We are in trouble.  The foundation of our republic is eroding and it is systemic, not personal.  We could have the most talented and sincere individuals in the world serving in Congress and the system would overwhelm their good intentions.  When good people cannot solve the systemic problem, it's time to change the system.  Or in our case, change the system back to its original design.

I invite everyone to read Catherine Drinker Bowen's book "Miracle at Philadelphia."  I have felt a deep sense of helplessness and foreboding about the federal government for many years.  I found in this book, a better understanding of the underlying cause of our problem.  And you will know it as well if you look in the Constitution at Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3, third sentence.  This is where the founding fathers stipulated the Congressional ratio of representation.  Drinker Bowen reconstructs the debate over this number and shows the prescience of George Washington in his argument for a smaller number to ensure the citizens' attachment to their government.  His argument was that a smaller ratio would decrease the degrees of separation between a member of the House and his constituents.  Closer connections would encourage participation in the electoral process and bestow legitimacy on the new regime.

In 1911, Congress voted to officially ignore the Constitution and cap the number of representatives at 435.  As the population has continued to increase, the degrees of separation has increased to the point where the vast majority of a member's constituents know her only through the TV commercials purchased with special interest money.  If we change back to the ratio stipulated by George Washington and the founding fathers, we would have about the same number of people wandering the halls of Congress and about the same budget.  The big difference is that they would all be elected instead of appointed.

Right now, a Congressman is basically a fundraiser figurehead who goes around promising special interests and his big money constituents favorable votes in exchange for campaign contributions.  All the legislative work gets done by staff.  The leadership and committee staff talk to the congressman's staff and work out the deals that will allow the Congressman to deliver on his money-raising promises while maintaining the party agenda.  These staff members are a heady bunch, making policy decisions that impact our lives with no direct accountability.  The Congressman has to spend all her time fundraising because Congressional campaigns are topping $5M.  That means a Congressman has to raise $7,000 every single day of their career.  In other words, from 7AM to 7PM, the Congressman has to ring in another $575 every hour of every day they are in office to position themselves to win the next election.  And the scary part is that 95% of them are successful at it.  The incumbency rate in the House is staggering. 

The founding fathers had the right idea.  With a ratio of representation of one congressman for every thirty thousand citizens, the will of the people would be expressed or an unhappy challenger would spend a few months going door to door to earn enough votes to kick the incumbent out of office.  With one congressman for every six hundred thousand people, the potential challenger has to go to the same money men who are paying the incumbent for his votes.  Why would these guys back a new horse when the safe bet is to stick with the guy already in office?  The only time the answer to that question is back the challenger is when the incumbent gets out of line and starts voting her conscience.  The system is broken but we have a chance to right the ship if enough people realize where we went wrong (in 1911) and reinstate the checks against the aristocracy that Washington and Madison wrote into our founding contract.