Many people do not realize that our total number of Representatives to the U.S. House has been limited to 435 ever since 1913 (except for a four-year period when it was temporarily increased to 437).

In 1929, this number (435) was made permanent by an act of Congress. During the debates preceding that act, Missouri Representative Ralph Lozier stated:
"I am unalterably opposed to limiting the membership of the House to the arbitrary number of 435. Why 435? Why not 400? Why not 300? Why not 250, 450, 535, or 600? Why is this number 435 sacred? What merit is there in having a membership of 435 that we would not have if the membership were 335 or 535? There is no sanctity in the number 435 ... There is absolutely no reason, philosophy, or common sense in arbitrarily fixing the membership of the House at 435 or at any other number."

The challenge posed by Representative Lozier in 1928 is still valid: is 435 a sacrosanct number or should it be subject to debate?

Many of those who framed and ratified the Constitution & Bill of Rights expected that the population of congressional districts would never exceed 50,000. Today their average size is 700,000; by 2100 their average size will be 1.3 million. As a result, it is no longer possible for federal Representatives to faithfully and honorably represent the diverse interests of their constituents. This could be the root cause of why our government has become "broken" and, in any case, violates the principle "That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed" (from the Declaration of Independence).

Related to this matter is the fact that the very first amendment proposed in our Bill of Rights was never ratified. As proposed by the House, "Article the first" was intended to ensure that the district size never exceeded 50,000 people. While this amendment was in the Joint Committee, a subtle error was somehow introduced into it that rendered it inexecutable. It is not known when this error was eventually detected, but the amendment was ultimately ratified by all but one state. This very interesting and important story can be found at:
TownHall.com: Enlarge the federal House

__________________
It was supposed to be our House.
Thirty-Thousand.org

That's interesting.
I wasn't aware of that.
If all of our districts were limited to 50,000 that would mean thousands of reps.

In principle I think it would be more represenative to have all those reps...
But on the other hand think of the redistricting expenses, the payroll, and the logistics. It doesn't seem feasible.

And seeing how redistricting works in this country, I'd expect to see even more corruption in the end.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

I argue that increasing our number of Representatives would ultimately reduce the net cost of government; see link below:

If you're referring to Gerrymandering, it would be virtually eliminated by 50,000-person districts. There's not too much gerrymandering that can be done when the congressional districts are that small.

__________________
It was supposed to be our House.
Thirty-Thousand.org

If you are interested in learning more about this subject, here is a list of articles written by a variety of authors:
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/Why_435.htm
(Scroll to bottom of page.)

The TTO home page provides an overview explaining why decreasing the size our congressional districts (and thereby increasing the size of the House) would be profoundly beneficial for the republic. Please read the 15 Questions and Answers listed here:
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/ (No ads or pop-ups.)

__________________
It was supposed to be our House.
Thirty-Thousand.org

What really needs to be limited is the NUMBER of political, financial and vested interest lobby groups that continually have the HOUSE's ear via its easirly tempted and corruptable senators.

For example, the Health insurance LOBBY group in the USA far exceeds the 435 COngress members. What hope has the common person in the USA to fair political access in order to voice thier concerns and wants.

But then again that assumes that the USA is a Democracy - WHICH IT ISNT!

We all know WHAT the USA was and what it has become!

GODBLESSAMERICA

Here is the best explanation: Federalist No. 55 by James Madison is devoted to the topic.

http://www.foundingfathers.info/fede...pers/fed55.htm

__________________
.

"It is extremely difficult for our contemporaries to conceive of the conditions of free banking because they take government interference with banking for granted and as necessary"

-- Ludwig von Mises

This is how we substantially remove the special interests from the equation...

If we the people want to regain control of the federal House, then we need to regain control of our Representatives. Because the average congressional district in the U.S. consists of 700,000 people, the Representatives must raise millions of dollars every two years in order to finance their reelection campaigns. Of course, it is far easier for an incumbent to raise those amounts than it is for a challenger. Because of this barrier to entry, incumbent Representatives are assured of 90%+ reelection rates.

As a result, the incumbent is beholden to numerous powerful special interests for their financial and political support; these groups comprise the Representatives' primary constituents. The citizenry has become the Representatives' secondary constituency.

If we reduced the population size of congressional districts from 700,000 to a much smaller size, such as 50,000, it is easy to see why the citizens would once again become the Representatives' primary constituents. It would no longer require millions of dollars to seek election in a district of 50,000. In fact, if an incumbent were not held in high esteem by his/her constituents, then any competent citizen could mount an effective challenge at no more expense than the cost of several pairs of walking shoes and several thousand photocopies.

This point is argued for in the Thirty-Thousand.org web pamphlet. If you are interested in this argument, please read the 15 Questions and Answers on the homepage at http://www.thirty-thousand.org. (No ads or pop-ups.)

__________________
It was supposed to be our House.
Thirty-Thousand.org

Specifically to this point, Federalist 55 predicted, at the rate of 1 Rep for every 30,000, there would be 400 Representatives by 1840. We have only 35 more than that today.

I believe that 300,000,000 American citizens should be allowed to have more than 435 congressional districts.

__________________
It was supposed to be our House.
Thirty-Thousand.org

Some illuminating quotes from Federalist No. 55:

-

__________________
.

"It is extremely difficult for our contemporaries to conceive of the conditions of free banking because they take government interference with banking for granted and as necessary"

-- Ludwig von Mises

Federalist 55 is attributed to Madison. In conjunction with those observations, Federalist 55 also promised that, at the rate of 1 for every 30,000, we would have 400 Reps by 1840. Can we assume that 400 is below that unknown "certain limit"?

Believe me, Madison's ultimate position was quite different than is commonly known. In fact, he later elaborated on his position in a most conspicuous way. First, as one of his amendments to the Bill of Rights, he proposed changing the maximum population size of congressional districts to 30,000 (rather than that being the minimum). In defending his proposal, Madison stated the following on on August 14, 1789:

"I do not consider it necessary, on this occasion, to go into a lengthy discussion of the advantages of a less or greater representation. I agree that after going beyond a certain point, the number may become inconvenient; … but it is necessary to go to a certain number, in order to secure the great objects of representation. Numerous bodies are undoubtedly liable to some objections, but they have their advantages also; if they are more exposed to passion and fermentation, they are less subject to venality and corruption; and in a Government like this, where the House of Representatives is connected with a smaller body [the Senate], it might be good policy to guard them in a particular manner against such abuse."

Note that Madison says that a large House "may become inconvenient". That's the sort of inconvenience that I believe would be good for the country. Anyway, he made several more such statements similar to this, but too many for a posting. Anyone interested in seeing those quotes (and their citations) should download the 70-page report (PDF) from this webpage:
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/QHA-04.htm

__________________
It was supposed to be our House.
Thirty-Thousand.org