The U.S. Constitution in Article 1 states that each state shall have 1 representative for every 30,000 residents. Right now the population of the United States is almost 330 million. A little quick math tells you that would mean the House of Representation should have over 10,300 members to meet that requirement. In 1929 the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill called the “Permanent Apportion Act” which set the House of Representatives at its present level of 435. At that time the U.S. population was 123 million, more than 200 million fewer people than now.

Right now each representative has more about 750,000 to represent as opposed to the 28,000 in 1930. As I have shown. If the size of the house is doubled to 870 members, each representative would still have 370,000 people to represent. That is a far cry for the level set in 1929 but almost half as many people that they represent now.

Each representative has an average of 750,000 people they must represent. Our 10 year census was set up to meet the requirements of the Constitution. But by today’s standard, the Constution put an impossible level to meet and the 1929 Act tried to bring U.S. House representation more in line with the Constitution. But it would also mean, each representative would be able to serve the needs of their constitency in a more equitable form. This would also give Congress the opportunity to direct states to end their practice of Gerrymandering. That practice has allowed states with divergent desires to shape the voting districts so that the Democrat or Republican power within their state remains in tact. This practice was started in Massachusetts to insure that the Republican power in Massachusetts remained in tact in the early 19th Century. It persists today.

For example, Massachusetts, which has long been described as a “Blue” state with all 9 of its representative being Democrats, might well have, with its redrawn districts, gain a Republican representative in its more conservative areas. It is quite unlikely that states such as Wyoming, Idaho, and Utah would gain a Democrat representative. Conversely, Rhode Island and Delaware would unlikely gain a Republican representative. And so, the cry from Republicans that such a change would sway towards the Democrats, with the likely addition of Washington DC and Puerto Rico as states, as the sum total of representative for those areas would be 4.

There is no representative who can claim that 100% of his constituents is of his party. But our partisan politics of today have allowed that representatives of one party, where the population is a 51-49% split between Democrats and Republicans, that the party who has that seat, does not properly represent the desires of the other party. But those present districts, where there is a 51-49% split, when split between 2 representatives, may well find that one representative from each party is elected. The point is that the people of the United States deserve better representation than they now enjoy. The time to act is now.