If You Live in Montana,
You are Not Being Equally Represented
If you live in Montana you only count as 3/5th's of a person when compared to people living in Wyoming. Should the vote of someone in one state count more than the vote of a person in another state?
- Average population: 710,767 people based on 2010 U.S. Census.[4] It was 646,946 in 2000.
- State with the most people in the average district: Montana (994,416).[4] In 2000, also Montana: 905,316.
- State with the fewest people in the average district: Rhode Island(527,624).[4] In 2000, Wyoming: 495,304.
The 994,416 people living in Montana have same amount of representation of 495,304 people living in Wyoming. The residents of Montana are counted as less than three fifths of a person in Wyoming.
If the number on Congressional Representatives was increased from 435 to 1,500 the average size of a Congressional District would be reduced from \o approximately one in 750,000 to one in 200,000,
Instead of having just one representative Wyoming would have ftwo representative and Montana would have five. By shrinking the size of the districts the people would be more equally represented.
California which now has 53 Congressional Districts would have 200 Congressional Districts.
This plan satisfies the Constitutional requirement to have at least one representative for each state and prohibits any state from having more than one representative for every thirty thousand. Each state would have one representative for every 100,000.
We the people must demand that Congress pass a new apportionment law that would increase the number of seats in the House of Representatives.
In 1929 Congress froze the number of seats in the House of Representatives at 435. Congress could pass a new apportionment law that would increase the number of seats to 1,500 seats. Every Congressional District would have one representative for every 200,000 people.
Why does America need more representatives and smaller congressional districts?
It will produce smaller government and more individual freedom.
[
Previous attempts at reforming the United States Congress have aimed at symptoms and not their root cause – enormous district sizes and the related difficulty of faithfully representing the American people with a limited number of representatives.
The advantages of a larger U.S. House of Representatives are:
- INCREASED accountability – as district sizes become smaller, each voter’s influence on their representative increases.
- DECREASED government spending – this seems counter-intuitive, but the data strongly support significant reductions in aggregate spending as the House grows in membership (see the Chen/Malhotra paper from the November 2007 issue of the American Political Science Review).
- INCREASED competition – the principles of free markets tell us that when competition is present, we get increased quality at a lower cost. With more House seats, races will be more competitive. The best illustrative example is comparing small New Hampshire (400 state house members with a high turnover rate of over 30%), to California, with its embarrassing lack of competition (state house of only 80 members with NO turnover - a 100% incumbent success rate for the past 4 election cycles).
- INCREASED voter turnout – data support that the smaller the district sizes, the greater percentage of voters turn out for the election (see the Quidam Voter Turnout paper from October 2009).
- DECREASED cost of running for office – the average winning campaign for a U.S. House seat in 2008 was approximately $1.5 million. This enormous financial barrier to entry prevents ‘average’ citizens from entering national politics, and gives incumbents a great advantage. If the average district size were reduced, more everyday Americans could run for public office.
- DECREASED scope of individual representatives – the problem with the current model is that power is too concentrated, making individual representatives much too influential in the legislative process. Diminishing their individual scope and influence should reduce the need for continual media appearances and campaigning, and re-focus their efforts on serving constituents as citizen-legislators.
- INCREASED freedom – a strong relationship exists between district size and freedom. At the state level, the smaller the average district size, the higher that state scores on various freedom indices (see the Quidam Freedom Indices article from October 2009).
- DECREASED propensity for gerrymandering – With a lot more districts, the concept of creating an oddball-shaped gerrymandered district makes much less sense and yields less value as compared to today’s model.
- INCREASED cost of lobbying – it’s much cheaper and easier to lobby 435 people than a significantly larger number. More representatives may equate to less influence of lobbyists and more protection for the American people.
Replies
We the people must demand that Congress pass a new apportionment law that would increase the number of seats in the House of Representatives.
In 1929 Congress froze the number of seats in the House of Representatives at 435. Congress could pass a new apportionment law that would increase the number of seats from 435 to 1,500 seats. Every Congressional District would have one representative for every 200,000 people.
We would have to change their paychecks/salaries, wouldn't we?
We cannot afford to multiply their numbers and also continue to pay them their lifetime salaries and benefits. How could that happen? You are right on all of this, but the money.....is a problem.