Hello! Hello! Hello! Welcome to episode XX of We Don’t Talk About P-word. Today we are going to start a series of chats that ask one important question. We’ve all thought it; most have probably said it out loud. Many may even have their own answers. The question? What’s the matter with our government? To be honest, there are more answers to that question than there are minutes in this podcast. But today, we are going to start by talking about Congress. More specifically, we will discuss the House of Representatives. 
Spoiler alert: It’s inefficient …but we’ll get there. 
As I have tried to make clear in the past, this is not a failure of our government. The reason Congress, the reason our government… is ineffective is partisanship. As well-designed as our government was, partisanship was not addressed. Unfortunately, this was not an oversight; it was intentional.
They knew partisanship was going to be a problem. The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists existed before the Constitution. They had coalesced to promote (or fight) the ratification of the Constitution. By 1789, sectional fights were commonplace. This fighting kept us from addressing slavery at the time. Yes, the Founders knew this would be a problem.
One could argue that the United States may have never existed if they had addressed it.  (In fact, I would say it would be a very legitimate argument.) This is in no way an attempt to absolve our Founders for their racist and classist tendencies. Even if something good came from tainted motivations, it doesn’t make it okay. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 
Since the Constitution's ratification, a couple of attempts to counter partisanship have occurred. We have discussed these in past episodes. The way we elect the President and Vice President changed after the election of 1800. The way we elect Senators changed in 1913. The Judicial is the only branch where we haven’t attempted to reign in partisanship. So far, it hasn’t been enough, but there are more ways we can address this issue.
Like everything else, this issue needs context. We must understand how we got here if we want to get out. There are several historical events bearing on our current situation, but I will only bore you with a few. 
If you listened to season one, you know my biggest problem with the House of Representatives. If you didn’t, it is a lack of representation. I know what you’re thinking: “You’re crazy. The House of Representatives doesn’t represent?”
I know it sounds crazy, but it’s true; our House of Representation is no longer representative. It has become a less effective version of the Senate (and that’s saying something). Sure, it pretends to be representative. Every ten years, we conduct a census. Then, we reapportion representatives based on that number. But the number of representatives never increases. Whether the population increases by 700,000 or 700 million, that number remains 435. 
Between the 2010 and 2020 census, the US population increased by 22.7 million. (It is important to note that that’s the smallest percent increase since the 1930s.) That population expansion resulted in an increase of exactly zero Representatives. After the 2010 census, one House Member represented, on average, 710,000 citizens. Currently, one member represents, on average, over 760,000 citizens. Even if we used the 1 per 710,000 ratio (an absurd number), our number of representatives should have risen to 467. Instead, we haven’t gained any permanent representatives since 1913. 
It has been 110 years since our number of representatives increased. I’m not sure I need to prove my point any further, but I will. 
First, let’s talk about how apportionment works. I won’t go into too much detail since I covered it back in episode 11 Credited to Paine’s Pen. The Constitution states very little about the process. It spends most of its time discussing the initial apportionment. (That’s the number of representatives needed to 'jump-start' our new government.) The requirements relevant to us today are in Article One, Section Two. It states that apportionment must take place “every subsequent Term of ten years.” It should follow every decennial census. The Constitution also defines the largest ratio of representative to citizen. “...the number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand” citizens. It concludes that every state will have at least one, regardless of population. The Constitution leaves the way to achieve this up to Congress. That’s how we find ourselves where we are today.
So, let’s talk a little history…  
The idea behind the House of Representatives was community. They were members of the federal government living in local communities. We call these districts. This provides local communities access to our government through their local representative. This is necessary for representative democracies to thrive. It also ensures representatives are well acquainted with the needs of their community. The House’s frequent elections provide a check on the passions of Representatives . 
Most of us have at least heard of the Federalist Papers. These were letters written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. They wrote them under the pseudonym Publius. Hamilton and Madison were the biggest contributors. Their purpose was to sell the Constitution to the American people. What many don’t know is that the Anti-Federalists also wrote letters. Many of the letters from Publius addressed the assertions of these Anti-Federalist Papers.
In Federalist #57, Madison addressed the purpose of the House. The Anti-Federalists claimed that the House would attract unscrupulous types. They would weaken the democratic nature of the House. 
Madison wrote “The electors are to be the great body of the people of the United States. …the same who exercise the right… of electing… the legislature of the State.” 
They attempted  this through frequent elections and expanding the House based on population. In the early republic, only the members of the House were directly elected by the People. The President was through electors, and the Senate was chosen by state legislators.
The Anti-Federalists were not convinced that members would increase as the population grew. Many worried smaller states would want to stop larger states from gaining representatives. I guess, on this one, the Anti-Federalists knew something Madison didn’t. He addressed this in Federalist #58.
“The remaining charge against the House… is grounded on a supposition that the number of members will not be augmented from time to time, as the progress of population may demand. … this objection, if well supported, would have great weight.”
Most of Madison’s arguments were based on a fight for control in the government. He focused on the battle for supremacy between the House and Senate. Like everything else with our government’s founding, partisanship was not considered. He did note that a too-large body provides little benefit. 
Madison proposed a host of amendments to the Constitution. Ten of those became the Bill of Rights. One that did not pass was an apportionment amendment. It started with a ratio of 1 per 30K and increased over time to 1 per 50K. The math doesn’t quite work, and that is likely why it did not pass. 
Here is an interesting fact for you. The first apportionment act in 1792 was the subject of the very first Presidential veto. Washington rejected it for being unconstitutional. The mathematical formula used resulted in some states gaining more than 1 per 30K. The Constitution clearly states that this cannot be the case. 
The number of Representatives began at 65 in 1787. After the first census in 1790, that number increased to 105. Until 1850, there was a "fixed ratio" of constituents to representatives. In 1850, the number of representatives was “fixed” and then apportioned by population. In 1911, the Apportionment Act set the House at 433 seats. Since New Mexico and Arizona were in the homestretch of statehood, the law added a provision for them. The entrance of these two states increased the number of Representatives to 435 in 1912. 
Something to note: only one apportionment act (1842) reduced the number of representatives. This was the result of rising sectional tensions in the two decades leading up to the Civil War. The southern states worried a larger House would shift power to the northern states. They knew this would lead to the abolition of slavery. 
They argued that making the House bigger would make them too powerful. Senator John Crittenden of Kentucky had the perfect response.

“…the fear of that body obtaining too great an ascendency, there could be no objection in that, if the popular branch truly represented the popular will; and in no way could that be so fully attained as by an enlarged number of Representatives.” Congressional Globe, Senate, 27th Congress, 2nd Session pg. 538
Some might even say that’s the point of the House of Representatives (but maybe that’s just me).
Until 1910, the apportionment increased at a rate so that no state lost a representative. Then, like most things in the United States, it was ruined by partisan politics.
Between 1880 and 1920, more than 20 million immigrants arrived in the United States. This was also a time of changing economies, with a major shift from agrarian to industrial work. This meant that the United States was also experiencing a shift from rural to urban living. 
The census of 1920 showed rapid and major population growth. This growth was greatest in the Northeast and the industrial Midwest. Any reapportionment would shift political power to those regions. Democrats were the majority in those regions.
Also in 1920, Republicans took control of the Presidency and both houses. They saw no benefit to themselves in reapportioning the House. The Republican Party acted not to serve the People, but to serve their own interests. For the first (and hopefully only) time in US history, a census was ignored. 
Between 1911 and 1932, there was no reapportionment of the House of Representatives. Congress ignored its constitutionally mandated role. This created a wild inequity in representation. In 1911, House members represented  around 211,000 Americans, on average. During that time, some areas like Detroit, MI, had their populations explode. Detroit’s population more than doubled between 1910 (465K) and 1920 (993K). By 1930, Detroit’s population grew to over 1.5 million. Those 1.5 million Americans were represented by only two representatives. 
Apportionment wasn’t forgotten during that time; it was hotly debated. One side fought for fair apportionment while the other tried to greedily hold on to power. In 1929, a poorly written law was finally passed. It held the number of seats at 435. It also provided a process for reallocating them based on the shifting population. 
The Reapportionment Act of 1929 passed in June, setting the House seats at 435. It went into effect after the 1930 census, which was completed in 1932. This act is often (incorrectly) referred to as the Permanent Apportionment Act. I say incorrectly because it is a misnomer. There is nothing permanent about this law. It is not an amendment, and even those aren’t permanent. Like all laws passed by Congress, it can be repealed and/or replaced. In fact, I doubt those who passed it in 1929 expected it to be permanent, but so far it has been. 
Since 1929, we have all been disenfranchised. We all suffer at the hands of a representative democracy stuck in 1911. Do you realize how much has changed since then? Women gained the right to vote. Four states joined the Union. Our population grew by over 239 million people. We went to the moon! Representatives following the 1910 census represented, on average, 211,000 Americans. Today, they represent over 760,000. As I have said in the past, that isn’t a community; that’s a not-so-small country. Democracy cannot thrive in these conditions. It’s no wonder that corporate and political elites have almost managed to usurp our power.
If you are still convinced that 760,000 is a reasonable number, let me see if I can change your mind with some math. A representative is elected for two years. They may get more, but they serve at least two years. That comes to a little over 17,000 hours. Currently, they represent 760,000 constituents. Every constituent has the right to a redress of grievance. Imagine every constituent wanted only five minutes of a representative’s time. This is something we all have a right to and is the purpose behind community districts. Constituents would need over 60,000 hours of the representative’s time. They only have 17,000 in their term, and that has to include time in session and sleeping. In no world can one person adequately represent 760,000 people. Even if they held meetings in the bathroom like Lyndon Johnson, they couldn’t achieve it.
The second glaring issue with the House is gerrymandering. The term comes from 1812. In Massachusetts, their Senate district maps were redrawn to favor the Democratic-Republican Party. The shape resembled a salamander. It was signed into law by Governor Elbridge Gerry, who notably decried the practice. Drawing districts to favor one party or group has since been known as gerrymandering.
Fun fact: we say gerrymander wrong. Most people use the soft “g,” but because it was named after Elbridge Gerry it should be a hard “g”. Back in 2018, the Marblehead, MA Board of Selectmen wrote to Chief Justice John Roberts. They requested that the Supreme Court use the proper pronunciation. You see, Marblehead, MA is where Elbridge Gerry was born. Chief Justice Roberts agreed. 
I hopefully won’t confuse you, but I will be using the proper pronunciation moving forward.
There are many arguments to be had over gerrymandering. I want to highlight two opposing arguments. One is the argument that gerrymandering can disenfranchise many living in those districts. An example: a district gerrymandered to favor Republicans disenfranchises Democrats living there. The second argument is that gerrymandering can ensure minorities aren’t disenfranchised. By this I mean a dispersed minority population gerrymandered to ensure representation. 
Sadly, they can both be true, and both sides are guilty.
But we shouldn’t have a system that can favor one party, no matter which party it is. Also, race should rarely play a factor in anything. The goal should be to disperse the parties and nonaffiliated evenly. We should strive for as close to even as mathematically possible, and it is possible. The great thing about modern technology is that it can calculate a district any way you want. 
The benefit is it requires candidates to find consensus to earn election. It requires them to put forth an agenda that benefits all their constituents. It ensures that no group is ignored when it comes to policy. It takes power away from the corporate and political elites.
More importantly, it safeguards the will of the People by making every American’s vote count.
While earning my education, I was once told that if neither side is happy, you’ve done politics right. I realize that sounds counter to good governance, but it really isn’t. Democracy requires consensus, or it is not democracy. In a nation split between two opposing parties, finding consensus requires compromise . Compromise usually means neither side is happy. Remember, despite our right to pursue our happiness, it is not the government’s job to make us happy. It is their job to protect and promote American Values for all Americans.
I would be remiss if I didn’t talk about some arguments against expansion. 
1.	It reduces the power of the parties.
To that, I say, “Good! They don’t work for us anyway.”
2.	We would need an expansion of the House chamber and new offices. (This argument is made by those who worry about the first.) 
The House was already enlarged in 1850. Since then, there have been several expansions and major renovations of the Capitol. It has even been shown that the existing footprint wouldn’t need expansion. The architect of The National Memorial for Peace and Justice proved it. He showed that the House chamber could be renovated to house over 1700 members. We also built a new office for representatives in 1965. We could also gradually increase by 50-100 a year until we reach the correct number.
3.	It will increase the budget. (This argument is also made by those who worry about the first.)
Well, yes, of course it will. That’s what happens when you add representatives and their staff. Are we too poor to defend democracy? It seems like we are wealthy enough to 'protect democracy' in foreign nations with oil. Why not here? It’s more like we’re too greedy. There is no profit in it at home. The government isn’t a business. Its purpose is not to make a profit or save money. The purpose of government is to protect the rights and sovereignty of the People. That requires representation, and that costs money. Our government must spend what is necessary to ensure American Values are protected. A nation as wealthy as the United States cannot, must not put money over democracy. Tax the wealthy and corporations to pay for it. They have taken advantage of our democracy for too long. It’s time they helped it. 
4.	If we increase the number, we will be unable to get anything done. (This argument is also made by those who worry about the first.)
They fear, with the addition of too many voices, the House would become inefficient. This one always makes me laugh because, you know, the House is so efficient today. 
Increasing the number of members would make the House more efficient. As the population grows and spreads, the People’s needs change. With a larger house, committees could be expanded. This would make them more representative of the nation. More business could be conducted in those committees. They would be able to reach a greater consensus because of the greater number on the committee. Once a bill with a strong consensus was reached in committee, it wouldn’t need as long on the floor. Most arguments would have happened in committee. Amendments would have covered most issues. Fringe amendments would be ignored. More members mean more attention to detail is possible.
These arguments are simply a diversion tactic. It is nothing more than the corporate and political elites standing in the way of democracy. The wealthy don’t want to pay more taxes. The political elites don’t want to lose their power. Both want the People’s power. Both see us as obstacles to overcome, not People to represent. So, they work together to disenfranchise us all.
Before 2020, most Americans believed their vote didn’t count. Because of this, it was no surprise the People were convinced of the lies of that campaign. This is why your vote feels like it doesn’t count. It has nothing to do with stolen elections. It’s because partisan politicians have made the conscious decision to make it mean less. 
Every decade since 1911, Congress has failed the People. Every census, the Corporate Political Agenda has gained power. Every birth has been diminished, as the wealthy elites chip away at democracy. Every election, the People’s power is weakened. 
In the end, increased representation would provide a more democratic House. This change alone would have a profound and positive impact on the People. Senator William Allen of Ohio, during that 1842 floor debate, said of the House:
“A mass representation is requisite to control and counteract the tendency of this government to centralization.”
Adequate representation is integral to our system of checks and balances. When it is stunted, there are no checks. When it stagnates, there can be no balance. 
If we also push to end gerrymandering, we will begin to see all votes matter. House candidates would have to appeal to a majority of their constituents. They would need more than only their party to get elected. Presidential candidates would have to visit all states, not just swing states. Building coalitions and consensus  would become necessary. Extremism, on either side, would become fringe again. 
We will never be rid of extremism, but keeping it on the fringe is crucial. 
Achieving the first goal is easy. (I say easy like accomplishing anything in Washington is easy.) Relatively speaking, fixing the apportionment problem is easy. It does not need an amendment; all it requires is for Congress to pull its collective head out of… sorry, sorry. All it requires is for Congress to do its constitutionally mandated job. All it requires is to ensure the House of Representatives is, in fact, representative.
Seriously, this is a much easier fix than so many other issues we face. All it requires is a bill passed by a majority in both houses. That said, two have been introduced in this Congress. House Resolution (HR) 622 and HR 643 propose two methods to put in place following the 2030 census. Both would provide an increase and trigger that increase following each census. Both are thinking too small.
One wants to use the base of the population of the smallest state per one representative. Currently, Wyoming is the smallest state by population, with 581 thousand residents. My view? That is too much for one representative. I don’t know the perfect ratio, but that’s not it. If I were to make a wild guess, I would think the number would be around 250 thousand.
The second wants to ensure a state doesn’t lose a representative even if its population falls. Admittedly the wording of that bill is a bit confusing. It allows for too much member bloat. Representation must be based on population; it must ebb and flow with the People. Losing representation is as necessary as increasing the number of members. We cannot allow states representation that they don’t have the population to support. This is contrary to the ideal of “one person, one vote.” It is contrary to democracy. Representation must be uniformly applied.
But we must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. A change must happen, and I would take either resolution over what we have now. Between the two, I would choose the one that uses the smallest state as a base. In ten years, if Congress does its job, it could change anyway. In practice, it’s like any other law and could be changed sooner.
The lack of representation is a threat to the People’s power. It is a threat to American democracy. For a democratic republic to succeed... For a democratic republic to remain democratic, representation must be communal.
In a Republic, democracy is protected by the Representatives of the People. As the ratio of People to representatives grows, democracy stumbles. As the divide grows wider, the People’s power grows weaker. It leaves fewer Representatives standing in the way of unscrupulous and enterprising people. This makes it easier to remove the People from the equation. This makes it easier to usurp our power. 
There are only three reasons for stunting the growth of the House of Representatives. Congress is either incompetent, lazy, or actively seeking to usurp the People’s power. (I think it’s a lot of the last one with a sprinkle of the first two.) Until we come together and force a political reset, it will remain politics as usual. Eventually, our republic will no longer exist.
This is on us. We can fix it. The question is: Will we?
Pointless culture wars… 
Blindly following political parties… 
Making excuses for corporate greed...
This gets us nowhere. but as one voice we can make a difference. 
We the People are the Power.