|
| |
|
Tony Rubolotta
When Big Government Is Better
December 17, 2009
I recently wrote (Raise the Army of
Texas) that the congressional oligarchy could be broken if the states
exercised their Constitutional right to send as many representatives to Congress
as they are permitted by Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution. Article I,
Section 2 imposes a limit on representation and not a requirement. A state may
send fewer representatives to Congress than it is allowed but would be foolish
to do so. Congress arbitrarily imposed a stricter limit on the states in direct
violation of the Constitutional limit. The result has been the concentration of
great power in few hands, 435 to be precise. All arguments for or against
expanding the size of the House of Representatives are irrelevant in view of
what the Constitution permits, but none the less should be examined.
The 435 aristocrats in Congress represent on average approximately 700,000
people each. The allocation of those House seats to the states is determined by
an unconstitutional process that leads to manipulation and court intervention
where none should be required, or permitted. The Constitution permits the states
not more than one representative for 30,000 in population. If each state did as
it is permitted by the Constitution, we would have a Congress of about 10,000
representatives. My contention is that big government, when it comes to
representation, is better.
A Congress of 435 can be more easily purchased by special interests and foreign
powers than a Congress of 10,000. The cost of running for office in a district
of 700,000 is more expensive than running in a district of 30,000.
Representatives take “big money” because that is what it takes to get elected,
and of course, they give big money back to their financial backers. In a
district of 30,000 it is conceivable that just about anyone could run for
office. That won’t eliminate “big money” buying elections but it does give grass
root candidates a better chance to compete. To turn an expression, a big House
may be “too big to buy.”
Having a House of 10,000 representatives would also dilute the influence of the
party oligarchs who throw their influence and money toward party loyalists and
not necessarily the best candidates. The dominance of the Democrat and
Republican parties could be challenged, but I also contend that would be good
for both parties to have closer contact with their constituents. One voice in
30,000 is a lot louder than one voice in 700,000, and the party oligarchs might
actually start paying attention to the voters as much as they pay attention to
the moneyed interests.
Districts of about 30,000 would tend to make gerrymandering a less profitable
enterprise though it would not eliminate the desire to manipulate
representation. For those who don’t understand how gerrymandering works, I offer
a simple mathematical example of how it is used to deprive a majority of their
fair representation. Let’s say 30 people are to be divided into three groups and
then each elects a representative. Let’s further assume that 18 of the group are
Republicans and 12 are Democrats (or the reverse if you prefer). If I place 10
Republicans in one group, conceding that representative, I can then put the rest
in the remaining two groups so that each has 6 Democrats and 4 Republicans.
Though the Republicans are a majority, they are outnumbered by representatives
by two to one. The larger an election district, the easier it is to perform this
type of manipulation of district boundaries.
Smaller districts provide a more intimate relationship between the voters and
those they elect. The chances you may actually meet you Congressman, or know who
he or she is are much greater in those smaller districts. The elitist oligarchs
won’t particularly like this, but the citizen representative of good character
and integrity shouldn’t mind at all. If anything, smaller districts will open
the possibility of running for Congress to far more people than is now possible.
Anyone with access to a telephone and willing to wear out some shoe leather can
run for office. The days of the professional politician with professional
election staffs could well be numbered.
Some people might complain that a 10,000 member House would get little done, but
I’m not one of them. Our smaller 435 member Congress gets a lot done, most of it
unconstitutional, most they don’t even read, and most of it to reward those who
helped them gain office. Isn’t it time that Congressional staffers who write
this junk were made accountable to more people, who in turn were more
accountable to their constituents? I think so.
What I am suggesting by the states demanding their constitutionally permitted
representation does not guarantee Democrats or Republicans an advantage. What it
does guarantee is that Representatives will be more responsive to their
constituents and less reliant on mass marketing and deceptive advertising
practices. Until the current congressional oligarchy is broken, other reforms to
end elitists’ rule will be far more difficult. The states have to take this up
and the best we can do as citizens is insist they do. |
|
