Why Building a Bigger House of Representatives Will
Return the Reins of Government to "We the People"
The Promise of Article the First
On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United
States proposed 12 amendments to the newly minted Constitution. Among these was
Article the First, a foundational proposal intended to guarantee proportional
representation in the House of Representatives by capping Congressional
districts at 50,000 citizens. This amendment sought to ensure that
Representatives remained directly accountable to their constituents, a
principle central to the Founders' vision of a government truly of, by, and for
the people.
Unlike its companion amendments—10 of which became the Bill
of Rights and Article the Second becoming the 27th Amendment—Article
the First was not ratified. However, for the first 50 years of the Republic,
Congress adhered to its principles, increasing the size of the House with each
decennial census. This practice, which kept Congressional districts small and
representation intimate, was eventually abandoned, culminating in the Permanent
Apportionment Act of 1929, which capped the number of House members at 435.
Today, districts average over 750,000 citizens, creating a
gulf between Representatives and the people they are meant to serve. The
consequences are profound: diminished accountability, increased influence of
lobbyists, rampant gerrymandering, and a distorted Electoral College.
Reinstating the principles of Article the First would restore balance to the
Republic, reinvigorating the democratic process and bringing power back to
"We the People."
The Original Vision: Representation for All
The Founders understood the dangers of overcentralized power
and designed the House of Representatives as the “people’s house,” ensuring
that it would remain close to the electorate. James Madison, a principal
architect of the Constitution, argued for small districts to preserve the
House’s accountability:
“A certain number [of representatives] seems to be necessary
to secure the benefits of free consultation and discussion. On the other hand,
the number ought at most to be kept within a certain limit, in order to avoid
the confusion and intemperance of a multitude.”[1]
Article the First reflected this vision, proposing a formula
that would expand the House as the population grew:
“After the first enumeration, required by the first Article
of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty
thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the
proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than
one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every fifty
thousand persons.”[2]
For five decades, Congress followed this principle,
expanding the House after each census to maintain smaller districts. By 1830,
districts averaged just over 50,000 citizens. However, political shifts in the
1840s and beyond saw this practice abandoned. By 1920, Congress failed to
reapportion itself following the decennial census, and in 1929, the Permanent
Apportionment Act froze the House at 435 members—a number unchanged for
nearly a century, despite a population that has more than tripled.[3][4]
The Consequences of Oversized Districts
1. Diluted Representation
Today, the average Congressional district contains over
750,000 citizens, a far cry from the 30,000 envisioned by the Founders. This
vast size makes it nearly impossible for Representatives to maintain meaningful
connections with their constituents. The voices of ordinary citizens are
drowned out, replaced by the interests of lobbyists and party donors.
In contrast, early Congresses adhered to the principle of
intimate representation. During the 1790s, each Representative served roughly
37,000 citizens, fostering direct accountability and trust.[5]
2. Gerrymandering and Electoral Disparities
Large districts make gerrymandering easier and more
damaging. Political parties manipulate district boundaries to entrench power,
often at the expense of fair representation. At the same time, the fixed number
of House members skews the Electoral College, amplifying the influence of
smaller states and creating disparities that distort Presidential elections.
For example, under the current system, Idaho’s 1.8 million
residents receive four Electoral Votes, equating to one vote per 450,000
citizens. California, with nearly 40 million residents, receives 55 votes, or
one per 727,000 citizens. This imbalance undermines the principle of “one
person, one vote.”[6]
3. Lobbyist Influence and Partisan Gridlock
The vast size of districts has fueled a dependence on
lobbyists, who often write the very bills Congress passes.[7] Representatives,
unable to adequately serve their constituents, spend much of their time
fundraising rather than legislating. According to the Washington Times:
“The most powerful nation on Earth is run largely by
24-year-olds… leaving a vacuum that usually is filled by lobbyists.”[8]
HR First Amerndment Proposal of capping congressional districts at 50,000 inhabitants
The Case for Smaller Districts
Reinstating the principles of Article the First through a
legislative cap on districts at 50,000 citizens would address these systemic
issues and restore the Founders’ vision of representative democracy.
1. Enhanced Representation
Smaller districts would allow Representatives to engage
directly with their constituents, reducing the influence of lobbyists and party
donors. Candidates could run grassroots campaigns, reaching their electorate
without multimillion-dollar budgets.
2. A More Equitable Electoral College
An Article the First Congress would ensure a fairer
distribution of Electoral Votes. For example, under a 50,000-person cap, Idaho
would receive 36 Electoral Votes, while California would receive 780. The
disparity between large and small states would shrink dramatically, bringing
the Electoral College closer to the popular vote.[9]
3. Eliminating Gerrymandering
Compact districts of 50,000 citizens would make
gerrymandering nearly impossible. Cracking, packing, and other manipulative
practices would be rendered moot, creating fairer and more equitable
elections.[10]
4. Revitalizing Citizen Engagement
Smaller districts would empower grassroots movements,
allowing ordinary citizens to run for office without relying on party
infrastructure or lobbyist funding. This would reinvigorate civic participation
and foster a more diverse and dynamic Congress. [11]
Overcoming the Challenges
Critics argue that a larger House would be unwieldy.
However, history and international comparisons suggest otherwise. The British
Parliament, for example, has over 650 members yet functions effectively.[12]
Concerns about cost are similarly overstated. While adding
Representatives would increase direct expenses, these costs would be offset by
reducing reliance on unelected staff and lobbyists. The long-term benefits of a
more accountable and responsive government far outweigh the financial
implications.
A Call to Action
The Founders understood that representation must remain
“vital and connected to the people.”[13] Yet, over time, the principles of
Article the First have been eroded, leaving citizens disconnected from their
government. Restoring these principles is not just an opportunity—it is a
responsibility.
By capping districts at 50,000 citizens, Congress could:
- Strengthen
citizen-driven governance.
- Reduce
the influence of money in politics.
- Restore
balance to the Electoral College.
- Eliminate
gerrymandering.
- Reinvigorate
the principle of “one person, one vote.”
This change does not require a constitutional amendment.
Congress has the authority to pass a new apportionment law, undoing the
arbitrary cap set by the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929.
Let us honor the vision of Madison, Washington, and the
other framers who understood that representation must remain “of the people, by
the people, for the people.” The time has come to build a bigger House—one that
truly serves its citizens.
References—also see Research Notes
1.
Madison’s speech in the First Congress, June 8,
1789.
2.
Article the First, 1789.
3.
House of Representatives Historian, The 1911
House Reapportionment.
4.
Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Maxwell Palmer, A
Two Hundred-Year Statistical History of the Gerrymander.
5.
Brookings Institution, Vital Statistics on
Congress.
6.
Rosiak, Luke. The Washington Times, June
6, 2012.
7.
Chang, Alisa. When Lobbyists Literally Write
the Bill, NPR, Nov. 11, 2013.
8.
Thirty-thousand.org, Analysis of Article the
First.
9.
Fang, Lee. Where Have All the Lobbyists Gone?,
The Nation, March 10–17, 2014.
10. Sabato,
Larry. Expand the House of Representatives, Democracy Journal of Ideas,
Spring 2008.
11. U.S.
Census Bureau, Historical Census Data, 1790–2020.
12. House
of Representatives Historian, The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929.
13. Madison, Federalist Papers, No. 10.
