It was the original 1st amendment!
And it was ratified!
And it is being illegally ignored by the treachery of the Archivist of the United States!
"Won't this empower partisanship?"
Is partisanship not already in power? This is like asking, while the titanic is already tipped halfway up, "Should we really throw this wooden chair overboard? It's bouyant and this boat needs bouyancy!"
No. More reps will represent niche interests, and so it will actually *reduce* the homogeneity of representatives. Parties will still exist, but 3rd parties and independents will capture a larger share of seats.
Yes. But (1) this already happens and (2) this isn't a threat to the Republic if there are 6,000 representatives.
Have you seen the House lately? It's already unable to assert itself! Rejuvenating it with ACTUAL REPRESENTATION won't hurt it.
The budget for the legislature is a miniscule share of total US government spending. It's a pittance to pay for actual representation.
The U.S. capital has sufficient space for large meetings. Bigger spaces can be constructed. But ultimately, yeah, we'll have to make the House move to teleconferencing and electronic voting.
WHICH MEANS COMMON PEOPLE CAN BE LEGISLATORS AND NOT HAVE TO MOVE TO WASHINGTON.
WHICH IS A GOOD THING, STUPID!
George Washington singled out the Congressional Apportionment Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which required regular House expansions, as the most important amendment of them all.
I stand with George Washington.
I am 50% trolling with that and 50% serious.
So here's the story.
The Bill of Rights had 12 amendments. You know 10 of them: Freedom of speech, due process, rights not enumerated, cruel and unusual punishment, quartering, etc. Very familiar stuff.
But do you know the 1st Amendment?
The grammar on it is weird and the founders used some math terms improperly...
There shall be 1 member of the house of Representatives for every 60,000 residents of a state, FOREVER.
While the Bill of Rights was being voted on, new states were joining the Constitution! Rhode Island, Vermont, and Kentucky all joined while ratification was being debated and voted on.
See, CT's lower house approved all 12 amendments in October 1789. But the upper house dithered. The reason they did so was because Congress had sent them a copy of the amendments to vote on which had a typo: screwed up the cruel and unusual bit.
*Allegedly*, Connecticut *actually did ratify* the Congressional Apportionment Amendment in May of 1790. But they didn't mail the forms back to Washington.
The guy who pushes this theory is sort of a crackpot.
OTOH.... like for real if he's right...
Well. I 40% believe it. I don't totally-not-believe it.
One of the other 12 original amendments failed to get ratified too: the limitation on congressional pay increases.
After TWO HUNDRED YEARS sitting unratified it was picked up and ratified by the states in the 1990s after ONE LAWYER started pushing
Although the Original 1st Amendment didn't get officially ratified it DID get UNOFFICIALLY ratified. As long as the founding generation survived, they NEVER let the people/rep ratio get over 60,000, and expanded the House frequently to keep that rule
Like at least get to a nice round 500 or something.
But you know what? George Washington wanted it. 11(12?) states ratified it in the first 3 years of the Republic. The Founders followed it like it was law even if it wasn't.
So ya know what? After the 2020 Census, we really, truly, in all sincerity, need to #PackTheHouse
But I know that the current U.S. House of Representatives is not in any sense representative, not in the way its designers intended, and not in the way people today expect.
The House is, however, is a shriveled up husk of what it was meant to be.