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.
- Facts about the Boy Scouts of America
- My view: MMR vaccine caused my son's autism
- Dan Liljenquist: IRS scandal is an assault on...
- In our opinion: Utah's caucus system needs...
- Michael Gerson: Common Core standards are not...
- Letters: Dismantle IRS
- Commentary claims liberals are shocked by...
- Letters: No welfare, ever
- Letters: No welfare, ever 77
- Letters: Move to the center 37
- My view: Why moderates lost the caucus... 33
- Tolerance and the same-sex marriage debate 33
- Dan Liljenquist: IRS scandal is an... 32
- Richard Davis: Abortion laws should... 28
- Robert J. Samuelson: Can Americans stem... 21
- Letters: The buck stops here 21