This proposal is meant to restore balance to the political landscape, not to eliminate the voice of such groups. One possibility might be that such input might best be channeled through the Senate, whose individual members might effectively communicate important ideas to the House members. This would be a big change in how our Legislative branch operates. Other big changes would surely be needed, but such new procedures might revolutionize and revitalize our rather stodgy and ineffective Legislative branch.

Postscript 2: The posting date for the paper version of this article was September 5. Yesterday, we saw the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York City. At this point, there is speculation that the Capitol building was meant to be one of the targets. A dispersed House of Representatives would assure that at least that part of our Government would remain intact without an enormous effort on the part of any terrorist group. A more general thought - with 21st Century communications technology, we can disperse most any function across a city, a state or a continent. The Mayor of New York talked about building an even greater World Trade Center in New York City this afternoon. Should we?