Bruce Bartlett’s column yesterday noted the difference between the Founders conception of how the government would work under the Constitution and how it has evolved. He notes that the Founders believed that the House would be the most democratic institution with direct elections by the people every two years. The Senate would be the more deliberative body that would represent the states, not the people, because its members were selected by the state legislatures for 6 years. The Senate is where states would send their ambassadors to represent them in a foreign country (the US federal government). Think of it this way, no bill could pass Congress unless it received a majority vote of the
people (the House) and a majority vote of the states (the Senate).

It did not work out that way because of two decisions made in 1913. First, the states lost their clout in DC because the 17th Amendment caused senators to be selected directly by the people in the states. The second change capped the number of members of the House at 435. Originally in 1790, one house member represented about 60,000 people. This number increased along with the number of representatives to 238,000 people and 386 representatives in 1910. Capping the number of representatives at 435 means that the ratio continues to increase, with one representative to over 600,000 people today.

While some cap was necessary, it is obvious that citizens would have more control over the government if the ratio was 1 to 60,000 as it was in 1790. For example, Raleigh alone would have 5 representatives in the US House, Wake County would have 12 and North Carolina would have 145 instead of 13.

I think the founder’s solution to the growing population would have been to force more power down to the state and local level so that the people would have more control over government. For an interesting application of this idea, see “The Vermont Papers,” co-authored by John McClaughry who heads the SPN think tank in Vermont, The Ethan Allen Institute.

One of the interesting ideas in this book is that Shires should be created in each state with a small population (about 10K to 20K, if I remember correctly). Large cities would be divided up into many Shires. The Shires would have many of the powers of county and city government. Election day would be a holiday with a Shire picnic for all citizens to vote and exchange ideas.

One final thought, the “arrogance of power” discussed by ex-governor John Rowland yesterday and John Hood here, would probably not be as big of a problem if Congress had less power and was closer to the people, meaning a smaller ratio of citizen to population, 1 to 60,000 as the Founders suggested is about right.