JEQuidam

How "manageble" are the 435? To the lobbyists and special interests who appear to be doing the best job of managing them, they do appear to be more manageble. That's why the special interests would strongly oppose a number of Reps so great that they couldn't manage them. What is more important is how well we the people are managing our particular Reps. I have no doubt that the citizens of a district of 50,000 will be able to far better manage their Rep than can the citizens of a district of 700,000+ What is truly unmanageble is 700,000 citizens per Representative. A fair and reasonable debate could be had on how many districts (and representatives) 300,000,000 Americans should be allowed. I argue that we the ratio should be 1:50,000, which would cause us to have 6,000 Representatives. Think outside the box: they no longer need to all collect in one location. The total number of staff should NOT be allowed to increase as the number of Reps increase. The Reps shall be dealing with their constituents directly. The Reps did not begin getting personal staffs until the districts became enlarged; the entire rationale for those staffs was the need to provide services to hundreds of thousands of constituents. Also: I argue, at the link below, that having additional representation will actually reduce the overall net cost of the federal government. Please consider that point of view: Q8: Wouldn’t it be costly to add all these Representatives? http://www.thirty-thousand.org/index.htm#Q8 (No ads or pop-ups.) I'm far more concerned that we are properly representated in our national legislature than how inconvenient that voting process may be for the Reps. Nor do I see how the citizenry may be disadvantaged by a more cumbersome voting process. We do not need more legislation; instead, we need to protected from the federal government. That is essentially how they vote now, in the House chamber (unless it's a voice vote).

Allow me to explain why 50,000-person districts eliminates that problem: if we the people want to regain control of the federal House, then we need to regain control of our Representatives. Because the average congressional district in the U.S. consists of 700,000 people, the Representatives must raise millions of dollars every two years in order to finance their reelection campaigns. Of course, it is far easier for an incumbent to raise those amounts than it is for a challenger. Because of this barrier to entry, incumbent Representatives are assured of 90%+ reelection rates. As a result, the incumbent is beholden to numerous powerful special interests for their financial and political support; these groups comprise the Representatives' primary constituents. The citizenry has become the Representatives' secondary constituency. If we reduced the population size of congressional districts from 700,000 to a much smaller size, such as 50,000, it is easy to see why the citizens would once again become the Representatives' primary constituents. It would no longer require millions of dollars to seek election in a district of 50,000. In fact, if an incumbent were not held in high esteem by his/her constituents, then any competent citizen could mount an effective challenge at no more expense than the cost of several pairs of walking shoes and several thousand photocopies. Bingo!!! A gold star for you, sir.

Of course the Democrat Representative from Missouri (who is quoted in the initial posting) did not see 435 as a strawman. I encourage you to re-read his quote. The fundamental issue is simple: should 300,000,000 American citizens be allowed more than 435 congressional districts? Most people are able to answer that question with a "Yes", "No", or "I don't know". Reducing district sizes to 50,000 (from the current average of 700,000+) will effectively eliminate gerrymandering. Maybe you can push the funny house at the end of the street (painted orange, with the 48 cats in the yard) into the next district, but that's about it. Speaking for myself, I am an ardent supporter of the republican form of government. I'm only intersted in fixing the House to make it a representative body.

Many people do not realize that our total number of congressional districts (and therefore our total number of Representatives in the U.S. House) has been limited to 435 ever since 1913 (except for a four-year period when it was temporarily increased to 437). In 1929, this number (435) was made permanent by an act of Congress. During the debates preceding that act, Missouri Representative Ralph Lozier stated: “I am unalterably opposed to limiting the membership of the House to the arbitrary number of 435. Why 435? Why not 400? Why not 300? Why not 250, 450, 535, or 600? Why is this number 435 sacred? What merit is there in having a membership of 435 that we would not have if the membership were 335 or 535? There is no sanctity in the number 435 ... There is absolutely no reason, philosophy, or common sense in arbitrarily fixing the membership of the House at 435 or at any other number.” The challenge posed by Representative Lozier in 1928 is still valid: is 435 a sacrosanct number or should it be subject to debate? Many of those who framed and ratified the Constitution & Bill of Rights expected that the population of congressional districts would never exceed 50,000. Today their average size is 700,000; by 2100 their average size will be 1.3 million. As a result, it is no longer possible for federal Representatives to faithfully and honorably represent the diverse interests of their constituents. This could be the root cause of why our government has become “broken” and, in any case, violates the principle “That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed” (from the Declaration of Independence). Related to this matter is the fact that the very first amendment proposed in our Bill of Rights was never ratified. As proposed by the House, “Article the first” was intended to ensure that the district size never exceeded 50,000 people. While this amendment was in the Joint Committee, a subtle error was somehow introduced into it that rendered it inexecutable. It is not known when this error was eventually detected, but the amendment was ultimately ratified by all but one state. This very interesting and important story can be found at: TownHall.com (for red people), or at DailyKos (for blue people). Both articles are identical and contain links to supporting information.