Every ten years the population of the country, as determined by the census, is divided by 435 representatives and each state gets their apportionment of those representatives based on the state's population. The states divide their populations into districts determined by how many representatives they get in a process called redistricting.

Usually, state legislatures, or commissions chosen by them, decide how their states are divided into districts of equal populations. The deliberate manipulation of district boundaries, called gerrymandering, for partisan advantage, is a common practice in the process. District boundaries are often challenged in court because they are that important. They can provide predictable election results and "safe seats" for incumbents.

Gerrymandering is a process of creating congressional districts of, by, and for, party loyalty.

This contentious political process has a history of partisan manipulation in the congress and throughout the states. The entire process, nationally and locally, serves political incumbency and special interest groups, not democracy. Political representation for the public is incidental to the process and therefore the process should be ended. This would be the first step in reclaiming the House of representatives for the public.

The Reapportionment Act of 1929 did away with any mention of districts at all and allows for representatives to be elected 'at large' statewide. This is exactly what should happen in all states. The political process of redistricting, with its partisan motivations, should be retired or, at the least, be supplemented with congressional delegations voted for 'at-large' and designated non-partisan.

Once approved, the electorate would be able to vote for statewide congressional delegations without the partisan constraints of gerrymandered districts, resulting in representation that more accurately reflects the state's population instead of protecting its incumbents.

Step two on the path to "representative government" would be more representatives. The Constitution allows for up-to one representative for every fifty-thousand citizens. That's what we should have. We currently have only one representative for every 750,000 citizens. The more representatives we have the more influence they will have on our national policy.

The number of representatives relative to the population has been constrained for over one hundred years so an update to house membership is long overdue.

As of the 2010 Census, the number of representatives could legally increase from 435 to 6560. That's fifteen representatives for every one that we have now.

Technology has overcome geography to the point that representatives should vote from their home states. This would allow for constituents to actually meet with their representatives and discuss local concerns.

The top priority for tax dollars should be to invest in technology that provides the public with an adequate infrastructure to facilitate a better democracy.

There is no public interest reason to have representatives congregating in the nation's capital any longer. representatives should be serving their own constituencies not Washington DC lobbyists.

Removing the corrupting influence of money from representatives brings us to Step Three; Income Based Representation. Along with congressional delegations elected 'at large' with increased membership, a new Apportionment Act can legislate additional representatives be apportioned by tax brackets. Instead of additional representatives being chosen from and assigned to geographical districts they could be chosen from tax brackets, statewide.

There are currently six federal income tax brackets. If you determine how many people from a state are in each tax bracket you could then apportion representatives to, and from, those tax brackets. This way citizens could be represented by a representative from their own tax bracket. This is a much more representative method of representation compared to the current system of the increasingly wealthy representing the increasingly poor.

For instance, with increased house membership and 'at large' elections, Texas could have up to approximately 500 reps for its population of 25 million people. If the population was divided evenly amongst the six tax brackets, that would be approximately 84 representatives chosen from each tax bracket. If the population increases or decreases in a specific tax bracket, that tax bracket will receive more or less representation accordingly.

Representation based on income would result in a more representative government. The law would reflect the priority of the people like never before.

Tax bracket apportionment is like the current system but the difference is that the population will be represented according to their incomes, statewide, rather than just the congressional districts that they live in. So rather than population and geography, representatives will be apportioned by population and income, statewide.

"Income-based Representation is required for Representative Government." - Public Voter

Instead of apportioning representatives by the Method of Equal Proportions, 'Tax Bracket Apportionment' could apportion representatives to achieve a system where the percentage of the population per tax bracket is equivalent to the percentage of representative seats per tax bracket.

Tax Bracket Apportionment is much less confusing and much more fair than the current system of apportionment based on the Method of Equal Proportions, which apportions representatives by redistricting.

For every fault a critic will find with income-based representation there are solutions readily available. There are far less faults with it than there is in the current practice of redistricting.

Resistance to income-based representation is to be expected because of the advantages those with influential opinions enjoy from the current system. Many prominent voices, across the political spectrum, will resist the change because they profit from the national demise. Many will be paid shills. Many will say "it's impossible". Most will say "I don't care".

There will be all sorts of challenges raised by those who perceive they enjoy an advantage due to the inequality inherent in the current law.

Passing the necessary legislation would be easier than amending the constitution. A new apportionment act that includes increased membership, statewide congressional delegations, and income-based representation, are all constitutional, which keeps the votes required for passage to a simple majority, senate filibusters aside.

Any one of these three steps alone would be helpful in achieving representative government. Together, these three revisions to existing law would ensure appropriate electoral finance regulations could be passed, along with other legislation beneficial to the democratic process such as utilizing updated technologies to ensure fair elections. Once "representative government" is achieved, the public and the nation can unite in common purpose, as written in the preamble of the constitution;

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."