Holy shit, y'all:
- After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.
That WAS the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. It was one vote shy in 1791. It's still in play.
- As Congress did not set a time limit for its ratification, the Congressional Apportionment Amendment is still pending before the states.
The House of Representatives becomes a very different place with 6500 members. So does the electoral college. Wait say what?
- Had the amendment been ratified, the number of members of the House of Representatives could by now be over 6,000, compared to the present 435. As apportioned by the latest Census, each member of the House currently represents about 650,000 people.
- Which leaves one final proposed-but-not-yet-ratified amendment among those original 12. That proposal–known as either the “Congressional Apportionment Amendment” or “Article the First,” because it was the first one proposed–would have benchmarked House representation to 30,000 citizens per House district. Had that amendment been ratified then, or at some subsequent moment, and left in effect until today, in a country presently with 300 million people we would thus be talking about the first Congress following the 2010 Census having 10,000 House members. To just 100 senators. Yikes! Almost every state would have more members in its House delegation than either its state senate or state assembly house. (Best I can tell, only California and Texas presently have U.S. House delegations bigger than–and thus House constituencies smaller than–their respective state senates, which is amazing enough. I mean, a state senator with more constituents than a congresswoman? Weird, eh?)
The UK, one of the Western Hemisphere's other paleodemocracies, has 650 members of parliament... for 67 million people. The US has 435... for 328 million. On average, each MP represents 110,000 people. On average, each House member represents... 670,000.
Consider this an entreaty to read, at least, this summary of a stupid long Epsilon Theory argument.
Sure, BITFD. But then what. Then nullify Duverger's Law.