It has recently come to my attention that there were 65 members in The House of Representatives in the 1st United States Congress. At that time, according to the 1790 United States Census, the United States population was 3.9 million. The questions asked in the 1790 census included head of household, number of free white males ages 16 and older, number of free white males under the age of 16, number of free white females, number of all other free persons, and number of slaves. So if I understand this correctly, the population in the 1790 census should include all voters as well as all non-voters who counted for representation purposes. If this is correct then there was a ratio of 1 representative for every 60,000 people.
Currently, there are 435 members in The House of Representatives in the 110th United States Congress. At this time, according to the United States Census Bureau’s 2007 estimate, the United States population is 301 million. If this is correct then there is a ratio of 1 representative for every 691,954 people. The representation is at less than 10% of what it was in 1790. Even if the 1790 population didn’t include slaves or women, the United States population would still be, at best, a mere 20 million. Assuming this would make the 1790 ratio 1 representative for every 307,692 people. Even assuming this, the current representation is at less than half of what it was in 1790.
My question to you is simple: Why?
Congress does not currently meet in the same building as the 1st United States Congress, so it cannot be that they wish to stay in a historical building which cannot hold as many representatives as necessary (as lucrative an excuse as it would be). So why don’t we have adequate representation? Where did we lose the ratio? How can this problem be fixed?
Tags: