Talk:Congressional Apportionment Amendment
 | This article contains a translation of Congressional Apportionment Amendment from en.wikipedia. |
Extrapolate to modern America[change source]
I suggest taking the Amendment, as it would be interpreted today, in so far as to show it as meaningless. With 435 members in the house today, and approximately 1,000,000 people per district, the Amendment is satisfied but fails to be relevant when we have jumped from 50,000 to 1,000,000 and only approximately doubled the size of the body. It would however be interesting to discuss what a the ideal body size for a 325,000,000 population when a 200-person body would have represented about 10,000,000. Clearly, 50,000 per seat would mean about 6,500 seats in Congress, which could be unwieldy. On the other hand, 100,000 per member is 3,250 and 250,000 per member is 1,300, which may be a better way of dividing the country since under that system even the smallest states of Wyoming and Vermont get multiple representatives, at least 2 each. And D.C. would also get a couple for each Presidential Election.