As of Oct. 10, the American federal government is . Essential government workers are working but not getting paid, others are simply laid off, and government-run parks and other services are closed. The ostensible for this particular shutdown is a disagreement between the Republican majority and Democratic minority on healthcare funding extensions of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) in relation to whether or not undocumented immigrants are receiving funded care.
I believe that the surface fight that has led to this shutdown masks deeper issues plaguing American political life. Immigration, how American tax dollars are spent and healthcare policy are all deeply serious political issues that require policy deliberation, bipartisanship, and concrete legislative action to actually get right. The American people elect representatives to Congress who are supposed to represent their interests in those legislative conversations. But these important issues to the American people are increasingly producing stalemate and animosity between various political factions in Washington, D.C. What if I told you that a little-known bill from the early 20th century has cemented dysfunction into our political process?
In 1929, the House of Representatives passed , which permanently capped the size of the House of Representatives to 435 members. Prior to this, the Constitution required the number of representatives to grow with the population. The United States was around 121 million, and is around 342 million. This is important because the entire purpose of representation in the House is that it’s supposed to be the branch of government closest to the will of the people, but Congress is permanently stuck at a ratio that was set at 1929 U.S. population levels. When the 435 cap was set, the ratio of representatives to citizens was 1 to 278,000, and today that ratio is 1 to almost 800,000. If the federal government were to keep pace with the 1929 ratio, we should have nearly three times as many representatives as we do now. America continues to grow, and if the cap remains in place, this ratio is only going to get worse. At this rate, we might as well start calling it the House of Underrepresentation.
This past summer, I interned for an organization seeking to do something about this problem. believes that a lack of representation is central to many of the problems facing American democracy. Rather than blame the moral character of the people elected to represent us, it is more useful to look at the incentives shaping their behavior: The capped house means that the actual people get drowned out in a sea of sheer numbers, meaning the representatives are more likely to be swayed by those large interests able to grab their attention and buy their time. To win and keep office in large districts, candidates need a lot of money, and once a candidate gains office, this hurdle becomes larger for the would-be challengers. Therefore, the capped house elevates monied interests and entrenches incumbents.
The main objection to uncapping the house is concern over the increased expense of paying more lawmakers and their staff. This is a good point, but I think that democracy and self-government are worth the cost and will ultimately pay for themselves by having a Congress that is more responsive to the people’s pressing concerns, like the debt and fiscal responsibility. In the capped house that we have now, Republicans and Democrats are so polarized that they can’t work together to figure out how to fund the government without shutting the government down and harming federal workers. By decreasing district sizes, we would have representatives who are closer to the concerns of the communities that elect them than they are to party bosses.
The lack of proper congressional representation has real-world consequences. A consistent trend in American politics is across the spectrum , , and dissatisfaction with politics, particularly among . When people feel like they have no say in their government, apathy ensues and democratic backsliding is the result. A Constitution guaranteeing equal justice, due process, free speech, and freedom of religion is just words on paper if the people lose their zeal to keep the government in check.
Despair is not in order. Real political reform is possible, and average American citizens can make their voices heard. The good news about uncapping the House is that it doesn’t require a constitutional amendment to get started; Congress just needs to repeal the Permanent Apportionment Act, but they won’t do that unless the American people hold their feet to the fire.
If you are tired of feeling like a gridlocked and divided Washington is more concerned with playing partisan games and stopping constructive action, then consider joining the movement to restore representation to the people’s house. Become an informed citizen, advocate for reform, and never give in to political apathy.
The Student Movement is the official student newspaper of 51勛圖厙 University. Opinions expressed in the Student Movement are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editors, 51勛圖厙 University or the Seventh-day Adventist church.