Total Votes (by human voters) / Seats = EQUAL votes needed for each seat winner = REAL Democracy

– NOT the EVIL minority rule gerrymander stuff in the U.S.A. and State gerrymander regimes — that has produced the near bankruptcy of Western Civilization and set the stage for super-Civil WAR II between ghetto older cities versus outer suburbs and rural areas.

Uniform definiton of Elector in ALL of the U.S.A.

Total Votes / Total Seats = EQUAL votes needed for each seat winner — in ALL legislative bodies.

Really high tech math.
——–
Count the election related Amdts –

12
14
15
17
19
20
22
23
24
26
27

A mere 11 of 17 after the original 10 — 27 delayed a bit from 1789 to 1992 — or 10 of 16 = 62.5 percent.

Each amendment was supposed to be an added ARTICLE — see the 1789 preamble proposing the original additional 12 — i.e. one more perversion of the regime since 1791.

Is that your thesis?

Are you suggesting that after the 1990 census there was an interstate conspiracy to increase the number of CD’s in which there would be an African-American majority?

I’d rather not reach my own conclusion. Help me.

And it might not really change things very much. If Montana had two representatives, then each district would represent much fewer people than the one district in South Dakota. The lawsuit argued that 1761 was reasonable because that is where the variation between the largest and smallest district would be less than 10%.

But that is somewhat anomalous due to a curious distribution of small state populations. If the same rule were applied now, it might require 2700 representatives to reach the same equity. That is probably why the lawsuit didn’t actually suggest a remedy, because they realized how flawed setting the House to an arbitrary number of 1761 or a 10% rule.

It’s “practical” effect would be to reduce the maximum constitutional size of the House from around 10,000 to 6,000 representatives.

The opinion was in error about the number of States that had ratified it. Neither Pennsylvania nor Delaware ratified it, and 4 States did not ratify any of the Amendments until much later, so only 8 of 14 ratified it. Ironically, the amendment that is now the 27th Amendment was only ratified by 6 of 14 States in the same time period.

I think the opinion erroneously assumes that the 2nd Congress was acting on principle when it did the first post-census apportionment. It so happened that Virginia had just a very small population beyond an even multiple of 30,000. They were quite content to divide by 30,000 and drop any fraction since they practically had no fraction.

“Secondly. That in article 1st, section 2, clause 3, these words to be struck out, to wit: ‘The number of Representatives …’ and so on.

Had his format been accepted the Constitution would have been amended in line, instead of added separately at the end. All the changes related to the Presidency would have been made in the Article II, etc.

While being considered by Congress, the proposed Amendments were organized more in the form that we are familiar with, but the order they were presented was based on the order they would modify the original Constitution. Since the apportionment amendment would have modified Article I, Section 2, it ended up being first.

When the sesquicentennial of the Bill of Rights was coming up in 1939, some States like Massachusetts discovered they had never ratified the Bill of Rights, and ratified them. This caused some exploration of what had happened to the other two amendments. The 2nd dealt with congressional pay, and so seemed timely, and legislatures were encouraged to ratify it. It eventually (in 1992) was ratified by 3/4 of the States. No one in Congress wanted to risk challenging ratification and so it became the 27th Amendment. This establishes the precedent that there is no time limit on ratification (if there was no limitation when the amendment was proposed).

The 1st of the original 12 remains pending, but it would have little practical effect. It would reduce the current maximum size of the House of Representative from about 10,000 to about 6,000.

There have been other Amendments proposed by Congress with open-end ratification, but none are likely to be ratified.