In 1790, The United States of America first census declared a population of Three Million, Nine Hundred Twenty-Nine Thousand, Two Hundred Fourteen people (3,929,214). The 1791 House of Representatives had a membership of Sixty-nine (69).
Each Member of the 1791 House of Representatives represented (and was elected by) approximately Fifty-six Thousand, Four hundred Ninety-five (56,495) people.
In 2020, The United States of America census declared a population of approximately Three Hundred Twenty-five Million, Seven Hundred Nineteen Thousand, One Hundred Seventy-eight (325,719,178) people. The 2020 House of Representative numbered Four Hundred Sixty-five (465) members.
Each Member of the 2020 House of Representatives represented (really?) (and was elected by) approximately Seven Hundred Thousand, Four Hundred Seventy-one (700,471) people.
Does any sane, logical, thinking individual seriously consider that any one of us presents a significant impact on "our" House of Representative official with an impact of 1/700,471th on his or her holding office? Does any one of you believe that they really care?
Perspective:
- To reach the same level of representation that existed in 1791, the House of Representatives would have to grow to 5,720 members. That is NOT workable in Washington, BUT it would work if:
- Each state's delegation remained in their State's Capitol
- Total voting was transmitted and tabulated in Washington electronically, with each state's result counting as a weighted total (just as is done with the Presidential election tabulation).
- As a comparison, if today's level of representation were to have applied to the United States of 1791, the House of Representatives would have consisted of Six (6) members, and four (4) states would have had NO representation.
The responsibility for our current government's failure to represent the "people" can be broadly cast in many directions, but a major degree is directly attributable to President Lincoln and his Congress. Why?
His refusal to accept the separation of the southern States of the Republic into a new one started us on the road to being badly governed!
Many of the Founding Fathers discussed and recognized that the responsiveness of a Democratic Republic was dependent on limiting the size of government; as government grew in size, it became less representative and responsive while becoming more and more dictatorial and controlling. Many of them expressed a vision of the "United" states giving birth to additional, limited sized, Republics as the area and the population to be governed grew, each becoming allied with the originals for the purpose of common defense, but each maintaining a responsiveness to and for the segment of population they governed in a manner that maintained control in the people, not the government.
If that vision had survived the emotional, moral and financial challenge that brought on our "civil" war, we would today likely be an amalgam of five (5) Republics, each with its own Capitol, its own Supreme Court, it's own Congress, and each contributing to the cost and maintenance of a common Military governed by 5 member panel representing each of the Republics, and overseeing the necessary financial support of that defense.
Alas, that did not happen. So today we (the individual "people") are ignored by an elected and bureaucratic cadre of what is (not inappropriately) often labeled the "Deep State," they members of which are dedicated to preserving and growing their own power, security and financial well-being.
I have no solution (other than to imagine that we are in the throughs of the same decline and obliteration suffered by the Greeks...and the Romans...and all the other once successful efforts to "do it better" than the last). But if we are self-destructing, at least our last thoughts can include the knowledge of where we erred.
