Without a doubt the greatest debate at the Constitutional Convention was centered on the question on the issue of representation in Congress. Virginia proposed a bicameral legislature with the membership in both houses determined by the population of the states.
This plan was rejected by the small states which offered an alternative plan where each state would be equally represented. This plan was rejected by the large states and it appeared that unless this issue could be resolved the Constitution would never had been ratified.
Roger Sherman of Connecticut came to the rescue and offered what came to be known as the Great Compromise whereby the large states would enjoy proportional representation in the House of Representatives and the small states would receive equal representation in the Senate.
The Great Compromise created a system of checks and balances that prevented the states with large populations from dominating the states small populations.
The number of representatives each state would have would be based on all states having districts of no more than 30,000 inhabitants. This number would guarantee that the voices of the people would be heard loud and clear. They understood the one man could not possibly adequately represent districts like the ones we have today with an average of over 700,000 inhabitants.
Because one man can not represent such a large umber of constituents, each has been assigned 22 staff members. There staff members are nothing more than un-elected unaccountable representatives. With 435 elected representatives, we have an additional 9,579 un-elected representatives roaming the halls of Congress.
If the districts averaging 700,000 were split into 23 districts with 30,000 inhabitants all of the states and all of the people would be equally represented. Currently the smallest district which is located in Wyoming has 563,000 inhabitants and the state of Montana has 989,000 inhabitants.
The Supreme Court has ruled that in the states all legislative districts must equal in size and that a disparity of over 1% in unconstitutional based on the principle of one man one vote.
This same principle is not being applied at the national level where we have a disparity of up to 75%. If the principle of one man one vote applies at the state level why does it not apply at the national level?
Without equality there can be no justice and without justice there can be no liberty. The issue of inequality in the House of Representatives can not be ignored any longer.
Replies