Power to the People
By R.R. van Lienden
By R.R. van Lienden
For years now, accusations have been made that political power in the United States has become concentrated in the hand of a very small body of men and women in Washington, DC. Many newcomers to the political ring or to a particular office run as outsiders, insinuating that there is more morality outside of Washington than in those Halls of Power, and also that those who reside in those halls have lost touch with the common citizen. Some even attribute sinister motives for this fact. And it is a fact that they have lost touch. Perhaps sinister motives are a component of this, but certainly this is too simplistic an explanation to be completely true. A far greater influence on this centralization of power within an insulated environment is that it has been a natural process of evolving logistics and the need for efficiency.
In 1778, when the Constitution was completed, membership in the House of Representatives was set at one for every 30,000 residents. In 1790, the year the first census was taken, the total population was determined to be 3,893,874. 694,207 of these were slaves, which were to be counted as 3/5 of a citizen for representation purposes. This reduces the total population for representative purposes to 3,616,191. That works out to 120 members of the House of Representatives. That seems to us to be a reasonably sized body of legislators to "do the business of America" and one representative per 30,000 is not too bad a ratio considering that more than half the population was made up of children.
From 1790 onward, the Federal government took a new census every ten years. After the results were official, one representative was added for each 30,000 gain in population. This continued until the middle of the 19th century at which time the sheer number of representatives began to make the legislative process unwieldy. A freeze was enacted on adding new legislators, which was codified in 1912, when the total membership of the House was set at 435. By this time, the ratio of members to the total population had grown to one for each 219,161. As of the year 2000, that number is one representative for each 665,378. That ratio has grown by more than 20 fold since 1790 and is still growing.
This is not a realistic ratio. This is part of the problem that has created concentration of power. Look at it this way: in the hands of each representative to the House is concentrated 20 times as much voting power as each member in the original House possessed. What is it that they say about power corrupting? The consolidated power of 665,378 people is concentrated in the hands of one person. In my opinion, that inevitably leads to hubris and corruption.
But it is not simply the concentration of power that causes the voices of the people to go unheard. Another very fundamental reason is that this has become a logistical nightmare. No human being can be responsive to the individual needs, concerns, and will of over 600,000 people. There isn't enough time. There's too much diversity. Even if a legislator sincerely wishes to reflect the will of his or her constituents, it can't be done. Conversely, no individual ordinary citizen among that 600,000+ can hope to have any significant access to or influence upon that legislator. Therefore, the majority of a legislator's constituents have become "the masses", their needs, concerns, and will largely unknown or discounted.
The "masses", recognizing this at least on an intuitive basis, don't even attempt to participate in the legislative process, realizing the futility. Government of the people, by the people, and for the people has all but disappeared.
Thirdly, (and this pertains to campaign finance reform), since a legislator can only be responsive to a small percentage of his or her constituency, he or she will invariably respond to those with the most money and power. He or she knows that any single ordinary member (or even a small group) of his or her constituency is very unlikely to effect the outcome of an election while the rich and powerful can and do effect that outcome. Therefore, the temptation is overwhelming to side with the few rich and powerful, even at the expense of the majority who elected them in the first place.
A fourth dilemma has to do with the natural increasing complexity of life. In 1790, representatives were citizen legislators. Once a year, they would each hitch up their horses or climb into their carriages and take the trip to the national capitol. There, they would conduct the nation's business, which could be completed in two or three months. Directly after, they would once again hitch up their horses or climb into their carriages and trek homeward. Upon arrival, they would resume their normal lives as citizens. They were not professional politicians. That was possible in 1790 for the business of America was fairly simple. We were isolated, seldom interacting with other nations. There were far fewer people to be concerned with occupying a land less than one-third of what the country encompasses today.
Today, the situation is more or less reversed. Legislators spend as much as nine months in Washington as opposed to only three months or so at "home". I purposefully enclose "home" in quotations to emphasize this question: is not home where one spends most of his or her time? In the beginning, Washington is unreal and perhaps somewhat overwhelming for the neophyte representative. A fantasy land really, glamorous and dazzling. Flattery and the pressure to fit in with his or her colleagues in order to get business done soon causes the neophyte to "go with the flow" and Washington begins to take on an air of reality, the only reality. As the years go by, Washington becomes what is real for the representative and "home" somewhat of an illusion. The shadows that haunt the halls of Congress, representatives of powerful corporations and their lobbyists, begin to solidify as those solid citizens from home begin to fade, replacing those in Washington as the shadows. This is not a sinister or diabolical plot; it is simply the nature of the beast.
So is this hopeless? Is it impossible for the people to rest anew from the hands of the "usurpers" its rightful power to govern? There have been several proposals over the last few years challenging that assumption. Most notable recently has been the efforts to reform campaign financing. While I laud every effort to reduce the corruption and undue influence present in our current political picture, I have little faith that this will solve all the problems mentioned herein. Furthermore, it seems that no matter how tightly written these types of laws may be, invariably there is a chink, a loophole, a way to "get over" on the law. I make no claim as to whether this occurs as a natural consequence of a failure to analyze the law properly or as a component of a diabolical plot. I claim only that these types of laws have not worked so far and are rather unlikely to succeed in the future.
Another possible solution, which has had waxing and waning levels of support over the last decade or so, is the idea of term limits. This is appealing in the sense that bringing in "fresh blood" would tend to negate the notion of a professional politician and replace him or her with the "old-fashioned" idea of a citizen government. Since there would be no "career" in politics, at least in the sense of "owning" the job, there would be less motivation for neophyte representatives to forge long-term alliances. Furthermore, having come directly "from the people", this neophyte would be more in touch with it's will.
I see at least two objections to this proposal. The first one, like it or not, is that it is unlikely that an amateur citizen legislator would be up to the task of governing this nation today. One might say that a neophyte is always an amateur and be correct. However, he or she is surrounded by experienced old-timers and can be guided along. What happens when they all are neophytes? While a legislator in 1790 could be a silversmith from Boston in "real" life, needing little education or experience to grasp the issues of the day, while any decision that silversmith made was unlikely to cause any long term disasters, today's legislator must be well-educated and experienced. Decisions made in this era can cause long-term disaster, not only for the United States, but also for the world. The second objection I see is while this might solve part of the problem, we are still left with a scenario placing too much power in the hands of too few individuals.
A proposal, which has been recently suggested, is to dramatically increase the number of representatives the nation sends to the House. George Will, in a January 14, 2001 Washington Post article, proposed that we should increase the size of the House to 1,000 members. Responding in advance to the inevitable criticism that there would not be enough seats in the House so a new Hall would have to be built, Mr. Will suggested we leave things as they are. Checking the House randomly at most times of the day will find the vast majority of the seats empty as our representatives are spending time smoothing large donors and lobbyists in preparation for the next election. The only time it would be an issue would be at roll call votes and, in that case, the laggards would just have to stand. Mr. Will feels that this would streamline the "logjam" issue as standing representatives have would have a vested interest in limiting the debate and getting to the vote. Furthermore, Mr. Will suggests that a law be passed or an executive order proclaimed prohibiting lobbyists from donating to a representatives campaign coffers while Congress was in session. That would provide great incentive for our representatives to streamline the process of doing the people's business. Who knows, they might be able to get it done in three months after all. Then they could all go home and be back among their constituents. Perhaps, once again, reality would be home and life in Washington the illusion.
So far, this proposal has the greatest appeal for me by far. However, I still see one glaring flaw. Even with 1,000 representative, more than twice the current number, each representative will be responsible to and for more than 280,000 citizens. Even with another six months at home, this is still, in my opinion, far too many. The majority of citizens will still remain faceless non-entities.
There is one other proposal that has been bandied out for years. That proposal lies in the reduction in scope of the activities of the federal government thereby reducing the amount of the people's business transacted by each congress. Once again, our representatives would then need to spend no more time in Washington than two to three months annually. We reject this proposal out of hand. This is simply anachronistic thinking and attempting to turn back the clock has seldom proved fruitful in humanity's history.
So is it hopeless? I think not. I think the solution to all three major impediments to returning power to the people, concentration of power, alienation of representatives from their constituency, and undue influence on each representatives by the powerful few (bordering on if not, in fact bribery) is very simple. Return to the days when we elected one representative for each 30,000 people. The reaction to this proposal is, of course going to be, "If the process of government with 435 representatives is gridlocked and almost impossible to complete, how can having 9,335 representatives even manage to have roll call?" Simple; don't send them all to Washington. In fact, we could reduce the number we send there by half.
We could have 217 congressional districts rather than 435. Each district then would represent approximately 1,290,323 people. Within these districts, we create sub-districts equaling 30,000 per district. This would create 43 sub-districts in each. Each sub-district would then elect a representative to a local body we might call a congressional caucus, responsible to those 30,000 alone. From the 43, would come one to actually go to Washington. This could be selected on a rotating basis or on whatever method the local district chooses. Perhaps the term of service in Washington for each representative could be limited to three months in any given year and one individual could serve for no more than two years in a row.
Legislation could be studied and proposed on a local basis within these caucuses. All 9,000+ representatives would do all voting on final bills. This could be done as individual tallying of all or by the 217 voting a consensus of the 43 in each caucus. We prefer the tallying of all 9,000 members as it gives each district more say. We have seen how the results of a winner-take-all method have skewed the result of the Electoral College method of choosing our President. This need not be cumbersome. Unlike 1790 where it might take weeks to send a messenger to and from a district in order to collect the votes, today's modern technology allows virtually instant transmission across the nation. We could even use video conferencing so the remaining 42 representatives in each district could be "present" for a roll call vote.
Collateral Benefits:
Having 43 members in each Congressional Caucus allows the possibility of minority parties, such as Green, Libertarian, Socialist, or Constitutionalist participating in decisions.
Having 43 members in each Congressional Caucus allows more people to participate in government returning our government to "by the people".
A return to the concept of "citizen legislator".
Lobbyists would have to spend a lot more money to "buy" votes.
The contributions of individuals and small groups would have more influence than they do today.
© 2003 R.R. van Lienden
Ron.vanL@yahoo.com
Addendum:
It has occurred to me that it might be very difficult to implement such a plan in all 50 states simultaneously. We might approach this first at the State level. For instance, California has 80 State Assembly districts with a population approaching 33 million. That breaks down into approximately one assembly member for each 400,000 population. California could boost this to 110 assembly districts and then divide those into 10 sub-districts each.
© 2004 R.R. van Lienden
