Why should he?
I am just one of 654, 905 (give or take a business closing) constituents in Washington District 8.
Of the 455,009 Registered Voters in WA Dist 8, 357, 720 live in King County. Only 97,289 of us live in Pierce. (data from WA Sec. of State website).
So I am just one little vote, out of 171,004 cast in the last election for the seat that Congressman (I refuse to call him my Representative anymore, as he doesn’t) Reicihert holds.
Given these types of numbers, it is not hard to grasp why many of us are begging to feel that our Congressmen and Senators are no longer in touch with us. Indeed, they now act more like an elected Aristocracy, than representatives of the people.
Curiously, in England, which had a great influence on the pubescent colonies that would become the United States – a place which still has a true, blooded, aristocracy, it is quite a different story:
The population of the United Kingdom (England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland) is approximately 60 Million people.
They have 646 Member of the House of Commons (versus 435 member of the US House of Representatives).
Doing the match, that mean that the average Member of Parliament (MOP) has approximately 92,900 constituents. You can infer from that, that roughly 66,500 of these are eligible voters.
You tell me who can best “Represent” his constituents – your average US Congressman, or his British MOP counterpart?
It was never meant to be this way – our founders set up a system to allow for the growth of the US House of Representatives. Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the US Constitution states that:
The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative
As the US Population grew, so did the House. Until 1911, that is. Public Law 62-5 was passed, which set the number of House seats at 435 (which some minor fluctuation when states were added, but returning to 435).
Reasons given for this act vary, but you can be sure that at least part of the reason was to ensure that the individual members of the House maintained relevancy in the political process.
Now, I will grant that a House with over 9000 (3M population/35K) members would be utterly unwieldy, surely capping the growth of the House is contrary to the intent of the Framers, and common sense, in a Representative Republic. There are other formulas that could be used. Most I have looked at, that evaluate representative rates in other democratic nations, would give us a House of 650+ members, today.
What’s that? It would be far too expensive to expand the House to that level?
Don’t be silly. Simply take the current budget for Congressional operations, and divide it by the number of Representatives.
In fact, you could make it even more cost effective by building Dormitories on Bolling AFB (just a hop and a skip from the Capital Mall), and running a shuttle bus services between the two places. After all, the “Representatives” are supposed to be residents of the Washington D.C. area, they are just sent there to work (all of 6 months out of the year), and then go back home, to work in their districts. Right?

Tags: Parliament, US House




