America’s Rotten Boroughs
The rotten boroughs also known as pocket boroughs in Britain were eliminated by the Reform Act of 1832.
What was a rotten borough? It was a parliamentary constituency in largely rural areas that had the right to elect Members of Parliament (MPs) even though the borough no longer had very many residents.
Many of those boroughs had been market towns that had a royal charter going back to the Middle Ages. As populations shifted, parliament did not adjust the number of MPs from these areas to the growing cities. Manchester, whose population exploded with the Industrial Revolution, had no MPs assigned to the city. Another example was the constituency of Old Sarum with 7 voters that had 2 MPs. London, with a population of 1,875,000, had 4 MPs.
The U.S. Senate Has The Same Problem
Our Senate system of two senators per state has a similar proportionality problem. The four most populous states are California with 40 million residents, followed by Texas with 30 million, Florida with 22 million, and New York with 19 million. The four least populated states are Wyoming with 580,000 people, Vermont with 625,000, Alaska 730,000, and North Dakota with 765,000. Each of America’s eighteen largest cities has a greater population than the least populated states combined.
This un-proportional representation would be considered unconstitutional by the courts if it were not enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
At one time, state senates had the same number of seats allocated regardless of population creating our own rotten borough problem. This mirrors the U.S. Senate. In Reynolds v. Sims in 1964, the Supreme Court ruled that those seats must be allocated according to population. That same year in Wesberry v. Sanders, the Court ruled that congressional districts must have roughly the same number of residents except for the constitutional provision of at least one House member per state.
It is now time to amend the Constitution to have the Senate reflect those same principles. It is grossly unfair for citizens in Wyoming to have two Senators for 580,000 people and citizens in California to have two for 40 million residents. Wyoming has nearly 70 times greater representation per individual.
The Origins Of The Problem
Originally, the Senate did not represent people but rather the states. Senators were chosen by state legislatures. The Senate was to be the check on the House’s popularly elected representatives and the executive. That is precisely why the Senate was responsible for the “advise and consent” role and the tryer of impeachments. For the most part, politics were to be kept out of the business of governance.
Once the Constitution was amended to allow for the direct election of Senators in the early 20th century, the Framers intent had been changed. What happened in the ensuing century was the political cheapening of a once great institution. I am not advocating for a return to the Framer’s vision. We have strayed too far from the idea of states choosing federal representatives.
Solutions
Introduction of proportional representation to the Senate in a limited form is necessary. I would suggest that each state have a minimum of one senator which mirrors the least populous states having a minimum of one congressional delegate. That would still allow each state to have a representative in each legislative house. While not the ideal of “one person one vote,” it mitigates some of the gross inequities that currently exist.
We should increase the number of Senators to 150. We are a country of over 330 million people. The Senate hasn’t increased in number since Hawaii became a state more than 60 years ago. The U.S. had a population of 180 million people in 1960. The nation’s population has almost doubled in that time, so I am suggesting increasing the number of senators by 50%.
The House’s current membership number of 435 was last set in the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 based on the 1910 census of 92,225,000 American residents. The U.S. population has increased more than 350% in those ensuing 110 years. I suggest increasing the number of House members to 600.
There are 650 British MPs. That is one per every 92,000 residents in the UK. If our House of Representatives grew to 600 members, it still would be only one per 550,000 residents…much less than in 1910 when there were 212,000 residents per House representative.
Our nation’s governing institutions have become antiquated. Too many residents feel the system is rigged. In some respects, those perceptions arise not because of any nefarious dealings but rather ineptitude. The Framers gave us the ability to change constitutional provisions if enough of us thought it was necessary. We have not done so very often. It may be time that we do and put an end to our own rotten boroughs.
