|
March 1st, 2006 | #1 |
biocultural Realpolitik
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: ZooSA
Posts: 697
|
Co-opted "Democracies"
There are 8 members of the supreme court, 179 circuit and 649 district judgeships; 435 members of congress, 100 members of the senate and 1 president who is 're-elected' every 4 years.
1,372 people comprise the 'power elite' of the US. If there are 300,000,000 American citizens, that's 218,658 citizens to every member of government; i.e. the US 'two party membership' model represents 0.00045% of the population; cf. communist party membership set at 5%. -------- 1920–1929 Debate By 1920, the House had grown to 435 members. In 1921, the House Census Committee once again recommended increasing the size of the House. However, at the time the recommendation was made, concern began to be expressed that the size of the House was becoming unmanageable. In anticipation of this criticism, the committee also recommended adopting a constitutional amendment 63 capping the size of the House at 500 members. In the meantime, the increase to 483 seats would have prevented any state from losing members, despite substantial movement and growth in the nation’s population, primarily representing a shift away rural and agricultural states toward states with large cities.18 Without the increase, eleven states were to lose seats through reapportionment and eight states were to gain seats.19 A report issued by the House Census Committee explained its recommended increase from 435 to 483 on a number of grounds.20 These included the population growth in the United States and the idea that “legislative bodies must be more representative of the people”; the inclusion of women as eligible voters since the 1911 census; the comparison of the U.S. ratio of representatives to population to the generally lower ratio in other countries; the increased constituent work of the House, especially with the return of soldiers from World War I; and the increased legislative work of the House.21 The report also pointed out that Congress had never failed to increase the size of the House after every decennial census since the founding, with only one exception.22 However, in response to “the growing sentiment throughout the country that the size of the House should be limited in number” the committee recommended a constitutional amendment capping the House at 500.23 The report did not elaborate a further justification for the constitutional cap, other than stating that the sentiment of the citizens ought to be tested through the amendment process.24 A minority position accompanying the report called for maintaining the size of the House at 435.25 The minority report said that the cost of adding members was too high; that the efficiency of the body would not be increased with more members; that increased membership meant that the body would become “more unwieldy and cumbersome”; that increased membership would add delay in the transaction of business; that additional staff could “care for any increase in the work required of Members”; that members had at their disposal better facilities for transportation, communication, and association with constituents and thus did not need more members to manage the additional work created by the growth in population; and, finally, that it would be unwise to lock in a future Congress with a constitutional amendment.26 The full House took up debate on the proposal on January 18 and 19, 1921. The debate spans more than fifty pages in the Congressional Record.27 Numerous speakers refer to the editorial positions of newspapers regarding the size of the House.28 The debate broke along both political and regional lines. The regional split was most apparent; most states threatened with losing seats opposed limiting the size of the House. These were generally smaller states, southern states, and agricultural states. Larger states and states with urban centers generally supported the limit. On one side were those who believed that corporate interests would more easily control a House of smaller size and that representation of local interests would be threatened by increasing the number of citizens each member represented. On the other side were those who argued that the expense of increasing the size of the House was unjustified by the benefits of increasing the membership, and that the addition of members decreased the effectiveness and efficiency of the body as a whole. Eventually, the House voted by 267 to 76 not to increase the membership and to reapportion the existing seats; however, the Senate failed to act on the bill.29 Thus began a fight within the Congress that continued for most of the decade. Despite repeated attempts to either increase the size of the House (460 members was also proposed) or to reapportion the existing seats, Congress could not resolve the impasse until a special session was called in 1929.30 By then, the focus of the debate had shifted to reforming the method of apportionment. A January 5, 1929, report by the House Census Committee noted that in order to prevent any state from losing a seat under the current apportionment method, an increase to 483 members would no longer be sufficient. Further shifts and growth in the population meant 535 seats would be required to keep any state from losing a seat.31 In order to break the possibility of a recurring deadlock between those opposed to any increase in the size of the House and those blocking redistricting under the existing size and formula, the committee proposed that reapportionment of the existing 435 seats become automatic following each decennial census.32 The bill was characterized by the committee as being drawn in anticipation of a possible “emergency” situation that might prevent “fair and equitable” representation for millions of people if Congress failed to reapportion following the 1930 census, as it had following the 1920 census. The committee explicitly stated that Congress might yet choose to increase the size of the House to 535, to 475, or to leave it where it is: “In this bill there is no suggestion made to any future Congress as to what the size of the House membership shall be.”33 The House passed the bill by voice vote on January 11, 1929, but a threatened filibuster by senators from states faced with a loss of seats postponed a Senate vote. President Hoover called a special session of Congress in April 1929, with the matter of reapportionment listed among the priorities of business.34 This time the census committee’s bill passed.35 report Last edited by Agis; March 1st, 2006 at 05:46 AM. |
Share |
Thread | |
Display Modes | |
|