New Hampshire House versus U.S. House of Representatives
Unlike the U.S. Congress, which has capped the House of
Representatives at 435 members to serve a population of 335 million, New
Hampshire has proportionally expanded its House to 400 members for a population
of just 1.4 million.[1] Instead of adopting New Hampshire’s model of
proportional growth, Congress has responded to population increases by
expanding House office staff. For example, staff per Representative grew from
two members during Franklin D. Roosevelt’s era (1933) to an average of 15 under
Joseph Biden’s administration (2023), creating a total staff of 6,680.[2]
Since the 1900 Census, when the U.S. population was
76,212,168, the size of congressional districts has ballooned from
approximately 194,000 constituents in 1907 (with the addition of Oklahoma) to
over 772,000 constituents in 2023.[3] This growth has made competitive House
campaigns nearly impossible without substantial personal funding or millions of
dollars in contributions from special interests. Candidates must raise these
funds to effectively campaign in districts so large that they now exceed the population
size of many small nations.
This dynamic has led to an increased reliance on polarizing
campaign issues, leaving moderate candidates underfunded and unable to connect
with constituents during primaries.[4] Furthermore, the massive size of
congressional districts has enabled advanced gerrymandering tactics, such as
“cracking” and “packing,” which strategically dilute or concentrate voting
groups.[5] These practices exacerbate partisan divisions, often circumventing
protections established by the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The current system has also created an imbalance in the
Electoral College. For example, New Hampshire, with a population of 1.39
million, has four Electoral votes (347,500 inhabitants per vote), while
California, with a population of 39.3 million, has 54 Electoral votes (727,777
inhabitants per vote).[6] This disparity was not the intention of the framers
of the U.S. Constitution,[7] nor of the First[8] and Second[9] Bicameral
Congresses, who believed small districts were essential to maintaining accountability
and direct representation in the House.
Fortunately, ratifying the proposed but unratified “Article
the First” is unnecessary to address this issue. Congress already has the
authority to limit congressional districts to 50,000 inhabitants (as proposed
in the 1789 Bill of Rights), 60,000 (as per the 1789 Senate cap), or any number
below 100,000 through a simple majority vote in both chambers.[10]
By adopting a congressional district cap similar to New Hampshire’s proportional model, several significant outcomes could be achieved:
- Reduction of Campaign Costs and Special Interest Influence: Smaller districts would substantially lower the cost of campaigning, decreasing candidates’ reliance on special interest funds.
- Elimination of Gerrymandering: With smaller, community-based districts, practices such as cracking and packing would become impractical.
- Correction of the Electoral College Imbalance: Allocating Electoral votes based on smaller districts would restore proportional representation.[11]
- Revitalization of Bipartisanship: Localized districts would encourage Representatives to address the needs of their communities rather than engage in polarizing national rhetoric.
- Enhanced Representation: Replacing 435 Representatives and 6,680 staff members with approximately 6,700 Representatives directly accountable to their constituents would strengthen democracy and governance.
A congressional district cap of 50,000 persons would
reinstate the founding vision of citizen-driven governance, effectively
addressing the structural issues plaguing the U.S. House of Representatives
today.
In this context, New Hampshire’s House of Representatives stands as a compelling example of how proportional representation can address modern governance challenges.
A1HR urges all U.S. citizens to contact their Congressional representatives and advocate for a population cap of 50,000 per Congressional district. Implementing this reform would expand the House of Representatives, effectively addressing critical issues such as gerrymandering, the undue influence of special interests, and the imbalance within the Electoral College—all while maintaining the existing U.S. House structure. By restoring smaller, community-based districts, this proposal would strengthen democracy, enhance accountability, and ensure fair representation for all Americans.
Footnotes
[1] U.S. Census Bureau projected on December 28, 2023, that
the U.S. population would be 335,893,238 as of January 1, 2024.
[2] Congressional staff figures: CRS Report R43947,
Congress.gov.
[3] Census data: U.S. Census Bureau Newsroom, Press Release,
2023.
[4] Campaign dynamics: Biblical reference - "Because
thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I shall spew thee out of my
mouth."
[5] Example: In Louisiana, where the state’s population is
two-thirds Black, only one of six congressional districts is majority Black.
[6] Electoral votes are allocated based on Census with each
state receiving votes equal to the number of Senators and Representatives in
its U.S. Congressional delegation
[7] In the 1787 Philadelphia Convention, just before the
final signing of the present U.S. Constitution, Delegate Nathaniel Gorham suggested reducing the size of congressional districts from
40,000 to 30,000 citizens. A comparable proposal had been put forward earlier
but had fallen short of approval by a single vote. At this crucial juncture,
George Washington, serving as the Presidentof the Convention, voiced his support for smaller districts, marking
his sole substantive contribution to the Constitution's text. Without further
deliberation, the Convention embraced the 30,000 minimum, solidifying its
inclusion.
[8] First Congress’s Article the First capped districts at
50,000 inhabitants but contained a clerical error that rendered the amendment
dysfunctional. The House of
Representatives passed its "12 amendments," with its "Article
the First" or its First Amendment capping Congressional Districts
at 50,000 inhabitants. Simultaneously, the first U.S. Senate passed its "12
amendments" with its First Amendment establishing a cap of 60,000
inhabitants for Congressional Districts. It was during the 1789 House of
Representatives and US Senate Bill of Rights Conference Committees meeting that
its members agreed to adopt the HR version of the First Amendment by replacing
the word "less" in thepenultimate line ("in the last line but one") with the word
“more". Unfortunately, during the presentation of the Bill of Rights on
the House of Representatives floor, either the HR Clerk or HR Bill of
Rights Committee Chairman James Madison erroneously introduced the
wrong verbiage that struck out the word “less” in the last place, as opposed to changing it in the penultimate line, in Article
the First and substituted it with the word "more".
This mistake resulted in the incorrect replacement of "less" with
"more" in Article the First, rendering the proposed First
Amendment dysfunctional. Regrettably, this error went unnoticed for the
majority of the ratification process, with eight states, including New
Hampshire on January 25, 1790, ratifying Article the First before
Vermont achieved statehood on March 4, 1791.
[9] The Second Congress failed to rectify Article the First
but preserved the 50,000 cap through the Apportionment Acts of the 1790s–1830s. Background: the Second Bicameral Congress,
following the states' failure to ratify the dysfunctional First Amendment,
Congress responded by enacting the Apportionment Act of 1792. However, this
legislative measure was flawed, as it sought to reduce eight Constitutional
Districts below the constitutional population minimum of 30,000
inhabitants. Despite President George Washington's preference for smaller
Congressional Districts and his role in reducing the minimum size from 40,000
to 30,000, he, after extensive deliberation with Attorney General Randolph and
Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, exercised the first U.S. Presidential
veto. In his statement, he highlighted that "the Bill has allotted
to eight of the States more than one [representative] for thirty
thousand." Today, it remains unclear on why the Second Congress
did not rectify the verbiage error and resubmit Article the First to the
States. It is essential to emphasize that despite the states' failure to ratify
the proposed amendment, the Congressional District 50,000 inhabitant cap
endured through the U.S. Censuses of 1790, 1800, 1810, 1820, and 1830. In 1840,
the Whig Party secured majorities in both the Senate and House of
Representatives, advocating for Congress's supremacy over the Presidency and
endorsing a modernization program that included abandoning the Congressional
District 50,000 Citizens Cap outlined in Article the First. Over the subsequent
decades, the Whigs incrementally expanded Congressional Districts, growing from
53,000 citizens in the 1830s to over 80,000 in the 1840s and exceeding 100,000
citizens in the 1850s. Following the Republican Party's control of Congress in
the 1860s, the Republican majority continued this trajectory, enlarging
Congressional Districts from 135,000 in the 1870s to 200,000 citizens by the
1900s. Finally, in 1929, Congress enacted the Permanent Apportionment Act,
which permanently set the maximum number of representatives at 435.
Additionally, the law established a procedure for automatic reapportionment of
House seats three years after each census resulting in Congressional Districts
now exceeding 772,000 inhabitants.
[10] Congressional authority to adjust districts is
enshrined in the Constitution and capping districts at a 50,000 population does
not require a constitutional amendment .
[11] A 50,000 House of Representatives (HR) cap addresses the Electoral College imbalance without necessitating a constitutional amendment. Under this cap, New Hampshire, with a population of 1.39 million, would receive 30 Electoral votes, averaging 46,666 inhabitants per vote. In contrast, California, with a population of 39.3 million, would have 788 votes, resulting in 49,873 inhabitants per vote.
