Sunlight falls on the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Dec. 23. (Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post)

I agree with Danielle Allen’s May 4 op-ed, “Can the Capitol hold a much bigger House? Yes, here’s how it would look.” There are too few members of the House, each now representing an estimated 700,000 people and growing. Smaller districts would mean more time for a closer, more accessible relationship with constituents. All members want to be judged by an informed public, and they would be better able to respond to constituents’ needs.

A member of the House was expected to represent 30,000 or so people in 1789. How can a member be expected to somehow legislate effectively for 700,000 residents, more than 20 times what was originally contemplated? Technological advances notwithstanding — email, social media, always the cellphone — people want to better communicate their concerns to their representatives, which can’t be done if the district population is so large, with so many constituents wanting someone in Washington to listen to their concerns.

Such a change would benefit everyone: the people, the member and our long-standing representative democracy. Though there will be costs incurred to accommodate more members, and committee structures will change for this equitable and fair system for apportioning new members among the states, it would be a small price for ensuring a lasting, effective, efficiently operating governing body in one of the greatest democracies in the world.

Samuel Isaiah Williams, Bowie

Loading...