18 votes

Does the House of Representatives really represent? You decide!

How many people really know how many people one Representative represents? It can vary from State to State, but the average is 700,000+ people.

Do you know when they fixed the amount to 435? Some people debate 1911 or 1929.

Either way, is this really a representative Republic?

I break it all down here:

http://thedailyfed.com/house-representatives-apportionment/



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Sticking with the

Sticking with the Constitution, we should have over 10,000 representatives by now. Obviously, that would be a far better representation.

I believe it was Madison in the Federalist Papers who went into great discussion on this ratio of people to representatives.

That's right - The VERY part of our government which was...

...designed to grow with the population was limited in 1913 to a mere FRACTION of what the population is today.

While the rest of the government was allowed to grow like a weed to the behemouth it is now.

Full of federal programs, agencies, departments, bureaus, commissions, administrations, offices, foundations, councils, services, institutions, boards, centers, divisions, grants, initiatives, registries, affairs, authorities and on and on...

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

Beyond the numbers, its the two party system

that stops the legislature from representing constituents of their district and instead nationalizes all the seats, even in the state legislature. If the Governor is of one's party, the people back home become irrelevant and they take their marching orders from the head of their party. All legislators should be elected as Independents, owing only the people of their district and not a unified political machine in DC funded by global corporate money.

Here are seven reasons why having the same two parties run all candidates undermines the intent of the Founders.... http://www.arneighbors.org/

Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)

Great post & solid research. I posted this back on 9/25/2013...

...on this very subject. I titled my post "The Worst Law Ever Passed In the United States?"

But I truely applaud any other research and statements on this subject which most Americans have NO CLUE about. Even most very politically SMART Americans.

George Washington suggested 1 representative for about every 30 to 40 thousand American citizens.

But today - as you stated - it's 1 rep for well over 725,000.

How the hell is THAT representation?
It's NOT. It was changed in 1913 in order to only need 218 votes to pass bad laws.

Our House of Representatives today should contain about 7500 members - not 435.

Here is my previous post on this subject...
http://www.dailypaul.com/300356/worst-law-ever-passed-in-uni...

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

they Govern. They Rule.

they don't represent. Never have.

bigmikedude's picture

Yes, They most certainly represent.

They represent:

* Themselves
* Lobbyists
* Special Interest Groups
* Corporations
* Lawyers
* Self Enrichment and Benefit

and:

* Everything the forefathers fled in England that they tried so hard to forbid through our Constitution and persistently warned the people about allowing to happen again.

Irrelevant and misses the entire point of they are not

representing. It is amazing to me how people can fail so bad at the meanings of words.

represent- to re-present what has presented to them.

Congressional 'representatives' do not represent the people because they are doing whatever they want. They have lost the formal process of being contractually BOUND to only re-present what has been presented to them. If there is no presentment then the representative must abstain from voting because no instruction were presented. Any vote would be required to be issued through formal presentment that the representative MUST obey or face breach of duty consequences in a judicial proceeding. Real representation has a formal legal process and requires presentment so that the presentment can be represented.

Every now thinks we are just suppose to elect them and trust them to do the right thing. That is completely intellectually bankrupted to the point of insanity.

The people are so far from reality they have no idea what I am talking about here.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

rpscallion's picture

Which of the 11+ definitions of represent are they failing?

: to act or speak officially for (someone or something)

: to have a government position in which you speak or act for (a particular group, state, etc.)

: to speak or act for (someone or something) in a court of law

Full Definition of REPRESENT

transitive verb

1: to bring clearly before the mind

2: to serve as a sign or symbol of

3: to portray or exhibit in art : depict

4: to serve as the counterpart or image of : typify

5 a: to produce on the stage

b: to act the part or role of

6a: (1) : to take the place of in some respect (2) : to act in the place of or for usually by legal right (3) : to manage the legal and business affairs of

b: to serve especially in a legislative body by delegated authority usually resulting from election

7: to describe as having a specified character or quality

8a: to give one's impression and judgment of : state in a manner intended to affect action or judgment

b: to point out in protest or remonstrance

9: to serve as a specimen, example, or instance of

10a: to form an image or representation of in the mind

b(1): to apprehend (an object) by means of an idea (2) : to recall in memory

11: to correspond to in essence : constitute

From the Oxford English

From the Oxford English dictionary " verb
[with object] 1 Be entitled or appointed to act or speak for (someone), especially in an official capacity". The Oxford English Dictionary has the history of English definitions, which is important in order to understand the meaning in which "represent" was written in the Constitution. Here is represent: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_eng....

You would know which of the "11" definitions to use, there's actually only 4, if you read the dictionary.

"There is only one kind of freedom and that's individual liberty. Our lives come from our creator and our liberty comes from our creator. It has nothing to do with government granting it." - Ron Paul

A good lesson of real representation

Notice New York abstains from voting on Declaration of Independence due to the fact that the courier had not arrived with instructions.

Representatives only represent the instructions and express the concerns of those they represent. They are not the deciders.


http://youtu.be/nrvpZxMfKaU

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

Well said

Congressmen were originally supposed to be our AMBASSADORS of sovereign states to the Federal (which means decentralized) government for the states (Senators) and individual citizens (Representatives). Congress has been completely flipped on its head throughout our history. Now they represent whatever special interests fund their campaigns (fascism), are career politicians (instead of being statesmen) and have a complete ignorance and disregard for the Constitution.

Also, Congress has had the lowest approval ratings ever: http://www.gallup.com/poll/172859/congressional-approval-rat... and http://www.pewresearch.org/data-trend/political-attitudes/co.... I have seen lower numbers elsewhere hovering around 6-7%.

There are very few Congressmen who actually take their oath seriously. Namely, the former Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), Rand Paul (R-KY), Justin Amash (R-MI), and Thomas Massie (R-KY).

"There is only one kind of freedom and that's individual liberty. Our lives come from our creator and our liberty comes from our creator. It has nothing to do with government granting it." - Ron Paul

Its a very good article.

Thank you. There are so many small steps that are completely bipartisan, that if we took we could have more control over the political process.

Séamusín

Interesting post, the number

Interesting post, the number of Congressmen a complex issue.