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.
- Doug Robinson: The high cost of coaches
- In our opinion: Fabricated Rolling Stone...
- Greg Bell: The problem of being a conservative
- Letter: Costly benefits
- John Florez: America's strength is its...
- Mike Noel: Utah leads out on win-win solution...
- In our opinion: Disrupted by email and the...
- My view: Yesterday’s public education...
- Ralph Hancock: Religious freedom and... 75
- Letter: Wrong wage approach 47
- Letter: No more hungry kids 41
- Kathleen Parker: Hillary Clinton's... 40
- Greg Bell: The problem of being a... 38
- Utah's 'grand bargain' stands in sharp... 34
- Letter: Unemployment compensation 33
- Letter: Intimate caucus system 27