Important Note:

Opinions are fun. My friends tell me I am someone with lots of opinions and that's fine since I don't get mad at others when they disagree with me. In this same spirit I am interested in hearing yours views as long as you are able to share your views without boiling over. I look forward to hearing from you. I tend to write in the form of short essays most of the time, but contributions do not need to be in this same format or size. Some of the content here will date itself pretty quickly, other content may be virtually timeless, this is for the reader to judge.

Displaying 1 - 1 of 1

Why stop at 435?                                                                                    

Posted at: Oct/15/2009 : Posted by: mel

Related Category: The Law,

During the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the delegates supported and debated many ideas. The larger states wanted representation in the one chamber based on population. The smaller states didn't think that would be good for them.

The Great Compromise, also known as the Connecticut Compromise, was the result of the delegates coming together to devise a better plan. This plan, as we know it today, provided for two chambers- the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Senate allows equal representation for each state, while delegates to the House are based on state population.

Georgia delegate Abraham Baldwin, who first favored representation based on land holdings, saw the wisdom of the Great Compromise. Later, he was to say his greatest public service was in his role in promoting the Great Compromise at the Convention.

Effectively the Great Compromise to split the legislature into two halves finding a balance between equal States representation and equal Populist representation. Article 1, section 2 of the US Constitution promises equal representation based on eligible population. When written the ratio was set at one representative for every 30K eligible voters. As the country grew so did the number of representatives. Eventually congress began changing the apportionment number and in 1911 fixed the number of representatives at the current 435.

That was the history lesson, now for the question. My concern is over “equal representation” as guaranteed. Since 1911 our countries population has grown significantly and more importantly, some states have grown more than others. California has one representative for every 690K, Montana has one representative for every 965K, while Wyoming has one representative for every 530K. This sure does not seem like equal representation to me. As we approach another census I believe we have to revisit how we apportion our “equal representation”. I know that giving up political power by any state will be a hard fight but this needs to be solved. The logical and mathematical options are really very simple. A.) Increase the number of seats in the House of Representatives, or B.) Change the apportionment number taking seats away from some states and giving them to other states. Tough challenges are by definition never easy, but equal representation is a Constitutional guarantee and needs to be addressed if we truly believe in the ideal that all votes are created equal.

Comments (0)                                                                                                                                                    [Add Comment]