Rating
Exceed Staffing
Exceed Staffing
Are you satisfied with Congress’s solution to growing House districts by super-sizing their staffs?
rather than divide their huge federal fiefdoms into smaller congressional districts?
Article I Section 2 of our Constitution reads “The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand” but our government decided to allow the districts to grow instead of increasing the number of Representatives. We have been fixed at 435 Representatives since 1913.
There are currently 800,000 people in my Congressional District when there should be 30,000.
Wilson and his Congress understood that no Amendment was necessary to increase the number of constituents per Representative, which made it fairly easy for them to consolidate power in this fashion.
.
.
Miggity 182:
I could be wrong, but I’m guessing it’s ALWAYS harder to represent 800,000 than to represent 30,000 regardless of electronic wizardry.
When the Constitution was written, 30,000 per congressman was huge. Now, with television adn other forms of mass communication it is not hard to represent 800,000.
Yes it is easier to represent 30,000 than 800,000 but what I was saying was that it is just as easy to represent 30,000 people in 1789 as it is to represent 800,00 in 2009. Also, the districts get redrawn every ten years after the census. Some states lose a representative and other districts that have grown will be broken up. For example, Utah will get another seat in the house unless a drastic migration from the state happens in the next year.
Have A Question?
Are you looking for something but can not find it, or have a question for us? We would love to help you. Just fill out the form below and we will get back to you as soon as possible.
