In the first article of this series, we identified the five major evils which are corroding America. In the second article, through political theory of Law, Torah was upheld as the American solution. Now, in this third article, the first specific platforms to the restoration of the Republic are offered.

House of Representatives

We begin with Government.

The most egregious Law is one that subverts or destroys the Right Liberty of Majority Rule. When this occurs, the Community is under a Dictatorship of Minority Rule. Whoever does not believe this is a fool or a dictator.

Constitutionally, the House of Representatives is the originator for all federal funding (AI.S7.P1). Since funding is necessary for government to function, these Representatives hold ultimate power. These Representatives are chosen through vote of Constituency, being then agents of the Majority. Technically, then, the federal government is controlled through the Will of Constituency Majority.

However, when Representatives act against the Will of Constituency Majority, it is treason. First, it is treason against Democracy because the Will of the Majority is overthrown. Second, it is treason against the Republic for destroying the credibility of agencies. Even so, it is not Constitutional Treason (AIII.S3.P1), and it is not prohibited.

Why do Representatives betray Constituency Majority? "Because they can" is the overall truth, but there are nevertheless more specific reasons.

Money is the most obvious cause of corruption, through gifts or promises. These include (1) direct bribery, (2) campaign contributions, and (3) cushy job after leaving office. A more insidious economic corruption occurs when Representatives "bring home the bacon." Here, the vote is purchased by promising tax dollars for the Representative's District ("pork"). These are all measures of Special Interest overthrowing Constituency Majority.

Blackmail is another tool used to sway. Representatives may become pawns through extortion. Even if Representatives are properly vetted, new audio or video may suddenly surface. When Representatives have secrets they want shut up, Constituency Majority is sacrificed.

Power, however, is the most common cause of corruption.

The first corruption of power is the desire for peer approval. If a new Representative is offered a Caucus or Committee slot, moral fiber may weaken. Then, Majority Constituency is overthrown for the chance to "be involved" or to "feel worthy." In other words, the Representative would rather be liked than to serve properly.

The second corruption of power, more dangerous, is through one's own megalomania. While the will can overcome the desire for peer approval, it cannot overcome megalomania. Megalomania means a Representative votes "conscience" rather than Constituency Majority. Megalomania causes a Representative to treat his or her constituents as children. The megalomaniac believes it is "for their own good" and that "I know better!" The megalomaniac is an Elitist.

Some might argue that when it comes to civil rights, the Elitist is "brave" in the face of fools. This argument ignores the Democracy of Majority Rule, and defends the dictator. For who but a dictator would despise Majority Rule? Who but a dictator would say "I know better"?

If Representatives become corrupt "because they can," is there a solution or cure? Yes! We need more Representatives.

Because there are only 435 Representatives, corruption is easy. A certain amount of money promised and some votes are swayed. A certain amount of blackmail and a few more votes are influenced. A certain amount of power exerted or overextended, and corruption is complete. And rather than having a Republic by, of, and for the People, we have a Minority Oligarchy.

But if there were, say, 10,000 Representatives, this level of corruption would not be possible. For there isn't enough money, time, or manpower to corrupt that many Representatives!

Supposing this idea to have 10,000 Representatives agreeable, is it possible to implement? Yes!

The number of Representatives is limited only by the Constitution. "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand" (AI.S2.P3). According to the 2010 Census, the population of the United States is 308,745,538. Thus, the maximum number of U.S. Representatives permitted today is 10,291.

If we are permitted 10,291 Representatives, why then do we have only 435? Because Congress has frozen that number since 1913! In fact, Congress made this rule into law in 1929! But any Congress can simply repeal that law. For "legislative entrenchment" is prohibited. In other words, nothing is stopping us from having up to 10,291 Representatives.

At 435, representation is at a ratio of 1 Representative for every 710,000 people! Most people agree this ratio is much too high, and that representation should be sharper. At 10,291, we have almost exactly 1 Representative for every 30,000 persons, very sharp.

How should 10,291 Representatives be apportioned among the States? Constitutionally, the 14th Amendment apportions Representatives according to State population. At a ratio of 1 per 30,000, California, the most populous State, would have 1241 Representatives. Wyoming, the least populous State, would have 18 Representatives.

So how shall we manage apportionment within the State? Once Representatives are apportioned, States control their own Districting. Up to the present day, a State has divided its Representatives among arbitrary Districts. These arbitrary Districts now maintain an equality of 1 Representative for every 710,000 people. But, like 435 Representatives, these arbitrary Districts have no meaning for the People. For the geographical boundaries of Districts are set to maximize controlling Party rule. That is, Districting (and Redistricting) is currently by corrupt gerrymandering.

But if not by District, what type of intrastate apportionment makes sense for the People? One idea that I have conceived, and propose, is apportionment by County.

There are 3143 counties in America, and I believe each of these deserves to be represented! And there are several good reasons why every County should have at least one Representative.

First, each County has its own geographical boundaries. Unlike Districts, Counties are not going to redraw their lines. The tumult of controversial gerrymandering therefore disappears.

Second, each County has its own Government. It therefore makes sense that a Representative represents a County. In case of corruption, the County, or the People of it, can easily recall such a Representative. Currently, Districts often comprise many Counties and/or peoples, who fight bitterly over Recall.

Third, each County has its own character. People choose to live in a particular County for its school system, tax rate, parks, roads, and so on. Therefore, a County is a genuine reflection of Majority Constituency, of real lives and lifestyles. By contrast, very few people choose to live in a specific Congressional District.

Fourth, representation by County is not against the Constitution. Any method of Districting is up to each State.

Representation by County rather than by District serves three purposes.

First, when rural Counties have their own Representatives, the farmers again have a voice. When farmers band together in Congress, the agrarian needs of a nation are known and met. Is there a Republican or Democrat who believes we need to ignore rather than hear the farmer? Only one who represents Special Interest, is blackmailed, or seeks great power would object.

Second, states like Montana and Vermont would no longer have only one Representative. Does not such concentration of power attract absolute corruption?

Third, the Electoral College would reflect a truer national Constituency. Under the County plan, electors would number not 535, but 10,391 (12th Amendment). By such arrangement, a State might vote for President based on County majority vote! Rather than current mob rule, this would represent the vote of a true Republic. And ("coincidentally") most States would probably vote Conservative.

As a bonus, County representation means more political candidates can compete. Currently, candidates must campaign over vast expanses to make their cases. Huge amounts of money are necessary for advertising and promotion. Only the rich and those with heavy backing are therefore viable. Under the County plan, the candidate covers a smaller area. Everyone benefits.

How would this work in real life? How would the 1241 apportioned California Representatives be divided among its 58 Counties? Certainly, each California County, irrespective of population, can get at least one Representative. Even little Alpine County, at 1175 people, can be apportioned one U.S. Representative. How would the remaining 1183 California Representatives be divided?

Perhaps a County gets one more Representative for every 30,000 people over 30,000. Under this system, Los Angeles County would get 326 federal Representatives. It would be up to Los Angeles County how to apportion those 326.

There are two negatives with this plan.

First, even with 10,291 Representatives, there would be a few Counties left out. The solution for such States might be a Districting which "bundles" Counties.

Alaska would get 23 Representatives, but has 25 Boroughs (Counties). The two smallest Boroughs in Alaska are under 1000 people, bundling simple enough.

Wyoming would get 18 Representatives, but has 23 Counties. With only 2 Counties over 60,000 people, bundling should be very possible.

Nebraska would get 60 Representatives, but has 93 Counties. With only 3 Counties over 60,000 people, bundling should be very possible.

Montana would get 32 Representatives, but has 56 Counties. With only 6 Counties over 60,000 people, bundling is trickier but possible.

Kansas would get 95 Representatives, but has 105 Counties. Though 22 Counties in Kansas are over 60,000 people, the 10 smallest are less than 2600.

South Dakota would get 27 Representatives, but has 66 Counties. North Dakota would get 22 Representatives, but has 53 Counties. This means less than half the Counties in both Dakotas would have a unique Representative. These two States would therefore involve the most difficult Districting.

Still, compared to current Districting, this is of smaller impact and better representation.

The second negative, more worrisome, is unequal representation, and unfair advantage thereof. Why should Loving County, TX (pop. 82) get the same vote as Granville County, NC (59,916)? Why should Genesee County, NY (60,079) get the same vote as Sevier County, TN (89,889)?

To even the score on unequal populations, one might propose "weighted" Representative votes. But such calculations are very complicated, causing the County plan to appear unwieldy. If we eliminate the weighting, however, the County plan is still infinitely fair. The County plan bestows equal rights far better than diluting the vote as it is now.

With this County plan of representation, corruption is diluted by sheer magnitude of numbers. With this County plan of representation, the character of the voting bloc is truly reflected. With this County plan of representation, the farmer and other agrarians are not ignored. With this County plan of representation, candidates know their constituency and vice versa. No system is ideal, but we should not stick to a lesser system as we have now for its familiarity.

In the next article, we shall examine how to fix the Senate.



Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.