“Taxation without representation” was a rallying cry for North American colonists in the late 18th century when the colonies’ liberty-minded farmers and townsfolk had had enough of the tax burdens imposed upon them by King George III and the British Parliament and declared their independence from the British Empire. The Revolutionary War slogan protested the levying of taxes by a government that did not allow the colonists to elect their own representatives as members of Parliament.
Today, 250 years later, we are in a similar dilemma. President Orange, his corps of incompetent and corrupt department secretaries and bureau heads, and his sycophants in the House of Representatives are spending our tax money like drunken sailors, much of it for zero benefit of the American people. The current national debt of the federal government is $40 trillion, or about $500,000 per household across the United States. Over the course of the next 25 to 50 years, we will be paying onerous taxes to reduce that debt, much higher taxes than King George III and his Parliament ever tried to impose on our forebears.
Our present wanna-be Orange King and his billionaire cronies will not pay down one single dollar of that debt. Almost all of them, however, will continue to increase it by means of tax breaks, monopolies, ghost corporations, offshore business operations, money laundering, no-bid contracts, crypto fraud, and other morally corrupt tax evasions and financial scams. And our current members of the U.S. House of Representatives, those who are supposed to control the purse strings of the federal government, will do nothing to correct these abominations. Most of them are the hired henchmen of the billionaires who are fleecing us. Over the previous two decades, Congress has fully validated a fundamental premise of the capitalist economic system: The Golden Rule – Those Who Have the Gold Make the Rules.
As President Woodrow Wilson stated in 1913, “If there are men in this country big enough to own the government of the United States, they are going to own it.” The 993 billionaires in the United States, with a combined net worth of about $9 trillion, have amassed so much wealth that they are “big enough” to own the government of the United States. And they do own it.
The proposed “wealth tax” and a more steeply graduated income tax will not solve the issue of wealth inequality. Billionaires and multi-millionaires will find devious ways to circumvent those more equitable tax rates, and their hirelings in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate will continue to pass legislation that legalizes their thievery.
I want to suggest another solution. We need to address a problem that has its roots in a hundred-year-old decision that muted the voice We the People once had in the halls of our federal government. We must regain that voice by changing the way we elect our Congressional representatives. This is not a new or radical idea; this is an idea that goes back to the very founding of our democratic republic.
The number of Congressional representatives at various times during our nation’s history is a curious and convoluted study, complicated by once-acceptable social and political beliefs of white men regarding the voting rights of women and not-white men. Even a cursory summary of the begrudging enlightenment of that entitled class of men is beyond the scope of this essay. But the number of Congress members and the ratio of representatives to the number of constituents they serve has never been more out of whack than it is today.
In 1929, more than 150 years after the first Continental Congress and subsequent United States Congress took the first steps to govern this raucous and diverse nation, the U.S. House of Representatives enacted legislation that limited the number of members of congress we could elect, and thereby protected their seats in the House so that they did not give a tinker’s dam about the will of their constituents. They limited the number of members of the House of Representatives to 435 as part of the Reapportionment/ Permanent Apportionment legislation of 1929. When Alaska and Hawaii became states in 1959, the number was temporarily increased to 437, but it was reduced again in 1962 to 435.
The Reapportionment/ Permanent Apportionment legislation of 1929 was an act of Congress, not a Constitutional Amendment. Another reapportionment that resets the number of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives could again be enacted by Congress. The most obvious window of time would be immediately after the 2030 census.
This reset is long overdue.
The population of the United States in 1930 was 123,202,624. In that year, the nation’s 435 members of Congress represented an average of 283,225 citizens. Yes, I know there were wide disparities in this “average” number of constituents per Congressional District , but I am using this figure for comparative purposes.
The population of the United States in 2026 is 349,360,360. The nation’s 435 members of Congress today serve an average of 803,127 constituents. That number is 3.8 times as many constituents per congress member as in 1929 when the Reapportionment/ Permanent Apportionment legislation was enacted.
If we were to revert to the representation percentage prior to the reapportionment, the number of members of the House of Representatives would be about 1,250, a number that would have each House member representing about 280,000 constituents. I would suggest that we add many more House members, increasing the number to at least 2,000 – about 175,000 constituents per representative.
Doubtless, both Republican and Democratic members of the House would protest this number of Representatives would be unworkable, not least because a new Capitol Building would have to be constructed. As a historic preservationist, I sympathize with this passion for architectural conservation, but as a believer in sustaining America’s democratic republic in the 21st century, I think pragmatism far outweighs sentiment. We need to honor the past by renaming it The Old Capitol Building and constructing The New Capitol Building.
Construction costs? If president orange can spend $600 million to build a ballroom for the entertainment of his billionaire donors, I think Congress can afford to spend at least that much money on elected representation for the other 99.99 percent of Americans who would like to have at least a small chance of having their voices heard.
Impossible to conduct business with a 2,000-member assembly? With current communications technology and information resources, I believe the best answer to this objection would be, oh, let’s see, bullshit. Any member of Congress who cannot master these technologies should not be permitted to make decisions for his constituents, let alone the rest of the nation. On reflection, I observe that at least 30 or 40 members of Congress do not have the mental capacity to master this technology; all they more reason for them to be gone.
No way to provide lodging, transportation, facilities, and accommodations for 2,000 members of Congress? You know what? I think it is appropriate that every member of Congress learn what life is actually like in Washington, D.C. That would sharpen their appreciation for the struggles of working-class people.
The advantages of this increase in Congressional representation are many.
A Representative’s district would have a population average of about 175,000 constituents, of whom about 130,000 to 135,000 would be eligible to register to vote, depending on the age demographic of any given district. Expect only 115,00 to 120,000 to actually cast a ballot in a Congressional election, based on nationwide voting percentages. Looking at these numbers, a district’s voters would need fewer than 60,000 votes to “throw the bum out.” This seems much more doable than the 190,000 votes required to throw out our current Republican Congressman bum who rubber stamps every executive order and legislation proposal issued by President Orange.
Other benefits include the greater difficulty for big donor money to influence elections. Buying candidates and paying for campaigns in 435 Congressional districts is cheap and easy. Buying candidates and paying for campaigns in 2,000 districts will be much more expensive.
Also, it will be wise for legislators to conduct frequent town hall meetings. If they do not, we vote the bums out.
Hopefully, we can combine this increase in representation with other benefits for a more democratic government. Setting term limits. Eliminating party affiliation; independent candidates could win election. Breaking the two-party system that paralyzes political compromise and hinders cooperation. Shortening campaign seasons. Increasing accountability and transparency. And enabling a complete reworking of the Electoral College system that distorts democratic elections.
Jake Johnson, candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in Minnesota’s First District, is an advocate of term limits for elected representatives. After he is elected November 3, I will ask him to submit a proposal to increase to 2,000 the number of members of the House. It is probably futile, but this is not the first time I have tilted at windmills.
Current Congressional districts are outdated. If you believe, as I do, that your voice as one of 556,154 up to 1,000,810 constituents is never heard and the number of constituents in each Congressional district is ridiculous, forward this post to your U.S. Congress member. Maybe they will read it and agree.
We need a more representative democracy with proportional representation (if a party gets 30% of the vote, it gets 30% of the seats). It would end gerrymandering and elect more diverse representatives!