Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
3 edits | reply to gorehound
Re: Not surprised said by gorehound:it would be great if a working man not a rich man won the presidency.most folks in the country are not rich and are just working class. IMO, a large part of the problem is that the number of Representatives hasn't increased with the population, diminishing each individual's representation.
The constitution says there should be no than "one for every thirty Thousand." (Article I, Section 2.). It doesn't say there should be that level of representation. But, it gives an idea of the level of representation they had in mind.
In 1911, Congress fixed the number of Representatives to 435. Since then, we just reapportion that number among a growing population.
For example, the number of Representatives at the founding until 100 years later (1st Congress starting: 1789, 50th Congress ending: 1889):
1st. Congress: 59-65
2nd Congress: 69-73
5th Congress: 106
10th Congress: 142
20th Congress: 213
30th Congress: 230
40th Congress: 226 (fewer due to southern states removed from the union during Reconstruction).
50th Congress: 325
I think this is a problem. I haven't taken the time to examine national population (and the ratio of representation, which was skewed by Blacks counting as 3/5 of a person, and women not voting). Obviously we have much less representation as an individual.
The same problem exists with the Senate. It was changed from senators appointed by state legislatures around 1912 due to corruption (Senators owing favors to state power brokers). But, it's remained 2 per state since then. Which means the population in 1912 had greater representation than future generations.
Then consider how state legislative bodies have suffered the same diminution of representation as populations have grown.
Mark |
