Forum Navigation
Topics
Log In
Log Out
:
Forum Search
New Today
New This Week
Advanced Search
Tree View
Forum Account
Edit Profile
Register
Forgot Password
Forum Tools
Help/Instructions
Policies
CLICK STATE TO SEE:
"WATCH LIST"
Marked with: 
"OPEN & HONEST"
Marked with: 
...
|
| (US) 8/06 - Why are there 435 Represe... |
|
| Author |
Message |
    
J. E. Quidam
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Quidam
Post Number: 1
Registered: 05-2006
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 7:35 am: | 
|
In recent postings at BBV, there was a discussion about how the size of the U.S. House is determined with respect to the applicable ratio of Representatives to the number of people to be represented.
On one hand, the Constitution only specifies a minimum number for each Representative (i.e., 30,000) but fails to specify a maximum. On the other hand, the Federalist Papers, which were the primary means for selling the proposed Constitution to the people, effectively represented (or misrepresented) 30,000 as a fixed value for this ratio. (For anyone interested in this point I can cite examples.)
If you ask a “Jay-walking” question about the Bill of Rights, most people will (of course) not have any idea what that is. Of those who do know, they will all tell you that the BoR is comprised of the first ten amendments. Though very incomplete, this answer is well established in our current Constitutional mythology (for example:
http://www.constitutioncenter.org/explore/FoundingDocuments/BillofRights.shtml).
On September 25, 1789, the first Congress actually proposed twelve articles to constitute the Bill of Rights. These 12 are enshrined on the original document on display at the National Archives, which also provides a jpg image of same on their web site at
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights.htm l. However, nearly 217 years later, the beautiful calligraphy on parchment is not particularly easy to read.
Of those twelve proposed amendments, articles three through twelve were ratified soon thereafter and became what is generally known today as the Bill of Rights. In other words, what we now call the “First Amendment” is actually the third one inscribed on the original Bill of Rights document.
So what became of the first and second of these 12 articles? The second article was ratified 200 years later (as the 27th Amendment). Few people realize that the 27th amendment sat forgotten for so long on the Bill of Rights.
Returning to the subject of the size of the House, it is the never-ratified “Article the first” which is of interest. Though intended to be the very first amendment to the Constitution, it would have been all but forgotten were it not memorialized on the original Bill of Rights document and therefore not lost to history. Why did the first Congress propose this particular amendment as the first one in the Bill of Rights? Why is it the only amendment proposed in the BoR that was never ratified? Is this a subject worthy of scholarly review and investigation? If so, why has there not been any?
Believe it or not, the full story of “Article the first” involves a little Congressional intrigue in the form of a clever last-minute word substitution in the proposed article (in a joint House-Senate committee) which quite effectively sabotaged its intent in a way that was probably not readily apparent in the haste of the moment (especially without the help of computers).
For anyone interested in learning more about this, the links below provide additional information.
Text of the twelve amendments that were proposed by the first Congress
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/BoR_text.htm
The History of the First — and Now Forgotten — First Amendment
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/article1_history.htm
Analysis of “Article the first...”
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/article1_analysis.htm
Thirty-thousand.org is a non-partisan web site that provides information about the substantial dilution of our democratic rights as a result of increasingly oversized (and unequal) U. S. House districts. |
Robert Sawdey
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Rsawdey
Post Number: 137
Registered: 01-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 11:58 am: |
|
I found that site to be very interesting, well presented, and well documented. I disagree with their opinion that the two-party system is an advantage... I think more parties have a better chance of representing the opinions of a broader section of the citizenry...
Increasing the number of representatives would dilute the power of each & make them more accountable to their district. It would also reduce the cost of campaigning. Standardizing on equal population districts would better provide 'one person, one vote', as would making the electoral college reflect the proportional distribution of the vote like Maine, rather than the more common 'winner take all'. |
J. E. Quidam
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Quidam
Post Number: 2
Registered: 05-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 12:22 pm: |
|
Thank you for those comments. Why do you think that thirty-thousand.org ("TTO") advocates the the two-party system? That position is not intended. |
J. E. Quidam
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Quidam
Post Number: 3
Registered: 05-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 12:50 pm: |
|
* This point was not made clear in my first post: the first amendment (that was proposed in the original Bill of Rights document) was intended to correct this oversight in the Constitution by establishing a maximum number of people to be represented by each Representative (as a counterpoint to the minimum of 30,000). The language of the amendment is relatively complicated, but the gist of it was to establish that a House Representative can not represent more than 50,000 people. (See the links provided above in the original post for additional details.)
Whatever the correct number should be is a matter of debate. The point is: how is the current House size of 435 arrived at? Why not 434 or 436? Why not 300 or 3,000? There should be some rationale for arriving at this number.
In any case, whatever this number should be, it should result in House districts of equal size across the nation. Instead, the House is in egregious violation of the one-person-one-vote principle. It is the only elected body in the U.S. that does not comply with this Constitutional principle. |
Bruce Sims
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ubetchaiam
Post Number: 806
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 5:33 pm: |
|
"It is the only elected body in the U.S. that does not comply with this Constitutional principle."
THANK YOU, J.E. Quidam !
To further make this point:
Georgia has 13 representative for a 2000 census population of 8,186,453 persons. This works out to 1 representative for every 629,727 citizens.
California has 53 representatives and has a 2000 census population of 33,893,799 persons. This works out to 1 representative for every 641,391 persons.
So in effect, 618,192 citizens in California are NOT receiving the same representation as the citizens of Georgia (the difference in number of persons per representative multiplied by the number of representatives-53)
In any event, does ANYBODY really believe that a representative can accurately represent the interests of 600,000+ people? Even cities with such populations have more local representatives than one for every 600,000+ people. |
J. E. Quidam
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Quidam
Post Number: 5
Registered: 05-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 8:15 pm: |
|
This political inequity between the states (relative to their representation in the U.S. House) is graphically illustrated at
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/section_IV.htm
(See charts.) |
John Washburn
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Johnwashburn
Post Number: 114
Registered: 02-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, May 31, 2006 - 10:44 am: |
|
RE: How was the House size fixed at 435?
In the spring of 1941, FDR and Congress fixed the size after the 1940 census. The reason attributed at the time by Garrett, et. al. was to improve President Roosevelt's chances of re-election in the upcoming 1942 presidential race.
In the spring of 1941 it was very doubtful Roosevelt would win a 3rd term. But, Pearl harbor changed everything and everyone must back/support a war-time president. Thus, the election in 1942 was less contested than expected 18 months earlier. |
John Washburn
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Johnwashburn
Post Number: 115
Registered: 02-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, May 31, 2006 - 12:26 pm: |
|
I made a mistake. The size was fixed in 1911 to 435 (433 +2 for NM and AZ later). In 1941 the apportionment process was made self executing so Congress would not spend time on the matter every 10 years.
Garet Garrett at the time claimed the move was to smooth FDR's election to a 3rd term.
Here are the links from TTO on this.
The 1911 statute actually specified 433 Representatives but authorized an additional Representative for Arizona and New Mexico when they were admitted to the Union. See 37 Stat. 13. Additional Representatives were also authorized when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the Union in 1959, but the number thereafter reverted to 435, where it has remained ever since. See 72 Stat. 345; 73 Stat. 8.
25 Act of Nov. 15, 1941, § 1, 55 Stat. 761-762, 2 U.S.C. § 2a. That Act also made the reapportionment process self executing, eliminating the need for Congress to enact an apportionment Act after each decennial census: |
Bruce Sims
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ubetchaiam
Post Number: 810
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, May 31, 2006 - 2:15 pm: |
|
Slice the cake anyway you want and it still 'tastes' of inequality and decimation of the principles inherent in the Constitution. It's also ironic that the link of '25' John provided states "when the population of a state is divided by the desired district size (e.g., 30,000)" and since it is the Congress who deals with 'legislation' all this (John's references) shows is that Congress-meaning the House of Representatives- is NOT reflective of the peoples will.
Democracy? NOT in the United States. |
Robert Sawdey
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Rsawdey
Post Number: 138
Registered: 01-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, May 31, 2006 - 4:55 pm: |
|
J.E.Q. - Here's the section from the article on the electoral college that seems to approve of a system limited to two parties...
>>>
Arguments in Favor of the EC:
It contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a two-party system and discouraging the proliferation of splinter parties such as those that have plagued many European democracies. The winner-take-all system means that minor parties get few electoral votes, so a president who is the choice of the nation as a whole emerges.
<<<
Of course, you also present the 'Con' arguments... which I tend to favor. I've always looked at the EC as a mechanism necessitated by the slow travel and communications of the 18th century... which is now unnecessary.
I think a disadvantage of a two-party system is that it tends to push debates into Manichean logic of yes/no or black/white, while multiparty compromise exposes more of the shades of gray that better reflect reality, instead of ideology.
Congress would definately have to change several aspects of how they perform their work if there were 4350 of them or so! Giving each 5 minutes to speak on a bill would take 40 eight hour days! |
J. E. Quidam
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Quidam
Post Number: 6
Registered: 05-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, May 31, 2006 - 7:02 pm: |
|
Robert, regarding the 2-party system, I'll take a look at that section again to check this: but the intent was only to advance the arguments for and against the Electoral College, not to take a position on the EC (or the 2-party system). The main point of TTO's Electoral College section is to point out the mathematical truism that as the size of the House becomes larger and, therefore, the number of Electors increase then, therefore, the Electoral College results will become increasingly equivalent to the popular vote (barring other shenanigans).
Clearly, increasing the size of the house would weaken the two-party duopoly, and they (the parties) would welcome an enlarged House as much as Ford & GM welcomed high quality auto imports from Japan. |
dwain kitchel
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Dwaink
Post Number: 5
Registered: 07-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, August 4, 2006 - 1:22 pm: |
|
The EC holds an important place in presidential elections. Presupposing that the EC officials truly have the good of the country at heart they are able to turn aside a bought vote, or a mistaken publics bad choice. It makes far more sense to me to find some way of maintaining the EC's independence as a 'check and balance' than doing away with it. Just imagine them turning aside a public vote for W's third term as president after he plunges us in to WWIII by bombing Iran......asuming the election isn't rigged...pfffffffffffffffftt. |
|
|
