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.
- Most popular letters to the editor of 2013
- In our opinion: Don't raise the minimum wage
- In our opinion: Aging without a family
- John Hoffmire: Fighting increasing health...
- Robert Bennett: Create wealth before...
- Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: What's to be...
- My view: Utah needs to expand Medicaid
- Charles Krauthammer: U.S. refuses to support...
- Kathleen Parker: The GOP's toxic messaging 58
- In our opinion: Don't raise the minimum... 48
- Letter: Doctors unite 38
- Letter: Elected representatives 36
- George F. Will: Why Iran should be... 20
- Letter: No limits 20
- Robert Bennett: Create wealth before... 19
- Andrew Morriss: No, Congress should not... 18