The size of our federal House of Representatives

thirty-thousand.org ^ | 2007 | J. E. Quidam

[J. E. Quidam]

The first Congress in 1789 intended that the Congressional districts never exceed 50 to 60 thousand people; today they are approaching 700,000 and, consequently, the principle of proportionally equitable representation has been abandoned. In order to restore the U. S. House to the people, the total number of Representatives will have to be increased substantially.

[J. E. Quidam]

The Bill of Rights document drafted in 1789 (which is on display at the National Archives) contains twelve articles of amendment (not ten). Of those twelve only the first one — Article the first — has never been ratified. What was that amendment intended to do?

The size of the U.S. House has been frozen at 435 Representatives since 1913. Why?

Established in 2004, thirty-thousand.org is a non-partisan organization which conducts research on, and educates the public about, the insidious degradation of representative democracy in the United States resulting from Congress’s longstanding practice of constricting the number of Representatives relative to the total population.

Please visit thirty-thousand.org and share your thoughts with others on this forum.

[golfisnr1]

435 is 385 too many.

[wideawake]

The first Congress in 1789 intended that the Congressional districts never exceed 50 to 60 thousand people

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

The Founders were very explicit - and discussed this issue at length in The Federalist - that the House not have too many members.

Their stated goal was a chamber numerous enough not to be easily bought, but not so numerous as to obviate individual accountability.

Nowhere in our founding documents is it stated that there is numerical limit to the number of electors in a House district. The original 30,000 number was to accomodate small states and new states it at least one representative.

[Nervous Tick]

J. E. Quidam
Since Oct 18, 2007

something smells funny about this conspiracy theory

[phs3]

ping

[wideawake]

I would also point out that the US is not a "representative democracy" but a representative federal republic with a democratic franchise.

If districts were restricted to 30,000 there would be close to 10,000 representatives in the House: a ridiculous number.

New York City alone would have 265 representatives and California would have more than twice the number of representatives as there currently are in Congress.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

435 is fine for right now, though I think that when I new state is added, the amout of representatives it receives should permanently be added to the total. For example, when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted, membership temporarily increased to 437. Those seats went away after the 1960 Census. I would have just kept them.

I also wouldn’t mind adding a couple of seats after every census.

[douginthearmy]

It's just another socialist ploy destroy the country. I don't know how many cities it would take to make a majority, but NY, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Chicago would probably be close. This is a leftist's dream come true. If they can manage to get rid of the electoral college at the same time, the country will swing full communist in a matter of years.

Once the U.S. falls, all of Europe, Japan, S. Korea all fall. Perhaps Switzerland and a few holdouts would maintain the torch of liberty but once the U.S. goes the world is doomed to return to its historical norm, dictatorship.

[crazyshrink]

Poster # 3 (wideawake) is correct.

http://nationalatlas.gov/articles/boundaries/a_conApport.html

A bigger concern for me is the illegal aliens.

http://www.planetizen.com/node/27459

[J. E. Quidam]

Some of the founders did not want a populous House, but in fact most expected a very populous House. This is supported by many many citations provided at thirty-thousand.org. For example, Federalist Papers 55 and 56 explicitly promised, without qualification, that there would be one Representative for every thirty-thousand inhabitants. PLEASE read the TTO home page in its entirety.

[wideawake]

For example, Federalist Papers 55 and 56 explicitly promised, without qualification, that there would be one Representative for every thirty-thousand inhabitants.

Completely false. An outright lie, in fact.

[J. E. Quidam]

...actually, no where in the TTO web site is a conspiracy theory proposed; however, such can not be ruled out based on the avialable info.

[J. E. Quidam]

Are you for real? Anybody can read those two Federalist papers for themselves and see that those statements are explicitly made. Why would you make such a slanderous statement without checking the facts first? All you accomplish is damaging your own credibility.

Federalist №55: It will not be thought an extravagant conjecture that the first census will, at the rate of one for every thirty thousand, raise the number of representatives to at least one hundred. ... At the expiration of twenty-five years, according to the computed rate of increase, the number of representatives will amount to two hundred, and of fifty years, to four hundred.

Federalist №56: ...it seems to give the fullest assurance, that a representative for every THIRTY THOUSAND INHABITANTS will render the [House of Representatives] both a safe and competent guardian of the interests which will be confided to it.

Those who verify for themselves can quickly confirm the veracity of all my statements.

[J. E. Quidam]

Are you for real? Anybody can read those two Federalist papers for themselves and see that those statements are explicitly made. Why would you make such a slanderous statement without checking the facts first? All you accomplish is damaging your own credibility.

Federalist №55: It will not be thought an extravagant conjecture that the first census will, at the rate of one for every thirty thousand, raise the number of representatives to at least one hundred. Â… At the expiration of twenty-five years, according to the computed rate of increase, the number of representatives will amount to two hundred, and of fifty years, to four hundred.

Federalist №56: ...it seems to give the fullest assurance, that a representative for every THIRTY THOUSAND INHABITANTS will render the [House of Representatives] both a safe and competent guardian of the interests which will be confided to it.

Those who verify for themselves can quickly verify the veracity of all my statements.

[J. E. Quidam]

Yes, we are a representative federal republic. Nothing proposed in TTO contradicts that.

[J. E. Quidam]

I would like to ask all of you skeptics then what should be the correct size of the House? "Goflisnr1" believes it should be 50. Why is that better than 435? Why is 435 better than 434 or 436, or 500 or 1000? What makes one number better than the others?

For those of us who believe in the principle of "one person one vote", that objective can only be achieved by greatly enlarging the House. For those of you who believe in elite rule, then you should continue to defend the status quo.

[wideawake]

You said that The Federalist explicitly guarantees an upper limit of 30,000 electors per Congressional seat. It does absolutely nothing of the kind.

Those who verify for themselves can quickly confirm the veracity of all my statements.

Anyone who is capable of reading 18th century prose will soon realize that James Madison was not making any specific numerical guarantees at all, but simply arguing that the proposed districting scheme struck a sensible balance between too few and too many representatives.

Nothing proposed in TTO contradicts that.

Of course it does.

It argues that the current representation violates the principle of "one man one vote."

That is the slogan of a democracy, not of a republic.

If our country was based on "one man one vote" we would have a consolidated parliamentary system without state governments or presidential electors.

[J. E. Quidam]

I do not understand the point you wanted to make with your first link.

However, with respect to the problem of illegal aliens, the apportionment problem that produces is exactly the same whether we have 435 Representatives or 6,000. In any case, those states which tolerate illegal aliens within their borders (as a matter of policy) will tend to be over-represented in the House.

[wideawake]

What makes one number better than the others?

Nothing inherently makes a particular number better or worse.

Clearly thousands are too many and dozens are too few as a matter of legislative practice.

For those of us who believe in the principle of "one person one vote", that objective can only be achieved by greatly enlarging the House.

A completely illogical statement.

Why not have everyone vote for a single lifetime dictator?

If no number is inherently worse than another, then one representative should be sufficient. Presumably no one length of time in office - be it one second or one lifetime - is any better than another either.

The only thing that matters is that when the vote is held, one man gets one vote.

[J. E. Quidam]

OK, I see that you now accept that my statements about the two Federalist Papers were acccurate. That's good.

Very few people would agree that "nothing makes a particular number better or worse" and, if you yourself were so indifferent as to the number, you would not have been so incredibly contentious on this point.

Finally, it is a mathematical fact that reaching one-person-one-vote (on a national level) requires that we have over 6,000 Representatives. That is neither an opinion or an "illogical statement". Don't believe it? Do the math yourself.