When the First Congress met in 1789-1791, right after the adoption of the Constitution, there were 26 Senators, and 65 Representatives. A single unified government for the whole nation was never considered. It was quite obvious that a nation of 4,000,000 people could never be governed as a single unite, even though fewer than 500,000 of those people were voters. (That figure for total voters is probably too high.) If each member of the House of Representatives represented the same number of people today as they did in 1791, the H. of R. would today have 5,120 members. The largest state in the union in 1791 was Virginia, which was approaching a population of 800,000 people, and was already being considered by some as having too many people to be governed as a single state. If an upper limit in population for a single state had been set at 1,000,000 people, and states be required to divide to keep states to a manageable size, then today we would have at least 315 states, and probably more like 400. The United States Senate would then have 630 to 800 members. If each senator today represented on average the same number they did in 1790, then the Senate would have 1800 members today. The average Senator in 1790 represented fewer people than the average Representative does today. California, all by itself, has a larger population than the United States did in 1870. My point? Size does make a difference. A sufficient difference in degree becomes a difference in kind. This is not the country founded in 1776. This country is more than 100 times larger in population, as well in complexity and diversity, than it was in 1776. Technology has changed more in the past 200 years than it did in the 10,000 years that preceded the American Revolution. What does “real representation” mean when one representative speaks for 500,000 voters (as they do today) instead of fewer than 5,000 voters (as they did in 1790)? * *Note: the difference is great in terms of voters than in terms of people. Today about 200,000,000 people are eligible to vote out of a total population of 315,000,000; in 1790 about 500,000 people (or fewer) were eligible to vote out of 4,000,000. So we have 400 times as many eligible voters today than we did in 1790.
How many reps does Western Maryland have? Or are they just bitching because the DC area is heavily Democratic? Ask Cleveland or Columbus (highly Democratic) how they like a total Republican Ohio government. Sheesh!
curtisls87 over 10 years ago
Except that the DC representative cannot vote on the floor of the House.
pirate227 over 10 years ago
Zing!
Uncle Joe Premium Member over 10 years ago
Sheesh. You spell out the facts & it goes right over his head.
Doughfoot over 10 years ago
When the First Congress met in 1789-1791, right after the adoption of the Constitution, there were 26 Senators, and 65 Representatives. A single unified government for the whole nation was never considered. It was quite obvious that a nation of 4,000,000 people could never be governed as a single unite, even though fewer than 500,000 of those people were voters. (That figure for total voters is probably too high.) If each member of the House of Representatives represented the same number of people today as they did in 1791, the H. of R. would today have 5,120 members. The largest state in the union in 1791 was Virginia, which was approaching a population of 800,000 people, and was already being considered by some as having too many people to be governed as a single state. If an upper limit in population for a single state had been set at 1,000,000 people, and states be required to divide to keep states to a manageable size, then today we would have at least 315 states, and probably more like 400. The United States Senate would then have 630 to 800 members. If each senator today represented on average the same number they did in 1790, then the Senate would have 1800 members today. The average Senator in 1790 represented fewer people than the average Representative does today. California, all by itself, has a larger population than the United States did in 1870. My point? Size does make a difference. A sufficient difference in degree becomes a difference in kind. This is not the country founded in 1776. This country is more than 100 times larger in population, as well in complexity and diversity, than it was in 1776. Technology has changed more in the past 200 years than it did in the 10,000 years that preceded the American Revolution. What does “real representation” mean when one representative speaks for 500,000 voters (as they do today) instead of fewer than 5,000 voters (as they did in 1790)? * *Note: the difference is great in terms of voters than in terms of people. Today about 200,000,000 people are eligible to vote out of a total population of 315,000,000; in 1790 about 500,000 people (or fewer) were eligible to vote out of 4,000,000. So we have 400 times as many eligible voters today than we did in 1790.
edward thomas Premium Member over 10 years ago
How many reps does Western Maryland have? Or are they just bitching because the DC area is heavily Democratic? Ask Cleveland or Columbus (highly Democratic) how they like a total Republican Ohio government. Sheesh!