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.
- 5 reasons Mitt Romney will probably run for...
- Janna Darnelle: Redefining marriage hurts...
- Catherine Rampell: Reasons behind the bad...
- Doug Robinson: Making sense of retired...
- In our opinion: Let FAA, not Utah...
- Letter: Enforcing the dress code
- John Hoffmire: Save capitalism by focusing on...
- My view: Don't make women optional in marriage
- My view: Don't make women optional in... 104
- Janna Darnelle: Redefining marriage... 98
- 5 reasons Mitt Romney will probably run... 66
- John Hoffmire: Save capitalism by... 45
- In our opinion: Here's how the Obama... 41
- Drew Clark: Either view of marriage... 39
- In our opinion: On Holder's heels... 34
- A. Scott Anderson: Energy development... 32