Article the First

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Article The First

This website, articlethefirst.net, examines "Article the First," the initial amendment proposed in the 1789 Bill of Rights, which aimed to cap U.S. congressional districts at 50,000 citizens but remains unratified. The site discusses the historical adherence to this principle in early U.S. censuses and its eventual abandonment, leading to significantly larger congressional districts today. It also explores the impact of this unratified amendment on the House of Representatives and the Electoral College, highlighting the evolution of congressional representation and the challenges of maintaining effective checks and balances within the federal government.

Why Building a Bigger House of Representatives Will Return the Reins of Government to "We the People"

Visit Research Notes For "More or Less"

The Promise of Article the First

On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States proposed 12 amendments to the newly minted Constitution. Among these was Article the First, a foundational proposal intended to guarantee proportional representation in the House of Representatives by capping Congressional districts at 50,000 citizens. This amendment sought to ensure that Representatives remained directly accountable to their constituents, a principle central to the Founders' vision of a government truly of, by, and for the people.

Unlike its companion amendments—10 of which became the Bill of Rights and Article the Second becoming the 27^th Amendment—Article the First was not ratified. However, for the first 50 years of the Republic, Congress adhered to its principles, increasing the size of the House with each decennial census. This practice, which kept Congressional districts small and representation intimate, was eventually abandoned, culminating in the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, which capped the number of House members at 435.

Today, districts average over 750,000 citizens, creating a gulf between Representatives and the people they are meant to serve. The consequences are profound: diminished accountability, increased influence of lobbyists, rampant gerrymandering, and a distorted Electoral College. Reinstating the principles of Article the First would restore balance to the Republic, reinvigorating the democratic process and bringing power back to "We the People."

The Original Vision: Representation for All

The Founders understood the dangers of overcentralized power and designed the House of Representatives as the “people’s house,” ensuring that it would remain close to the electorate. James Madison, a principal architect of the Constitution, argued for small districts to preserve the House’s accountability:

“A certain number [of representatives] seems to be necessary to secure the benefits of free consultation and discussion. On the other hand, the number ought at most to be kept within a certain limit, in order to avoid the confusion and intemperance of a multitude.”[1]

Article the First reflected this vision, proposing a formula that would expand the House as the population grew:

For five decades, Congress followed this principle, expanding the House after each census to maintain smaller districts. By 1830, districts averaged just over 50,000 citizens. However, political shifts in the 1840s and beyond saw this practice abandoned. By 1920, Congress failed to reapportion itself following the decennial census, and in 1929, the Permanent Apportionment Act froze the House at 435 members—a number unchanged for nearly a century, despite a population that has more than tripled.[3][4]

The Consequences of Oversized Districts

1. Diluted Representation

Today, the average Congressional district contains over 750,000 citizens, a far cry from the 30,000 envisioned by the Founders. This vast size makes it nearly impossible for Representatives to maintain meaningful connections with their constituents. The voices of ordinary citizens are drowned out, replaced by the interests of lobbyists and party donors.

In contrast, early Congresses adhered to the principle of intimate representation. During the 1790s, each Representative served roughly 37,000 citizens, fostering direct accountability and trust.[5]

2. Gerrymandering and Electoral Disparities

Large districts make gerrymandering easier and more damaging. Political parties manipulate district boundaries to entrench power, often at the expense of fair representation. At the same time, the fixed number of House members skews the Electoral College, amplifying the influence of smaller states and creating disparities that distort Presidential elections.

For example, under the current system, Idaho’s 1.8 million residents receive four Electoral Votes, equating to one vote per 450,000 citizens. California, with nearly 40 million residents, receives 55 votes, or one per 727,000 citizens. This imbalance undermines the principle of “one person, one vote.”[6]

3. Lobbyist Influence and Partisan Gridlock

The vast size of districts has fueled a dependence on lobbyists, who often write the very bills Congress passes.[7] Representatives, unable to adequately serve their constituents, spend much of their time fundraising rather than legislating. According to the Washington Times:

“The most powerful nation on Earth is run largely by 24-year-olds… leaving a vacuum that usually is filled by lobbyists.”[8]

HR First Amerndment Proposal of capping congressional districts at 50,000 inhabitants

The Case for Smaller Districts

Reinstating the principles of Article the First through a legislative cap on districts at 50,000 citizens would address these systemic issues and restore the Founders’ vision of representative democracy.

1. Enhanced Representation

Smaller districts would allow Representatives to engage directly with their constituents, reducing the influence of lobbyists and party donors. Candidates could run grassroots campaigns, reaching their electorate without multimillion-dollar budgets.

2. A More Equitable Electoral College

An Article the First Congress would ensure a fairer distribution of Electoral Votes. For example, under a 50,000-person cap, Idaho would receive 36 Electoral Votes, while California would receive 780. The disparity between large and small states would shrink dramatically, bringing the Electoral College closer to the popular vote.[9]

3. Eliminating Gerrymandering

Compact districts of 50,000 citizens would make gerrymandering nearly impossible. Cracking, packing, and other manipulative practices would be rendered moot, creating fairer and more equitable elections.[10]

4. Revitalizing Citizen Engagement

Smaller districts would empower grassroots movements, allowing ordinary citizens to run for office without relying on party infrastructure or lobbyist funding. This would reinvigorate civic participation and foster a more diverse and dynamic Congress. [11]

Why Wasn’t Article the First Ratified?

On September 25, 1789, the First Bicameral Congress of the United States proposed twelve amendments to the Constitution of 1787, intended to address widespread concerns raised during the ratification debates. Among them was Article the First, an amendment designed to regulate the size of Congressional districts by capping their populations. However, this amendment ultimately failed to achieve ratification, making it the only proposed article in the original Bill of Rights never to become law.

A Crowded Agenda of Amendments

The journey to drafting the Bill of Rights was complex and politically charged. During the state ratifying conventions, more than 200 distinct amendment proposals were submitted by various states, reflecting a broad range of priorities. Once repetitive suggestions were consolidated, over 100 unique proposals remained—many seeking to either protect individual liberties or recalibrate the balance of power between the federal government and the states.

In response to this overwhelming input, the House of Representatives introduced and passed seventeen articles on August 24, 1789. Included among them was Article the First, which sought to ensure smaller and more equitable Congressional districts by capping their population size. The House version read:

“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 200, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.”

This language was designed to gradually expand the House of Representatives in proportion to population growth while establishing a minimum standard of representation, effectively capping district sizes at 50,000 citizens.

U.S. Senate Adjustments

Between September 4 and 9, 1789, the Senate deliberated and revised the House's proposals, ultimately passing twelve amendments to forward to the states. While their version also included Article the First, its language reflected a significantly different mathematical framework. The Senate’s version introduced a more generous cap on district size, permitting one Representative for every 60,000 persons after the House exceeded 200 members. The revised text read:

“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, to which number one Representative shall be added for every subsequent increase of forty thousand, until the Representatives shall amount to two hundred, to which one Representative shall be added for every subsequent increase of sixty thousand persons.”

This formula, while maintaining a structured growth in House representation, allowed for much larger districts than the House version, diluting the amendment’s original intent to keep representation close to the citizenry.

The House-Senate Conference Committee and the Path to Article the First

To reconcile the differences between the House and Senate versions of the proposed constitutional amendments, a bicameral Conference Committee—known as the House-Senate Conference Committee (HR-S CC)—was convened. This committee was composed of several prominent statesmen, including James Madison, Roger Sherman, John Vining, Oliver Ellsworth, Charles Carroll, and William Paterson. Their mandate was to harmonize the divergent versions of the amendments, including Article the First, which aimed to establish a formula for apportioning Representatives and effectively cap the population of Congressional districts.

The Recommendation on Article the First

On September 24, 1789, the Conference Committee rejected the Senate's version of Article the First and proposed revisions to the House version instead. Senator Oliver Ellsworth formally read the Committee's report before the Senate, which included a crucial textual amendment to clarify the intended apportionment structure. The report stated:

HR-S CC Amendment to the First Article: “The Committees were also of opinion that it would be proper for both Houses to agree to amend the first Article, by striking out the word ‘less’ in the last line but one, and inserting in its place the word ‘more’, and accordingly recommend that the said Article be reconsidered for that purpose.”

This seemingly minor textual correction was intended to resolve ambiguity in the population formula and ensure a coherent progression in Congressional representation as the nation's population grew.

With the HR-S CC change Article the First would read:

that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every forty thousand persons until the number of Representatives shall amount to 200, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress,

that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.”

The Divergence

The recommendations of the House-Senate Conference Committee (HR-S CC) were reviewed by both chambers of Congress. However, when the U.S. House introduced the twelve proposed amendments to the Constitution, it drafted a resolution that deviated from the Committee’s precise language regarding Article the First. Specifically, the Committee had advised amending the article by replacing the word “less” with “more” “in the last line but one”—a change intended to clarify the provision's proportional limits.

Instead, the House resolution mistakenly directed that the word “less” be replaced with “more” “in the last place of the said first article.” As a result, Article the First was passed in the following form:

“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 200, 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.”

This subtle yet critical misplacement introduced ambiguity into the final text of Article the First, rendering its mathematical structure inconsistent and its practical implementation infeasible. The conflicting thresholds for apportionment created by the erroneous language effectively made the amendment unworkable. Consequently, the States ceased their ratification efforts, leaving Article the First one State short of the four-fifths approval required for adoption under the original constitutional standard.

Would changing the word less to more in the second-to-last line (rather than in the last line, as was passed by Congress) cap congressional districts at 1 Representative for every 50,000 citizens?

Textual Breakdown and Intent

Let’s re-examine the structure of Article the First as finalized, with an emphasis on the relevant clause and how it evolves across the three versions:

House Version (Initial)

The final clause reads:

“… nor less than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.”

This implies that:

Congress must maintain at least one Representative per 50,000 persons.
So, for 250,000 people, there must be at least 5 Representatives.
There is no upper bound—Congress could theoretically allow a smaller ratio (e.g., 1 per 30,000 or 1 per 40,000), as long as it meets the 1:50,000 minimum.

So this does not cap representation—rather, it sets a floor.

Senate Version (Initial)

“…to which one Representative shall be added for every subsequent increase of sixty thousand persons.”

This implies:

A cap: 1 Representative per 60,000 persons after 200.
It’s a more restrictive version than the House.

Conference Committee Recommendation

The Committee sought to reconcile these by proposing a subtle but critical change:

“… amend the first Article, by striking out the word ‘less’ in the last line but one, and inserting in its place, the word ‘more’…”

This would make the critical clause read:

“… nor more than one Representative for every forty thousand persons …”

And leave the last clause (post-200 Reps) as:

“… nor less than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.”

Analytical Focus: "Less" vs. "More" — Where It Matters

The Committee’s intended correction—in the second-to-last line—would mean:

Clause	Meaning After Correction
“nor more than one Rep per 40,000”	A cap on districts: no district can have more than 40,000 persons after 100 Reps.
“nor less than one Rep per 50,000”	A floor on districts: no district can be smaller than 50,000 after 200 Reps.

The logic flows:

From 100 to 200 Reps → no more than 1 per 40,000 (upper limit).
After 200 Reps → no less than 1 per 50,000 (lower limit).

This yields a mathematically consistent range of acceptable representation: Congress could legislate representation between 1 per 40,000 and 1 per 50,000 depending on population size.

The Final Version Passed by Congress

Due to the House's misstatement—changing “last line but one” to “last place”—the wrong clause was altered.

So instead of:

“nor more than one Rep per 40,000” → an upper cap (Committee version),

It reads:

“nor more than one Rep per 50,000” → an upper cap that contradicts the previous “not less than 200 Representatives” clause.

Let’s look at the logical problem:

Contradiction Created:

"Not less than 200 Representatives" → floor of 200 reps.
"Nor more than 1 per 50,000" → if the U.S. population is over 10 million, you'd be required to have more than 200 Representatives.
So after population exceeds 10 million, it’s impossible to meet both requirements.

This contradiction made the amendment inoperable.

Conclusion: Would Using “More” in the Second-to-Last Line Have Worked?

Yes. That is exactly what the Conference Committee intended. If Congress had followed the Committee's recommendation and changed "less" to "more" in the second-to-last line, the amendment would have:

Set a cap of 1 Representative per 40,000 (after 100 Reps).
Then a floor of 1 Representative per 50,000 (after 200 Reps).
Created a coherent structure for future apportionment.
Functioned as a workable limitation on congressional district sizes, including effectively capping them at no larger than 50,000 persons.

Therefore, yes, it would have effectively capped congressional districts at 1 Representative per 50,000 people, because after 200 Representatives, Congress could not authorize districts with fewer representatives per person (i.e., larger districts). It would be unconstitutional to have, say, 1 Representative per 60,000 people under that language.

This drafting error may be one of the most consequential technical glitches in American constitutional history. Had the intended change been made correctly, the U.S. House of Representatives today might contain thousands of members, ensuring far more granular representation of the population.

Final Reflection

The misplacement of a single word in Article the First stands as one of the most consequential drafting errors in American constitutional history. Had the recommended correction been properly implemented, the United States House of Representatives might today comprise thousands of members, each representing no more than 50,000 citizens—a structure that would ensure closer, more equitable, and more accountable representation.

Rethinking the Scale of Representation

Skeptics often argue that a significantly larger House would be unwieldy. Yet both historical precedent and global comparisons challenge this assumption. The United Kingdom’s House of Commons, with over 650 members, continues to operate efficiently. Other democracies with high member-to-citizen ratios demonstrate that legislative effectiveness is not inherently tied to a chamber’s size, but to its structure, transparency, and public accountability.

Concerns over cost are also frequently overstated. While increasing the number of Representatives would involve higher direct expenditures, the broader impact would likely reduce dependence on unelected intermediaries such as lobbyists and staffers. In turn, this would foster a more direct, responsive, and transparent democratic process—more than justifying the investment.

Reclaiming a Forgotten Vision

The Founders understood that meaningful representation requires proximity between the people and their elected officials. As James Madison asserted, representation must remain “vital and connected to the people.” Yet today, Congressional districts average over 760,000 constituents—diluting individual voices and undermining democratic engagement.

Reviving the core principles of Article the First presents not only an opportunity but a civic imperative. Capping districts at 50,000 citizens would:

Strengthen citizen-driven governance
Reduce the influence of money and lobbying in politics
Restore balance to the Electoral College
Eliminate partisan gerrymandering
Reinforce the constitutional promise of “one person, one vote”

Crucially, this transformation does not require a constitutional amendment. Congress retains full authority to enact a new apportionment law—thereby replacing the rigid ceiling imposed by the 1929 Permanent Apportionment Act with a system that reflects the nation’s evolving population and founding ideals.

A Call to Renew the Republic

To honor the vision of the framers of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights is to reaffirm the enduring principle that government must remain “of the people, by the people, for the people.” Now is the time to revisit and restore the long-overlooked promise of Article the First. By doing so, we can create a more expansive and genuinely representative House—one that faithfully reflects the voices of its citizens and strengthens the foundations of American democracy for generations to come.

References—also see Research Notes

Madison’s speech in the First Congress, June 8, 1789.
Article the First, 1789.
House of Representatives Historian, The 1911 House Reapportionment.
Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Maxwell Palmer, A Two Hundred-Year Statistical History of the Gerrymander.
Brookings Institution, Vital Statistics on Congress.
Rosiak, Luke. The Washington Times, June 6, 2012.
Chang, Alisa. When Lobbyists Literally Write the Bill, NPR, Nov. 11, 2013.
Thirty-thousand.org, Analysis of Article the First.
Fang, Lee. Where Have All the Lobbyists Gone?, The Nation, March 10–17, 2014.
Sabato, Larry. Expand the House of Representatives, Democracy Journal of Ideas, Spring 2008.
U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Census Data, 1790–2020.
House of Representatives Historian, The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929.
Madison, Federalist Papers, No. 10.

Visit Research Notes For "More or Less"

Edited: Open AI. (2024). ChatGPT [Large language model] - https://chatgpt.com

Pages

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Article The First