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.
- In our opinion: Boy Scouts of America and...
- Sen. Ted Cruz opens 2014 CPAC with...
- Was Hillary right to compare Putin to Hitler?
- Letter: Religious freedom
- Endangered Species Act lost sight of its mission
- Senate defeats Obama in Justice nod
- My view: History lesson: 'Taking back'...
- Who are the real heroes of election reform?
- Letter: Minimum Wage insufficient 66
- Has Obama's foreign policy emboldened... 62
- Jay Evensen: Obama could use a dose of... 60
- Letter: Religious freedom 50
- Obama's biggest test: Ukraine 33
- Robert Bennett: Keystone: What... 32
- Sen. Ted Cruz opens 2014 CPAC with... 27
- In our opinion: Boy Scouts of America... 27