The Forgotten Fight Over Representation

When we talk about the “Founding Fathers,” we often imagine a group of men who emerged from Philadelphia with a tidy, unanimous vision. In truth, they argued bitterly over one of the most fundamental questions in a democracy: how many representatives should the people actually have?

US Capitol

Some delegates favored tying representation to a fixed ratio—say, one representative for every 30,000 or 150,000 citizens. Others argued for a fixed cap, fearing a ballooning House of Representatives that would be too unwieldy to function. James Madison warned that if the chamber grew too slowly, ordinary citizens would lose their voice. George Washington, in one of the rare moments he spoke at the Constitutional Convention, insisted that the ratio of representation be made more generous so that the people’s House would truly be the people’s House.

What did they ultimately do? They punted. The Constitution requires a decennial census and provides for reapportionment, but it left the exact size of the House to Congress. For more than a century, the number grew alongside the population. Then, in 1929, Congress froze the House at 435 members—an arbitrary number meant to preserve tradition and convenience. Today, each representative speaks for roughly 760,000 Americans, a figure wildly beyond what the framers could have imagined.

The result is a crisis of representation. Vastly larger districts mean ordinary citizens have little realistic access to their members of Congress. Communities are carved up to fit census math rather than civic coherence. And the institution drifts further from its original promise as the “people’s House.”

Philosophers have long warned of this danger. Rousseau argued that a government too far removed from its people ceases to be legitimate. John Stuart Mill insisted that democracy depends on citizens seeing themselves in their representatives. And Alexis de Tocqueville, observing America in its infancy, marveled that town-hall democracy worked only because people felt their voice truly mattered. When representation becomes too stretched, mistrust and alienation grow. Revolt is not always violent—but it manifests in apathy, cynicism, and a readiness to believe that government is rigged or irrelevant.

We are living with the consequences of that choice in 1929. Imagine if every 150,000 Americans had a representative today. The House would be large—more than 2,000 members—but it would be truer to its original vision. Technology could manage the logistics. More important, citizens would feel once again that their vote and their voice counted in Washington.

The framers argued over this question because they knew it was the heart of self-government. Nearly 250 years later, we are overdue to argue it again.

Mary Huttlinger McCollum has spent more than 35 years working at the intersection of policy and politics, shaping initiatives at the local, state, and federal levels. With experience on both the policy and campaign sides, she brings a deep understanding of how change is made and sustained. Rooted in a family tradition of justice warriors, Mary carries forward a legacy of advocacy, equity, and public service.