Baruch College/ Prof. David C. Hoffman Spring 2016

PAF 9103 Achilles Katsanakis

Baruch College/ Prof. David C. Hoffman Spring 2016

Problem Memorandum

To:Congresswoman Grace Meng

Senator Charles Schumer

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand

From:Achilles Katsanakis

Re: Increasing the size of the House of Representatives

Date:February 15, 2016

The Founding Fathers believed that the House of Representatives should be expanded when the population grew and they eventually put forth a bill to enforce proportionate representation. Although this “first” amendment was never ratified, the size of the House did increase in tandem with our growing population until the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 (“1929 Act”). Initially the House had 65 members or a ratio of one member for every 30,000 people. Currently there are 435 members representing 322 million people in the United States, roughly one member for every 740,000 people. In my opinion, the American public is highly underrepresented. I believe that it is not only possible to increase the size of the House proportionately without adding an exorbitant cost but it is necessary. Granted, if we maintain a ratio of 60,000 people per member, we would have 5,600 representatives today! Where would we house them? At what cost? A ratio of one member for every 100,000 people would increase the House to 3,220 members, somewhat more reasonable. Would thousands of members make the House even more dysfunctional than it is now? What would be a fair and reasonable ratio of members to our population? With all the advancements in information technology, can it be possible for one person to represent 740,000 people even though their district includes many different communities with numerous interests?

The Founding Fathers believed in growing the Republic to counteract the influence of factions and the Republic did grow along with a gradual increase in representation. Even James Madison who lobbied against too many representatives believed that “Numerous bodies . . . are less subject to venality and corruption”. In large districts, members may be more influenced by lobbyists and special interest groups since there are less representatives to influence. The more members the more effort and money it takes for unscrupulous people to corrupt their representatives. The Republic continued to grow rapidly along with a gradual increase in representation, until the 1929 Act when the number of members was frozen. This was partly due the representatives fearing the ever increasing influence of urban areas as their populations. Many people left the rural areas for the cities and there was also an influx of immigrants which created some xenophobia as well anti minority sentiment. Apparently, immigrants were one faction the legislators disliked more than others. The representatives in 1929 did not want to dilute their power back at that time and I suspect that you Congresswoman do not want to dilute your power today. This increase in Representatives is a challenging proposition, nevertheless a worthy one that our Founding fathers would agree is necessary.

Today, districts have become colossal, and representatives are out touch with the people. Participation and inclusion is a major issue for American citizens, both detrimental to effective deliberation. As you know, I live in a very large and diverse district with a population of over 700,000 and have felt underrepresented. I have tried to meet with you Congresswoman Meng regarding some of your foreign policy positions to no avail. There are just too many people in my district for one member to have face to face meetings. This a problem that the Founding Fathers foresaw however and unfortunately, their amendment to proportionately increase the size of the House based on population was never ratified.

Determining a reasonable ratio that would balance intimate representation and efficiency is no exact science, however we can investigate and compare other countries to our own and perhaps gain some insight as to functionality and feasibility. Germany has 631 members and a population of 80 million, a fraction of ours. Germany has one member for every 125,000 people and no one would argue that Germany is inefficient. Italy has 631 representatives and a population of 60 million, while Japan has 480 members with a population of 127 million. The United Kingdom has 650 members in the House of Commons with 64 million people! So it appears that many western countries have a larger lower chamber than the United States despite smaller populations, and yet these governments are able to function efficiently. Some have attempted to quantify the ratio of representatives in western type societies with a basic formula or ratio based on the cubed root of the population. Using the cube root, our members would increase to 685 or one member per 470,000. This seems to be a fairly manageable number logistically.

The Founding Fathers wanted elections every 2 years for the House members, so they could be swept from office in case they became too corrupt or “self-interested”. Regrettably, the framers did not imagine the polarizing 2-party system we currently have today; two major “factions” with similar goals, basically maintaining their power at all costs. This is not what the non partisan framers envisioned. Today, “Durable Incumbents” are kept in office by their party machine through gerrymandering. A smaller district would eliminate some of the creative boundaries that enable these Durable Incumbents to hold office forever, and would also be more homogenous and well, representative! Perhaps smaller districts would hold their representatives accountable if they actually feared for their jobs. As it stands now 90% of incumbents win re- election. It therefore seems wise to have a House that increased in size according to our population growth but also be manageable to avoid stagnation.

Perhaps the formula for determining the ratio of representatives should begin with an analysis of the smaller states. There are currently 7 states and the District of Columbia that have only one representative. As the U.S. population grows, the ratio of members to people also increases. This potentially decreases representation in some of the smaller states. The framers believed in representation not only for individuals but for the states as well. Some of the smaller states currently have only one voice even though they contain many different socio- economic groups.

The American Public has never felt more alienated with their government (excluding the Civil War) partly due to our having too few representatives with massive colossal districts. The House needs to be increased on a marginal basis perhaps using the cube root formula. The Capitol building has enough room for several hundred additional representatives. If the House does increase in size, the current staff should be down sized or shared to maintain costs. Therefore I request a bill be forth that will increase the size of the House of Representatives in proportion to the population. More representatives means more representation for the American people as the framers intended. Thank you for your consideration and please let me know your thoughts and anything I can do to assist in this very urgent matter.