The US Constitution specified how many seats in the House each state would get, at least until the 1790 census. The initial House districts had populations of around 30,000, and the House itself in 1790 had 69 members. Every 10 years the House grew in size as our population grew. States added members of Congress with population growth. The proportions weren't the same, but by 1920 the House had been growing regularly.

However, in 1920 Republicans took back Congress and the White House from Democrats, and refused to reapportion the Congress, fearing that it would either add Democrats or cost Republican incumbents their safe seats - or both. It led to the 1929 Reapportionment Act that capped the size of the US House at 435. In the 1930 Census, which found a population of just over 122 million, this produced 435 House districts of about 282,000 each.

By 2012, however, a US House district in a state with more than 1 seat will represent about 708,000 people. That's an increase of 2260% from 1790. Even though virtually all states have added population - including New York and Ohio - some states are now losing representation in Congress, including NY and OH which are losing 2 seats each. That represents a dilution of representation - and, I would argue, a dilution of democracy.

During the bitter and fascinating debate over ratification of the US Constitution in Virginia in 1788, Patrick Henry and James Madison squared off amidst a deeply divided state convention. Madison, author of the Constitution, argued that it would make for both a better government AND a more democratic government, with greater representation of the people. Henry strongly disagreed, arguing that the best government was that which was closest to the people. Henry was arguing against the creation of more powers for the federal government, but Madison countered by pointing out that the US House, apportioned by population, controlled the tax and spending powers of the government, ensuring fairness and proper representation of the people.

Over 220 years later, that promise has been eroded to the point of destruction. A district of 708,000 is way too large to properly represent the will of the voters. Congressional staffs are overwhelmed with the amount of constituent correspondence they get, and are either unable to fully address the needs of such large districts or spend so much time on constituent relations that they cannot keep pace with the important political issues facing our country.

Our House districts need to shrink dramatically. One proposal out there is the Wyoming rule, which would ensure that districts would be the size of the smallest state - in this case around 544,000, the population of Wyoming. If this had been in place in 2000, the House would currently have 569 members.

But even this is too large. We don't have to return to districts of 30,000 people each. But 100,000 would seem reasonable. It's a reasonable size, enabling members of Congress to get to know their constituents well - or have no excuse if they fail to do so. And it enables their constituents to more effectively interact with their representatives, while freeing up the Congressmember to spend more time on political reform and economic recovery.

In this case, a House drawn with districts of 100,000 would have about 3,080 members, based on the 2010 Census population of 308 million. That's big. But the US is a big country. Surely our democracy can handle it.

Further, the artificially small House denies progressives our true power. The city of San Francisco has a population of about 815,000. In 2012 it will have one congressional seat - represented by Nancy Pelosi - and will include part of another district, probably represented by Jackie Speier. But if we changed the apportionment of the US House to have 100,000 people to a district, San Francisco would have over 7 members in the House - all of them deeply progressive.

More importantly, it would help undermine the artificial advantage the right currently has in the House. Most of the population growth in red states has been in blue areas in those states. Dallas, Houston, Miami, Las Vegas - these are very Democratic cities. Yet because of the artificially small size of the House, their larger populations don't have the kind of representation they deserve, and smaller rural areas have an artificial advantage. A much larger house would provide greater urban representation - and would likely make the House more progressive, not just in absolute numbers, but as a proportion of the overall membership.

Sound far-fetched? A new lawsuit seeks to force the House to expand, claiming the current cap of 435 is a violation of the "one man, one vote" doctrine:

The U.S. Supreme Court could decide as soon as today if justices will hear a case on whether those disparities violate the principle of "one man, one vote." Justices were scheduled to discuss the case behind closed doors Friday. The lawsuit, Clemons v. U.S. Department of Commerce, seeks a court order to force Congress to add more members so that the sizes of congressional districts would be more equal. Last July, in a decision that quoted liberally from the Founding Fathers, a special three-judge panel ruled against changing the current system. "We see no reason to believe that the Constitution as originally understood or long applied imposes the requirements of close equality among districts in different states," it ruled.

Although the lawsuit is brought by two right-wing activists, it is something progressives should very strongly support. It would massively increase the number of progressives in Congress, both as an absolute number and as a proportion of the overall total. And it's the right thing to do - huge Congressional districts distort power and, with the Electoral College capped at 538, it distorts the presidential vote as well.

Update [2010-12-21 14:58:43 by robert cruickshank]: As Adam B points out, the article I linked is out of date - the SCOTUS declined to take the case. But the cause should go on. The diary resumes here:

Under the model I propose, California would have about 370 seats in the House, and 372 electoral votes out of a total of 3188 (counting DC's electoral votes as 8). States would no longer be losing districts even as they gain population - their apportionment would depend on the size of the population, not on an artificial cap in the size of the US House.

It might seem like a big increase. But consider that in 1790, a House with 435 members would have seemed enormous.

More importantly, it would serve our goals of greater democracy. Our political system is broken in this country, and the decline of democracy is at the core of this crisis. We as progressives must support reforms and changes that increase democracy in America, and massively shrinking the size of our House districts is a great way to begin. Maybe 100,000 isn't the right number, but it's surely no greater than 250,000 at the absolute most.

Progressives need to accept that the status quo is broken, and that the American system of government must change if we are to reclaim our democracy and our future. The right is already working hard to propose a wide range of Constitutional reforms. If we sit back and try to defend a failed status quo, we'll merely ensure that the right succeeds in their plans. And we can't let that happen.

Update [2010-12-21 15:19:16 by robert cruickshank]: Thanks to BarackStarObama for pointing out that James Madison did indeed propose an amendment to do something similar to my proposal, with districts of 50,000. It fell 1 state short of ratification in the 1790s but, like the 27th Amendment, it is still technically alive and possible for other states to ratify it.