We must restore the people’s voice in the U.S. House of Representatives! #
The power of your voice in Congress has fallen to just 4 percent of what the Founding Fathers intended!
In 1793, each representative in Congress represented the voice of roughly 35,000 people. But now, in 2026, each member “represents” nearly 750,000 people. That means, today each representative is expected to respect, present, and advocate on behalf of nearly 20 times the number of people than what the U.S. Constitution requires.
The power of our voice in Congress has shrunk to 33% of what it was in 1933, and 67% of what it was in 1983! It's no wonder that we don't feel heard!
So what should we do about it? #
Well, the framers had an answer to this. Article I, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to reapportion the seats from time to time. In fact, it requires that the number of representatives shall not exceed one for every 30,000 people. This clause has been violated by Congress on every reapportionment of the House of Representatives since 1793. We the people must demand that Article I, Clause 3 be enforced and that the people’s voice be restored in Congress.
We must demand a tenfold increase in the number of representatives in the House of Representatives. This would increase the number of House members from 538 to 5,380, and despite this monumental increase in the number of representatives, it would still only be half of what is required by the Constitution.
We absolutely, 100% can and should make our system work with 5,380 representatives in Congress. More representation of the people in the halls of power is a good thing, across the board, regardless of what party you are from. We deserve to have our voices heard as the framer’s intended. Join me in my calls for a drastic reapportionment of the U.S. House of Representatives.
By breaking up the House of Representatives, we would be fighting back against partisan gerrymandering. We would need 10 times the number of districts, making it 10 times harder to Gerrymander votes on either side of the political spectrum.
We must reform the U.S. Senate too! #
The framers of the Constitution originally intended for members of the House of Representatives to be popularly elected to represent the voice of the people, and for the members of the Senate to be appointed by the States to be representatives of their respective State governments. In that sense a representative from Pennsylvania may only represent, for example, the people in and around Pittsburgh, whereas a Senator would represent the state government of Pennsylvania itself.
But over time, the people didn’t like this system. Our ancestors saw it as corruptible, and so many of the states started electing U.S. Senators by popular election. Eventually the 17th Amendment was ratified by Congress to make the popular election of senators permanent. While this was quite nice in terms of making the process of electing senators to office easier on everyone, it also essentially created a second “populist” chamber of Congress – meaning senators are “popularly elected” and thus represent the people, and not the states, they come from.
The reason the framers of the Constitution made senators appointed by the states, rather than elected by the people, was to create a system of stability that countered populist interest in government. The idea was that the 6-year appointment from the state governments would help bring “reason” to political discourse and debate in government.
There are currently just 100 senators, and they are all popularly elected. This is a major problem.
The Senate was created to be a stabilizing force against a purely populist government, but it has transformed slowly over the years into a weapon of populist rule. If we want to return stability to Congress, we can’t just return to the old ways. We need an entirely new, completely different set of rules.
This is what I think we should do: #
First, we redefine the term length, and term limits for all U.S. Senators. We change the rules so that senators are elected to serve just a single 10-year term. Once elected, they serve their 10 years, and then they cannot be reelected to the same office.
Second, we increase the number of senators from 100 to 500. Instead of 2 senators per state, we elect 10 for each.
Third, from now on, and for every two years, each state holds, a popular election to elect two new senators to represent their state’s interest in the U.S. Senate.
My plan will introduce 100 new senators to Congress every two years over the next 10 years.
- The more senators we have, the less power each one has.
- A single 10-year term increases stability in government.
- A term limit of a single term means no more career politics.
Ending “Corporate Personhood” with a constitutional amendment #
I am a follower of the middle way. We, as people often argue over two polar extremes of worlds we already know really well. It takes some bravery to take a moment, sit down, and think critically about the situation. I am a firm believer in the rights of people and I am a firm believer in the rights of business entities to conduct business. Both are true.
What also is true is that a “corporation” is pretty poorly defined in law at the constitutional level. We have securities laws which sets the rules around trading in stocks and bonds, and we have a hodge-podge of state laws that define what companies do and how they act. This has led to some pretty wonky things. Since a corporation can own property, and since 18 USC 2331.3 states that any entity that can own property is a “person,” then that must infer that a corporation is a person, right? But a person can also go to prison. Can a corporation go to prison? Can a corporation be convicted of terrorism?
If you wanted to design a legal entity that gained all the rights of a person, with none of the accountability, you could do little better than that of the "corporation."
We need to define the “corporation” #
I will work to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United an make it clear what the rights of a “corporation” are, and how they as a legal entity differ from the rights of a “person.” Corporations are not people and should no longer be legally defined as “people” or “persons” for any reason. Instead, we will create a class of legal entities for various types of businesses that fall under the ontology of a “corporation,” and thus inherit the rights, privileges, and liabilities under that definition.
I will work to define a corporate death penalty, with criminal accountability for every corporation’s Board of Directors and largest “principal” shareholders. So that, in the future, when corporations decide to run the “calculus” of Immoral Profit - Moral Hazards > Legal Exposure + Civil Penalties they can add “Years in Prison” to the right side of that equation.