Why is the U.S. House of Representatives So Small?
By: Colleen Boyle
Tags: US Politics, House Of Representatives, Congress, Voting

In the next few months, the U.S. Census Bureau will finalize the 2020 Census and the state population totals will be used to reallocate the 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. But why does the House have only 435 members, a number that is historically small, and small in comparison with parliamentary bodies in many other countries?

The U.S. Constitution sets the size of the Senate at two members per state, but leaves the composition of the House up to Congress, within a few parameters. Throughout the United States’ first century the size of the House of Representatives grew as the population grew and new states joined the union. Then, in 1929, the Permanent Apportionment Act capped the House at 435 members, the level established after the 1910 Census. After every decennial census since then, house seats have been reapportioned among states within this cap, even after Alaska and Hawaii joined the union in 1959.

In 1930, the U.S. population was 123 million. Each of the 435 members of the House of Representatives represented an average of 283,224 people. In 2010, the year of the most recent Census used to reapportion house seats, the U.S. population was 309,183,463. Each of the members of the House represented an average of 710,767 people

After the first decennial census in 1790, 105 representatives were apportioned among fifteen states to represent a population of 3.9 million. Each House member represented 37,421 residents. If we had kept that same ratio the United States would have 8,262 Representatives today. Perhaps that would probably far too unwieldy to function well, but there are other current democracies that have smaller populations and larger parliamentary bodies than the United States while still having functioning governments.

In Germany, the 709 members of the Bundestag each represent 117,795 people. The 577 members of the French National Assembly each represent 116,104 people. The United Kingdom’s 650 members of the House of Commons each represent 102,209 people. Members of the unicameral parliaments of Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden each represent fewer than 33,000 people. The U.S. Representative-to-population ratio is almost triple the next closest country, Mexico, which has 253,154 people per representative.

Those eight countries and the additional countries in the following chart each have higher voter turnout than the United States and significantly lower representative-to-population ratios:

Overwhelmingly Americans don’t like Congress. Gallup has conducted a monthly Congressional Job Approval poll since at least 1974. Except for a brief period after September 11, 2001, the percentage of people who say they approve “of the way Congress is handling its job” was rarely above 50 percent. The last time “approve” received more than 40 percent was in February of 2005. Since February 2011, after the 112th Congress was sworn in, the “approve” percentage has stayed below 30 percent, with the brief exception of April and May 2020 after Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.

More troubling is that polls have found that the majority Americans do not know who their Representative is. A poll conducted by Haven Insights in 2017 found that only 37 percent of Americans could name their Representative. Only 56 percent knew their Representative’s party affiliation.

Voter turnout in United States elections varies widely by location, age, education, and race. But as a whole, the U.S. has lower voter turnout than many other democracies. A study by the Pew Research Center found that the United States ranked 26th out of 31 studied countries throughout the world for voter turnout in their most recent national elections, with only 56 percent of its voting age population voting in 2016. Approximately 20 percent of Americans who are eligible to vote aren’t even registered, and one of the top reasons they cite for not registering is that they don’t think their vote will make a difference.

One reason Americans may be so apathetic about elections and our elected representatives is that they are too far removed from their constituents. Reaching large numbers of voters during elections requires resources, which allows money to play an outsized role in elections, and favors incumbents and established parties. Even many Americans who do vote feel that their vote has very little consequence.

Congress not only decides the number of House seats, but also how they are apportioned among the states. This is a deeply political question as it impacts the electoral college as well. Five different apportionment methods have been used since 1790, with the current method adopted in 1941. Although on average each House member represents 710,767 people, because each state must have one Representative regardless of size, there is very large range of district populations. The smallest state by population, Wyoming, has one representative for 568,300 people. Each of Rhode Island’s two House members represent 527,624 people. Montana is the seventh smallest state by population, but it is the least well represented, with only one representative for 994,416 residents, and Delaware’s one representative covers over 900,000 people.

The representativeness of the House depends both on the number of seats and on the method of the apportionment of the seats. However, I assert that more districts with smaller populations would be better for democracy even if the current apportionment method is maintained. Because there are currently too few seats to apportion, differences in apportioned seats between states can be based on small populations differences. As of the 2010 apportionment, Washington’s population was less than 200,000 higher than Massachusetts, but Washington has one more House seat than Massachusetts. South Carolina had fewer than 100,000 more people than Louisiana, but one additional House seat. Having a greater number of House seats and allowing the number of seats to change after each Census could help reduce these distortions.

Imagine an election in which there are several hundred new seats in the House of Representatives for which there are no incumbent candidates. That many new seats in newly drawn districts with smaller populations could open up significant possibilities for new candidates and new parties to emerge. Smaller districts by population would allow greater engagement, hopefully leading to a higher percentage of Americans actually voting.

It could also open the opportunity for more people with different educational backgrounds, life experiences, and skills to run for office, adding much needed diversity of ideas to Congress. More than 70% of current House members come from a legal or business (including small business owners, corporate executives, and those who worked in the finance and banking industries) background. In part, those careers provide opportunities for public name recognition and access to donors in those industries, both of which are necessary to run in districts with hundreds of thousands of potential voters.

The size of the House of Representatives is not set in stone, and would not require amending the Constitution. There are many good reasons to expand the House, and few, if any, reasons why we should be limited to the number of Representatives decided upon a century ago. Increasing the number of Representatives would not automatically result in a better Congress. That would still require organizing. Smaller district sizes would make the types of grassroots organizing that talked directly to voters and sought to bring new voters to the polls more feasible — the types of organizing that brought progressive voices like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley, Jamaal Bowman, and Cori Bush into the House in the 2018 and 2020 elections.

A change in the size of the House would pose a significant challenge to the existing power of incumbents, making it an unlikely prospect for success without a grassroots effort of its own and a fight against entrenched power in Washington. Apportioning new seats would be an additional political fight. But a fight to improve our democracy is a fight worth having.