Congress and California need more representatives
Why is California slated to lose a House seat in the upcoming round of congressional redistricting, despite a 6% growth in population since 2010? Because Congress grossly misrepresents the nation’s population. The 80% of Americans who live in metropolitan areas and generate most of the tax revenues lack equivalent political clout.
The Senate was designed to represent big and small states equally. That means the 40 million residents of the 22 least populous states get 44 senators, while California’s 40 million people get but two.
By contrast, the House of Representatives was intended to expand with the population. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, in Federalist #58, said the purpose of the census was to “readjust, from time to time, the apportionment of representatives to the number of inhabitants ... (and) to augment the number of representatives.”
Accordingly, between 1790 and 1910 the House grew from 106 members to 435. But with immigrants flocking to our cities, rural states feared losing representation. So in 1929 Congress froze the House at 435 seats, where it remains today.
Since then America’s population has tripled. The population of the average congressional district has grown from about 210,000 to 753,000. By comparison, Japan’s lower legislative chamber has fewer than 275,000 residents per seat, and Britain’s House of Commons has 650 seats — nearly one MP per 100,000 residents.
In short, both the House and the Senate underrepresent populous states, including California. The populations of Wyoming, Vermont and North Dakota are each less than the population of the average congressional district.
Congressional malapportionment also distorts the Electoral College. Because each state’s electoral votes equal the sum of its senators and representatives, Wyoming gets one electoral vote for every 193,000 people, while California gets one for every 718,000 people. This distortion has allowed four presidents to win the Electoral College vote despite losing the popular vote. Although a constitutional amendment is required to alter the Senate, Congress can enlarge the House whenever it chooses.
Adding more representatives would strengthen our democracy. Fewer constituents make it more likely that legislators will have face-to face dealings with them.
More representatives permit a more effective division of their work. Voting groups that are too small to be influential in large districts could become key players in smaller ones. Campaigns cost less in smaller districts, permitting less affluent aspirants to run. Most important, enlarging the House would more accurately mirror our increasingly diverse and urban population.
How much larger? Cross-national research shows that on average the size of national legislatures approximates the cube root of their country’s population. Following this formula, the House would add about 154 members, with 45 states gaining seats. The population of the average district would fall by one-third. And consistent with the principle of “one person, one vote,” voting power across state lines would become more equal.
Enlarging the House would also expand the Electoral College from 538 to 692. Most of the additional electors would again go to the most populous states, reducing the unfair advantage of rural voters there as well.
Calls for overhauling our democracy are growing. In a recent Pew Research Center poll, twothirds of respondents said “significant changes” are needed to governmental “design and structure.” The case for smaller legislative districts may provide common ground for Americans who are polarized on other issues. Adding more representatives would bring them closer to the voters (nowhere more than in California), more fairly reflect the electorate, and help rebuild trust in our legislatures.