This may sound like hyperbole, but the United States has the least representative democracy among wealthy nations anywhere in the world. Hard to believe, isn’t it? In the United States, we pride ourselves on being the world’s best and oldest democracy. We practically invented this representative form of government, yet ours is the least representative of all the nation’s democracies.
In the United States, each member in the House of Representatives—the most local body of our federal legislature—represents 760,000 people. That number dwarfs the country in second place: Japan. Each member of Japan’s Shugiin (the Japanese version of the House) represents only 270,000 people. The Camara de Diputados in Mexico comes in third worst with about 250,000 people per elected representative.
To put a finer point on this, England, with only 70 million people—compared to 340 million in the U.S.—has 650 members in their House of Commons, the body that our House of Representatives was modeled after. That’s about 108,000 people being represented by each member of the House of Commons. Why is the United States so wildly out of step with other democracies? That’s a bit of a story.
It used to be that the size of Congress increased as the population of the country increased. Every ten years, when the results of the most recent census became available, the size of the Congress would be increased, and representative districts would be added to states that experienced an increase in population.
For example, the First Congress (1789-1791) had 65 members. After the 1791 census, the House grew to 105 members, reflecting the population growth of the country. This growth—in the House and the population—continued until the 1920s. But when the results of the 1920 census became available, something odd happened. Rather than reapportion the number of House members and their districts, Congress decided to do nothing. Why?
Think about what was happening in the years around 1920. The country was growing, the number of farmers was declining, and people were moving from rural to urban areas for jobs. In addition, immigrants were streaming into the country, most of whom also settled in urban areas where jobs and housing were plentiful.
At the time, Congress was primarily made up of members from rural areas. They saw the writing on the wall and realized that with the growth of urban areas, things were going to change for them. They feared that shifting membership in the House to more urban representation meant rural areas, and the money and power they had once enjoyed, would vanish. So, despite complaints from urban representatives, Congress decided to stay the course and not reapportion the House.
The 1920 census became known as the “Lost Census” because Congress never reflected its results. Each year during the 1920s, Congress kicked the can down the road until in 1929, they passed the Permanent Apportionment Act, which capped the number of members in the House at 435. Rather than adding members as the country grew, Congress simply moved the 435 Congressional districts around to reflect where the growth was taking place.
At the time the Permanent Reapportionment Act was passed, the United States had a population of about 123 million people, meaning each member in the House represented about 282,000 people. If we were to keep that same level of representation today, we would need to add 746 new representatives, bringing the total in the House to 1181 members. And that doesn’t include representation for people living in the District of Columbia.
Of course, there’s nothing that says we have to go back to each member of Congress representing an average of 282,000 people. Maybe that number should be 65,000 people per representative, as it was during the First Congress. Or maybe it should be 270,000 people per representative, the same number as Japan. Any number we choose is arbitrary, and each number would have its own advantages and disadvantages.
There is one suggestion out there known as the “Wyoming Rule” that makes a lot of sense. What the Wyoming Rule says is that each member of Congress should represent the same number of people who live in our smallest state. In other words, because Wyoming—our smallest state—has a current population of 580,000 people, each member of the House should represent 580,000 people. If the Wyoming Rule was in place right now, we’d have to add 138 seats to the House, bringing the total from 435 to 573.
Having each member of the House represent an average of 580,000 people is not ideal. The United States would remain the least representative democracy among wealthy nations, but it would be an improvement over our current situation. In order to do this, no Constitutional Amendment would be needed. The Constitution does not set the number of members in the House, so Congress would only have to pass a law making the Wyoming Rule the law of the land.
Of course, the chances of that happening during the current Congress is zero. Republicans control the House, and they benefit from the current rules. But regardless of who benefits, this is not a Republican or Democratic issue. It is a fairness issue. As citizens, we deserve equal representation in Congress. At the moment, small states and rural areas enjoy unequal representation that tends to result in laws being passed by members of the House who represent less than 50% of the population. That’s anti-democratic, and the definition of minority rule.
The Senate, as designed, is an anti-democratic institution. To change the number of Senators each state has or how they are elected would require amending the Constitution, since Article 1 of the Constitution gives two Senators to each state. But making the House more democratic and more representative would only take the passing of a law by a simple majority.
At the moment, each of the two Congressmen from Montana represent an average of about 543,000 people, making them the smallest (by population) Congressional districts in the country. By contrast, Delaware has one Congresswoman who represents more than 990,000 people. That means people in Montana have nearly twice the representation as people in Delaware. That was never the plan. It’s unfair, anti-democratic, and un-American. We should be an example of democratic values for nations around the world. Instead, at the moment, we are an example of the least representative democracy. That needs to change.
