Political Monopoly Power
Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, October 15, 2008



The Federalist Papers, written by James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, is the document most frequently referred to when trying to get a feel for the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. One such intention is found in Federalist 56 where Madison says, "...it seems to give the fullest assurance, that a representative for every thirty thousand inhabitants will render the (House of Representatives) both a safe and competent guardian of the interests which will be confided to it."

Excellent research, shows that in 1804 each representative represented about 40,000 people. Today, each representative represents close to 700,000. If we lived up to the vision of our founders, given today's population, we would have about 7,500 congressmen in the House of Representatives. It turns out that in 1929 Congress passed a bill fixing the number of representatives at 435. Prior to that, the number of congressional districts was increased every 10 years, from 1790 to 1910, except one, after a population census was taken.

We might ask what's so sacrosanct about 435 representatives? Why not 600, or 1,000, or 7,500? Here's part of the answer and, by the way, I never cease to be amazed by the insight and wisdom of our founders: James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, argued that the smaller the House of Representatives relative to the nation's population, the greater is the risk of unethical collusion. He said, "Numerous bodies ... are less subject to venality and corruption. " In a word, he saw competition in the political arena as the best means for protecting our liberties. If Madison were around today to see today's venal and corrupt Congress, he'd probably say, "See, I told you so!"

In addition to venality and corruption, restricting the number of representatives confers significant monopoly power that goes a long way toward explaining the stranglehold the two parties have and the high incumbent success rates. It might also explain the power of vested interest groups to influence congressional decisions. They only have to bribe, cajole or threaten a relatively small number of representatives.

Imagine the challenge to a lobbyist, if there were 7,500 representatives, trying to get a majority of 3,813 to vote for this or that special privilege versus having to get only a 218 majority in today's Congress.
Another problem of a small number of congressmen, with large districts, has to do with representing their constituents. How in the world is one congressman to represent the diverse interests and values of 700,000 people? The practical answer is they don't and attempt to be all things to all people. Thus, a congressman who takes a principled stand against the federal government exceeding its constitutional authority -- whether it be government involvement in education, business welfare and bailouts and $2 trillion dollars worth of other handouts -- is not likely to win office.

Appealing for the votes in a district of 700,000 is a more difficult challenge than appealing for the votes in a district of 40,000 or 60,000 people. Larger sums must be raised requiring a congressman to be wealthy or raise money from vested interest groups. Who is going to give a congressman money and not expect something special in return?

One should not be optimistic about increasing the size of Congress to make it more representative of the American people. There are powerful forces that benefit from the status quo. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lobbyists get Congress to look the other way. Hundreds of other lobbyists get Congress to rig the market, or confer special privileges, to benefit one class of Americans at the expense of another class. I guarantee you that the vested interest groups, who now have a strong grip on Washington, at the detriment of the nation's well-being, wouldn't as easily get their way if they had to scrounge for 3,813 votes as opposed to 218.

__________________
Liberals are people that will believe anything twice.

I was watching one of the negative aspects of federalism on the news this evening. People are taking their teenage children to Nebraska and abandoning them, which is legal in Nebraska but nowhere else. Got kids and they're pissing you off? "Hey kids, we're going on a road trip to Nebraska!"

There's another fact that might serve to illustrate the point.

The ancient Greeks believed that the maximum manageable size for a city was 10,000. Too much smaller, and it wasn't able to serve as a center of commerce. Too much bigger and it became to big, because it was impossible for everyone to actually know everyone else. So at 10,000 you struck a nice balance where everyone knew everyone that normally lived in the city, but where it was large enough to attract outside commerce from the surrounding country side, and other cities.

Of course, I'll freely admit that 10,000 is small for a city now, and thus arguing that we should have a representative for every ten thousand people would be ludicrous.

But I agree with the overall argument that Vi is presenting, where the problem with the HoR is that there are not enough positions thus it is too easy for members to collude together and be answerable to lobbyists.

Can you imagine the fortune it would take the lobbyists to bribe, I mean, contribute to

732 Californians (50,000 per Rep)
478 Texans
386 New Yorkers
365 Floridians
937 Reps from Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Illinois?

Of course such a government would never get anything done... which would probably be a good thing since government is most productive when it is actually doing nothing.

__________________
Libertas inaestimabilis res est - Liberty is a thing beyond all price. | Sic Semper Tyrannis

"Of course such a government would never get anything done... which would probably be a good thing since government is most productive when it is actually doing nothing."

~lol~ ... I forget who said it, either Will Rogers or H.L. Mencken, but it went something like this: "Congress is in recess for the holidays, so we're safe for the time being."

Vi

__________________
Liberals are people that will believe anything twice.

great read. Any insight on why the government fixed the number at 435 even when population steadily increases?

__________________

very good read.
I still find myself having an issue with bigger government.
why would it not just end up, 2000 on one side and 2000 on the other side, kinda putting us back to start?

When they rebuilt the white house, as you all know, it was built on swampland with reason.
The issue is and has been these dam lobbyist.

__________________
"Years ago, my mother used to say to me, In this world, Elwood, you must be oh, so smart or oh, so pleasant.' Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. And you can quote me." Elwood P Dowd.

Yes, lobbyists are a problem, but they are just a symptom of the real problems.

1. Income Tax - Congress shouldn't be able to create deductions and credits and change rates for specific businesses.

2. Pork - Oink? Oh, no, the problem with Pork is that Congress gets to redirect public funds to their state for "special" projects, like the bridge to nowhere, projectors, bear genetic studies, etc. Often the lobbyists that are pushing for these projects.

But the problem with lobbyists doesn't stop at D.C. It extends to all the state capitols.

For the same reasons.

The ability of government to carve exceptions, laws, deductions and credits into the tax code to benefit their "contributors".

As Tom Clancy wrote in his, Debt of Honor, "A good politician is one that stays bought,"

Of course that was the view of a Japanese Businessman, so the real deduction was that "A bad politician is one that stays bought, or is buyable in the first place."

No, the problem isn't just the lobbyists. They are just the most visible symptom of the inherent flaws in D.C.

__________________
Libertas inaestimabilis res est - Liberty is a thing beyond all price. | Sic Semper Tyrannis

Ah, great article.. there is a great small movement to spread awareness on this exact principle.. the website is Thirty-Thousand.org - Return the House of Representatives to the People (Home Page)

I'd like to see those lobbyists try to payoff 30,000 reps! Someone wouldn't need a ton of money to run in this type of system either- it would be realistically possible for every single person to have personally talked with their representative- these people would truly be held accountable for the decisions they made on our behalf..

congrads sexy, nothin prettier than a pretty gurl havin a baby


u gonna find out if its a boy or a gurl?

__________________

Thankx..

Naw, I'm not- doing a natural home birth and everything.. so.. it'll be a surprise.. leaning toward it being a boy tho, my gut was right last time. =) But we shall see.