Citizens are expected to know facts about American history and American government. And that is good. Knowing stuff is better than not knowing. But is knowing facts enough?

One fact we are expected to know is the number of members in the House of Representatives: 435.

Does knowing the number 435 make someone a better citizen? Arguably, yes. Since 435 is an unusual number, hardly anybody would guess it out of thin air. Anyone who knows the right answer has probably made an effort to learn and remember facts about America. That is a citizen’s virtue.

But there’s a deeper significance to 435 that doesn’t emerge from just memorizing the number. An engaged citizen ought to ponder: Is 435 a good number for legislative work? Is it what the founders intended? Does 435 members facilitate a close connection between representatives and the constituents they serve?

The answer is “No” to all three questions.

The job of legislators is to engage in the legislative process. That means discussing issues; refining public goals into government policies; considering the financial, economic and social impacts the proposal might have on the country; putting those policies into formal laws and resolutions; and presenting those laws to the wider world.

Legislative work is a sort of committee work, and anyone who has ever worked on a committee will say that 435 is too many. According to the US Department of Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service:

The “best size” for a committee or working group is the size that enables the group to get its work done effectively and efficiently. Thus, the best number of people for one project might be five, while the best size for another group might be 12. As a general rule, groups that have more than 18 to 22 people or less than five become more challenging to manage.

Extensive research had been done into group dynamics with varying numbers of participants. When groups are too large, everybody talks at once or one pushy person takes over. When groups are too small, the work doesn’t get done. Researchers who study executive committees consistently find the best size is four or five. An odd number is better because it prevents a tie vote. So, five. Larger or smaller groups can better in certain cases, depending on whether the committee’s priority is getting work done or gathering diverse viewpoints. Committees that are deliberative or representative can be larger than the four or five that works best for executive committees. But a committee of 435 members is an absurdity.

The founders never intended there to be 435 members in the House of Representatives. The first Congress had 13 states, 26 Senators and 59-65 members in the House. The Constitution provided for a growing population and a growing Congress. But the founders did not look far into the future. In Federalist #55, the writer (Madison or Hamilton) envisions as many as 200 members. He says, “[T]he number ought at most to be kept within a certain limit, in order to avoid the confusion and intemperance of a multitude.” He doesn’t say what that maximum “certain limit” ought to be. But it was probably far less than the number that exists today.

The House of Representatives copes with “the confusion and intemperance of a multitude” by limiting members’ powers. Debate is strictly regulated. Members who want to stand up and give a speech are often limited to one minute. That is less time that ordinary citizens are allowed when they address their local school board or city council. House members get around this limitation by scheduling speeches at times when the House is not in session. They can talk at length to the empty chamber.

Legislative work is divided among committees and sub-committees. The committee system increases the amount of work the House can get done. And it distinguishes members by making them the chairman or chairwoman of something. But the committee system separates most members from the legislative process for most issues.

There are 20 permanent committees in the House of Representatives. In addition, there are seven “Select” committees that are ongoing and long-term, but not permanent. Each committee has sub-committees. Members usually seek committee assignments that are relevant to their constituents. Members from farming states ask to be on the Agriculture Committee. But the House Agriculture Committee is divided among six sub-committees, and each member sits on only two of them. When important Agriculture matters such as soil conservation or food nutrition come up, most members of the Agriculture Committee are tied up in other sub-committees in other meeting rooms talking about biotechnology or international trade of farm products.

You may ask, “Isn’t there some way for a member who isn’t on a subcommittee to influence legislation?” And, yes, there are. Any member can write a bill, as can any citizen, any corporate, any special interest, or any foreign government. Thousands of bills are proposed in each Congress. Most of them are never voted on. Proposal are referred to committees and the sub-committees, where they can be amended into something different or simply ignored. At the end of the process, every member gets to vote on the bill. But voting on the final bill isn’t the same as voting for what your constituents want. Members can only vote for the bill that is on the table. Sometimes, a member can propose changes to bills after they come out of committee, but often not.

In addition, the committees are not all equal. The Ways and Means, Rules, and Appropriations committees are powerful. Other committees (e.g., the Committee on the District of Columbia or the House Ethics Committee) can be important from time to time, but are backwater assignments most of the time.

And finally, the committee system is controlled by party loyalty and by very powerful chairmen and women. Ordinary members are expected to vote as their party leaders tell them. Meanwhile, the sub-committee chair, or the committee chair, or the Rules Committee chair, or the Speaker of the House, can kill any bill they don’t like by leaving it on the table. There is a process called a “discharge petition” that enables a member to try to force chairs to move their proposal forward. It almost never happens.

Today’s House of Representatives is a far cry from the republican ideal of the founders. It does not provide Americans with the kind of representation the founders intended. Each representative in the House is limited by the committee system and by partisanship and seniority and their calendar and a dozen other considerations. There are just too many people in the House.