Growth in U.S. Population Calls for Larger House of Representatives

[philarq]

Growth in U.S. Population Calls for Larger House of Representatives

 

by Margo Anderson

(Population Today, April 2000) Controversy over the use of sampling in the 2000 census for reapportionment prompted a Supreme Court decision and protracted congressional deliberations. Interestingly, the controversy did not prompt Congress to investigate the nuts and bolts of reapportionment.

The formula for allocating seats in the House of Representatives among the states according to their population has gone fundamentally unchallenged since 1940.

The reason may be that few Americans know how the size of the House is set. Only since 1910 has the House of Representatives had 435 members. In 1792 there were only 106 members. And although the House generally expanded each decade, between 1830 and 1840 Congress made the House smaller after a census and reapportionment.

The framers of the Constitution expected the House to grow with the population. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, in Federalist no. 58, noted that the purpose of the census was to "readjust, from time to time, the apportionment of representatives to the number of inhabitants . . . to augment the number of representatives . . . under the sole limitation that the whole number shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand inhabitants . . . "

Since 1910, however, Congress has not increased the size of the House. In that year, the population was 92 million, and each House member represented about 210,000 people. Today the number is 572,000, and it will jump to about 630,000 after the 2000 census. Will that increase continue? What is the "right" number?

---Snip----

Rein Taagepera and Matthew S. Shugart, who analyze apportionment systems around the world, have found that the size of the largest legislative body of a national legislature today tends to be the cube root of the population ó a number that, when multiplied by itself twice, yields the voting-age population. For example, the voting-age population was 203,578,000 in 1990, and the whole number closest to being the cube root of that population is 588 (588 x 588 x 588 = 203,297,472). Although that formula tracked the size of the House fairly well between 1790 and 1910, the discrepancy between the current House size and the "cube root of population" rule is so great that restoring that relationship would require adding more than 150 members to the House (see figure below).



---Snip----

Because such a change would unsettle politics as usual in undetermined ways, it is not surprising that few incumbent politicians talk about the issue. In 1996 and again in 1997, House members introduced bills to establish a commission that would make recommendations on the appropriate size of the House and the method by which representatives are elected. Neither bill made it to committee.

James Clyburn, D-S.C., current chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, favors "alternative voting methods" such as proportional or cumulative voting in multimember districts, which might lead to or be paired with expanding the House of Representatives. But the Caucus has not taken a position on expanding the House.

Nonetheless, there are a number of potential supporters outside the political arena. Rob Richie, of the Center for Voting and Democracy, noted that, "In state legislatures, women do better in districts that are smaller," and that there would be (with more House members) "more opportunities for districts drawn to facilitate racial minorities without contorting lines." Richie speculated that enlarging the House would appeal to populists, because smaller House districts might elect more "ordinary folks."

There are many ways for regions, parties, and factions to seek advantages in the decennial process of census-taking and reapportionment. Debates about the propriety of sampling are merely the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps in 2010, a full century after Congress last increased the size of the House, Americans will take a look at the issue. It may not be too soon to start the conversation now.

Seems to me the only reason it is stuck at 435 is because they ran out of chairs...

[napi21]

1. Actually, I wonder if the chamber could accomodate that many?

I also wonder what that would do as far as the composition of the House. I guess we'd have to take a look at where the growth rate of population has been, and if they're dems or pubs. The House usually votes strictly on party line.

The other thing is, the House is usually in chaos anyway, so wouldn't it just make things worse by increasing it's size???

[Odin2005]

2. The Constitution says reps can represent no more than 30,000 people.

That has been ignored since day 1.

[demosincebirth]

3. I sure has.

[philarq]

5. Wrong

Section 2, Clause 3: Apportionment


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. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the state of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.


Cant have MORE than one per 30k--so that is the Lower limit

[neverforget]

6. That would be 10,000 Reps......talk about herding cats!

[SoCalDem]

4. I have thought the same for years.. We have too few representatives

If you look at Wyoming, they have TWO senators and 1 house rep..for about 500K people..

California has 2 senators and 35 reps for 38 million

divide populations by total of reps & sens and see the problem..

wyo= 1 per 166,666
ca= 1 per 1,027,027

large population states get ripped off