Equitable Representation

Overview

This article presents a case for an amendment to the US Constitution for equitable representation in Congress for US citizens. Included is data which serves as evidence and arguments serving as justification for enacting this amendment. 

Summary

The United States’ representative democracy is in jeopardy. The legislative branch, the House of Representatives in particular, is dysfunctional, factionalized  and not acting in the best interests of the citizens that elected its members. Increasingly, more time, effort and taxpayer money is spent on getting re-elected, denigrating opponents and currying the favor of special interest groups than in performing the duties voters elected them to do.

At the time of the 6th US Congress in 1800, there were 106 members of congress representing a population of 5.3 million people, or about 50,000 people per representative. In 1929, Congress fixed the number or representatives at 435. With a current US population of 332 million, each member of congress now represents over 762,000, a number so large making it obvious that no member of Congress can fairly represent his or her constituency. Fixing the number at 435 rather than implementing a formulaic approach for arriving at a number is a root cause of Congress’ dysfunction.

Evidence based mostly upon federal government reports clearly indicates that, high income households tend to cluster in urban areas,  urban areas tend to cluster along both coasts and urban areas tend to vote for Democrats. These facts in and of themselves are not an issue. The issue is that lower income households and rural areas tend to be under-represented by Congress. This becomes very clear when investigating population density, and therefore wealth, on an intra-state basis.

Simply by limiting the size of US states to 5% of the total US population would have a dramatic, positive impact on providing equitable representation to those not currently being represented by the legislative branch of the federal government. In so doing, there would be two additional senators for each new state created. Further, additional members of Congress would be added to keep the proportion of congressmen and senators at its current ratio.

This article provides coherent data to substantiate the hypothesis and presents examples of what the results could look like. In short, the Constitution of the United States is in need of a 28th amendment to provide for equitable representation.

Perspective

The U.S. Constitution called for at least one Representative per state and that no more than one for every 30,000 persons. By the time of the 6th US Congress in 1800, the US Population was 5,308,483 and there were 106 members of Congress. Therefore, each member represented 50,080. To visualize 50,080, it is similar to the current population of Poway, CA. The US 1800 population approximates the total current population of South Carolina. By 1800, congressional representation did not come close to how the Founders envisioned; it continues to get drastically worse.

In 1929, the House passed the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, fixing the number of Representatives at 435. As we will see, fixing this number as a constant, versus one derived in a formulaic fashion, was a serious mistake.

The 1930 US Census counted 123,202,624 persons. 435 representatives resulted in each member representing 283,224, which is roughly equivalent to the population of Newark, NJ.

The current US population is ~ 331,883,986. Each member of congress now represents ~ 762,952 persons. This closely approximates the population of Seattle, WA. From 1930 to 2019, the number of persons each congressional member represents has almost tripled. Each member of congress now represents more than 15 times the number each did in 1800. This is graphically depicted here:

This chart is on a logarithmic scale, the population is in the 10,000’s and the population per representative is in the 1,000’s. If not, Population per representative would be invisible.

The mean number of representatives per state is 9. The standard deviation about the mean of representatives per state is 10. California’s number of representatives is more than 5 deviations from the mean: off the charts.  

The current ratio of the number of US senators (100) to US congressional members (435) is 23%.  Keep this number in mind.

Representation That Isn’t

Congressional representation from four states, California, Texas, Florida and New York, account for 33% of the entire congressional membership. Specifically:

• California – 53
• Texas – 37
• Florida – 27
• New York – 27

The two states in terms of subsequent highest number of representatives are Pennsylvania and Illinois. They each have 18 representatives, equating to 33% less than  that Florida and New York. Below is a table depicting each state. The number of representatives for each state and the 2019 population of each state.

Another way of visualizing representatives-per-state follows.

Population Density Versus Household Income

With some exceptions, high income households tend to cluster around dense urban areas and along both coasts. This is clearly depicted in the images below. The first depicts population density, while the second depicts income per household.

This distribution, in and of itself is not an issue. People may choose to live where they please. Where it is an issue, however, is how population and wealth density relates to political representation.

When comparing high household income areas with a congressional representation map, obvious and not surprising patterns are clear. Generally speaking, high density, high income areas are represented by Democrats. Lower density, lower income areas are represented by Republicans.

As an aside, it is somewhat perplexing that Democrats argue they are the champions of the working class.

 This pattern also occurs within states. Following are comparisons of the four largest states and how they are represented.

The pattern of population and income, and their relationship to congressional representation is consistent in each instance. Higher incomes tend to cluster in urban centers and votes Democratic; lower incomes tend to reside in rural areas and vote Republican. Further, generally speaking, Democrats tend to cluster around the coasts while Republicans reside in the heartland. 

This is not only true of the House of Representatives, it is also true for the senate as well. Refer to the following maps.

There is nothing inherently right or wrong with this distribution of representation. What is of concern, however, is that the density of high income voters within these states in particular, control the legislative power; and this legislative power tends to leave lower income voters without representation.

28th Amendment to the US Constitution

Impact of the 28th Amendment 

Five percent of the current US population of 331,883,986 is 16,323,249. Four states have populations greater than the 5% threshold.

• California – 39,557,045 
• Texas – 25,145,561 
• Florida – 18,801,310 
• New York – 19,378,102 

5 additional states would result in 10 additional Senators and 34 additional congressional members under the 5% rule. The table below compares the 17 largest states and their number of congressional representatives as they currently exist, and how it could look.

Note that the current largest state is nearly six times as large as the current seventeenth largest one. However, under the 5% rule, the largest state is less than two times the size of the seventeenth largest. Please now refer to the following table.

Of more relevance than population distribution is the impact on the equitable distribution of congressional representation and therefore congressional influence. Note in particular that the standard deviation of representatives about the mean drops from 10 to 6. And, as the highest number of representatives per state has dropped from 53 to 22, geographic location is much less critical in terms of representative control. In short, the result is much greater equitable representation nationwide.

Visually, it looks like this:

While not entirely solving the issue of members of Congress representing too many people, a formulaic method of determining the number of congressional members versus the current fixed one, would help minimize the impact of population growth. The following chart visually demonstrates the immediate result.

This chart demonstrates that by incorporating the 5% rule, the number of people each member of Congress represents would lower to the level of 2010. While this will not solve the problem of diluted representation, it helps contain it. Additionally, it would serve as discouragement for larger states to encourage illegal immigration. Not only would a growing population force large states to split anew, there would be a smaller tax base to fund the programs that serve as inducements to illegally cross the border; even those sympathetic towards illegal immigrants would revolt against the tax burden.

California Under the 28th Amendment

As the population of California is nearly 40 million people, the 5% rule would necessitate it being divided into three states. Here is a possible scenario.

California 1 would have a population of ~ 13.23M, California 2 would have a population of ~ 10.5M, and California 3 would have a population of ~ 15.75M. Sacramento and San Diego would go with California 1. San Francisco and San Jose would go with California 2. Los Angeles would go to California 3.

Of critical importance in this scenario is how it would impact equitable representation. Currently, ‘California 1’ is underrepresented at both the state and federal level. Under the 28th Amendment this would no longer be true.

From a geographic size point of view, current and potential states compare like this:

Texas Under the 28th Amendment

Under the 5% rule, Texas would be required to split into two states. Below is a scenario with the resultant states having almost equal populations and geographical areas. Note also that political majorities (Republican / Democratic) in terms of majorities, remain almost completely intact.

Divided as such, Texas 1 would have a population of 14,627,017 and Texas 2 would have a population of 14,073,925. Houston and Austin would go to Texas 1. Dallas would go to Texas 2.

From a geographic size point of view, current and potential states compare like this:

Florida Under the 28th Amendment

The 5% rule would require Florida to split into two. Similar to Texas, dividing Florida as in the example below would enable majority political affiliations to remain intact. South Florida tends to vote similarly to Northeast states. Northern Florida tends to vote Similar to Southeast states.

Divided as such, Florida 1 would have a population of 10,284,745 and Florida 2 would have a population of 14,949,337. Miami, Ft. Lauderdale and Sarasota would go with Florida 1. Tampa, Orlanda and Tallahassee would go with Florida 2.

From a geographic size point of view, current and potential states compare like this:

New York Under the 28th Amendment

New York would also need to be divided into two states under the 5% rule. Of the four states immediately impacted by the rule, geographic size would be the most disparate. The population density in and around Manhattan leaves little choice. Here too, however, majority political affiliations remain intact. And not unlike eastern California, the end result would be more equitable representation both statewide and federally for upstate New York.

Because of the dense urban area concentrated around Manhattan, and the comparatively large, urban area of upstate New York, it is difficult to configure two states from the original with relatively similar populations. Therefore, in New York 1, the resultant population would be 8,370,087 and New York 2 would be  11,014,580. Albany, Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo would go to New York 1. Manhattan, Staten Island and Long Island would go to New York 2.

From a geographic size point of view, current and potential states compare like this:

Conclusion

The House of Representatives is supposed to be that part of the federal government that is closest to the citizenry and most reflective of it. This is simply no longer the case, if it ever was. Population density and wealth is concentrated heavily in just a few states. These states, in addition to their concentration of congressional power, are too closely aligned with an extremely biased media.

The end result of this concentration of congressional power, wealth and media control is a legislative branch that is disconnected from the people they were elected to serve. This is leading the United States away from its Constitutional, democratic-republic form of government towards one of a tyrannical, socialistic democracy. The Constitution is being diminished and threatened.

The result of a Constitutional amendment for equitable representation would result in a greater balance of power among the states. It would also result in a Congress more focused on the needs of its constituents and less so on its perverse need for power. It would be a giant step away from an oppressive, authoritarian minority.

In 1971, the 26th amendment to the Constitution was sent to the states for ratification. They did so in three months and eight days; a record time for Constitutional amendments. To preserve the United State’s representative democracy and, to get Congress to function as it should, the enactment of an ‘Equitable Representation’ Constitution should receive the same sense of urgency.