Our Constitution specifically begins “We the People” indicating the establishment of our government by the People: a democracy. A democracy can be administered either directly by the People or, as in the case of America, through elected representatives. A great article on the subject of democracy or republic was penned by Jay Cast in the National Review.[i] Other people describe the United States as a republic. In another great article in the Washington Post by Eugene Volokh from May 13, 2015, he begins by quoting the American Heritage Dictionary which says a republic is, “A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.”[ii] Certainly a good description of how our government works.
I describe America as a representative democracy because the Preamble of the Constitution clearly states,
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Therefore, since the People “ordained and established” the Constitution, the People were not given or granted any rights, but adopted those rights as part of establishing their new government. We will continue this discussion based on the United States described as a representative democracy.
I was prompted to write this article when a friend used the phrase, “the people who run the government,” during an evening fireplace discussion. I realized many people today believe there are people who run the government rather than people elected to represent the citizens regarding government affairs. The impact of the difference between people running the government and representatives must be fully understood and embraced before our form of government devolves into an aristocracy; a movement that has already begun.
Our representative democracy is fragile and while we stake our strength in our electoral power, when representatives misbehave, or dilute our rights, We the People have a hard time replacing those representatives. In fact, as far as the dilution of rights goes, our rights have been diluted since the number of voting members of the House of Representatives was frozen at 435 in 1929. That’s 91 years ago. Since that time the population of the United States of America has gone from about 73 million eligible voters to 235 million eligible voters. That means each representative used to represent 168,000 voters, and today each represents 540,690 voters. In all actuality it’s even worse than that. Based on the total population in the United States, each representative represents a bit more than 750,000 people each. Our founders likely didn’t foresee these numbers based on Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution which limits the number of representatives such that the, “Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand” persons. A little arithmetic quickly demonstrates that since the Constitution was established by the People, the People’s influence has been diluted to one twenty-fifth of where it began. In short, we are moving from a representative democracy established by the People to a aristocracy where we are entitled to only 1/750,000th of our representative’s thoughts. That’s appalling! How can we remain a representative democracy if we do not have adequate representation? How can representatives truly represent their constituency when they represent over half a million eligible voters and all the other People which includes People that haven’t yet reached the age of suffrage?
Based on how many representatives act, only representing the constituents of their party and arriving with an agenda such as reforming our government into a socialist republic, or impeaching the President, the change of our government from a representative democracy to a republic, or worse yet an aristocracy has already begun. Along with the industrialization of government by making these representatives paid positions, and the number of families that have overtaken government positions, even moving from their home states to areas in which they want to run for office, the government of the People continues to wane. The Constitution and the laws enacted up to this point in time have allowed the dilution of representation and the transformation of our representative democracy into a republic where People now believe the representatives “run the government.”
A recent example of how the face of the House of Representatives has changed from a representative body to a self-serving mob is embodied in the words of Maxine Waters, democratic representative from California who told the Stonewall Young Democrats in Los Angeles in September 2018, “You knock one down [meaning Trump], and we’ll be ready for Pence. We’ll get him, too.” Are these the words of a representative answering the call of the People who she represents, all the People she represents, not just the democrats, not just the radicals, or are these the words of a person who runs the government regardless of her constituents? She embodies the issue of our diluted form of representative democracy. At best, she represents only a portion of her constituents. She also represents overthrowing our current administration. She is the poster child of not fulfilling her role as a representative of the People.
Representative or Overthrow Advocate
So herein lies the real issue with our representative democracy; not everyone is represented. So not only has the People’s power been diluted simply by the number of representatives versus the number of constituents, but also by the fact that representation is limited to party affiliations, and further compounded by the freedom of representatives to act without solid backing by their constituents. When they act based on their own beliefs, they can’t even be called representatives anymore. So how do we fix our representative democracy to reverse the dilution of the People’s voice and to ensure everyone is represented?
One way is to reset the number of representatives to 7,840 which would bring us back to one representative for each 30,000 People. Similar increases in the number of representatives have been made in the past, but the idea of a House of Representatives eighteen times larger than it is today doesn’t get much support. From a financial perspective, this would make an expensive legislative body incredibly more expensive. So, let’s look at a few other options that deserve consideration and, at some point, implementation. The catch is the implementation must be supported by a grassroots movement because getting the seated representatives to give up their cushy jobs is likely impossible.
Let’s start with compensation. In 1789 Congress was entitled to $6 per diem for every day worked. While that number would be around $170 today based on inflation, which likely isn’t enough to afford traveling to Washington D.C., it indicates that the original idea of representation did not include a salary. In 1815 a salary of $1,500 per annum was enacted. That equates to about $24,000 today. Again, not exactly a living wage, but remember, Congress was not considered a fulltime job; it was a side job to represent your community.
On top of the salary issues, let’s also consider technology. In 1789 the United States was concentrated to the east coast. By 1815, only five states had been added to the United States. The point being that travel to meet with the other representatives was possible, but demanding. Today, with advances in both travel and communication technologies meeting with other representatives is not an issue. Meetings can be conducted virtually; they aren’t, but they could be. Certainly, the ability to effectively meet via the internet could easily be afforded by the travel budgets consumed by the current 435 representatives.
With that additional information now let’s look at ways to adequately compensate representatives and adequately represent the entire constituency: the People. First, let’s tackle representation.
Each group of 30,000 or more People should be assured representation. Using Maxine Waters’ district as an example, let’s consider party distribution.
| Party | Registered Voters | Percentage | Number of representatives (based on 30,000 divisor) |
| Democrat | 222,067 | 56.45% | 7.40 |
| Republican | 50,309 | 12.79% | 1.68 |
| Libertarian | 2,230 | 0.57% | 0.07 |
| American Independent | 8,501 | 2.16% | 0.28 |
| Green | 1,354 | 0.34% | 0.05 |
| Peace and Freedom | 2,234 | 0.57% | 0.07 |
| Unknown | 2,241 | 0.57% | 0.07 |
| Other | 3,040 | 0.77% | 0.10 |
| No Preference | 101,403 | 25.78% | 3.38 |
| Totals | 393,379 | 100.00% | 13.11 |
So, while most parties do not have sufficient numbers to garner even one representative, in all, the district should have 13 representatives. At present, if we assume Maxine Waters manages to represent just her own constituents, only little more than 56% of the constituents are represented. That means in our simple example that more than 43% of the constituents’ views are not represented. So, how about if we send 13 representatives who are elected by the full distribution of the voters. As many can run as can get 30,000 signatures on a registration permit and the 13 with the highest number of votes become representatives. Each then votes their preference on the House floor. By doing so, the will of the People is expressed on the House floor, rather than the will of the majority party from each district while omitting the will of the minority.
At the time this article was written, the House has 235 Democratic members, 199 Republican members, and one vacancy. This means that none of the other parties are represented. On the other hand, registration rolls indicate the United States constituency includes 44.3 million democrats, 32.6 million republicans, 31.5 million independents, and 2.6 million registered as other parties. This equates to 40% democrats, 29% republicans, 28% independents, and 2% other parties. Yet the split in the House is 54.0% democrats, 45.7% republicans, and 0.2% vacant. So, while we boast about representative government, what our government really represents is the positions of two different parties rather than the desires of the People. If diversity is good then we should nurture a system that supports diversity rather than a system the limits the positions represented to the two most prominent political parties.
Creating a system supported by current technology that gives a voice to all the ideas of all the diverse parties throughout the United States preserves our representative democracy by the People. Without such action, the future of America is destined to fall into the hands of the aristocracy. In our current system, people with money wield influence and power. That’s why people with money want more money; more money, more power. In a representative democracy, each person should have the same influence.
Dr. T
[i] Cast, Jay. National Review. Democracy or republic? Available on-line at: https://www.aei.org/articles/democracy-or-republic
[ii] Volokh Eugene. Washington Post. Is the United States of America a Republic or a Democracy. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13