A New York Times article in January of last year suggested a possible remedy to one of the most critical dilemmas within our democratic process.
The number of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives has been arbitrarily frozen at 435 since the early 20th century. That means that each representative's district now comprises an average of over 700,000 people. That's far beyond the 30,000 recommended by James Madison. It results in representatives being much more susceptible to the wiles of special interests and their money, and less so to the people who elect them.
A lower representative ratio might have a better chance of breaking the near-permanent stranglehold so many of them enjoy. It would also give third party candidates more opportunities for success. Each candidate would be more dependent on voter support than lobbyist help.
Enlarging Congress would encounter resistance from congressional power bases, but would go a long way toward restoring representative government.
- Why LDS Church's anti-discrimination stance...
- What one word best describes Barack Obama?
- In our opinion: Fix, don't repeal, Affordable...
- What The New York Times gets wrong about...
- Michael Gerson: America has enough problems...
- W. Bradford Wilcox: Yes, women and children...
- Letter: Antelope Island prison
- Jay Evensen: In fight over school funding,...
- What The New York Times gets wrong... 77
- In our opinion: Fix, don't repeal,... 70
- Michael and Jenet Erickson: Utah... 50
- In our opinion: It's time to end the... 42
- Mike Lee: Tax reform shouldn't penalize... 38
- In our opinion: Fairness for all in... 37
- Jay Evensen: Will Obama visit Utah? Do... 37
- In our opinion: It's time for Utah to... 27