Apportionment is not rocket science.  Apportionment is the math of democratic representation.  The 1790 founders of the US constitution were aware of apportionment math.  Article the First was drafted in anticipation of population growth. Article the First was drafted as the first amendment to the original US constitution.  Article the First was the first proposed constitutional amendment, even before the introduction of the Bill of Rights.
One can only speculate why Article the First was not ratified.  230 years after the adoption of the US constitution, looking back, it is clear. Had Article the First been ratified, the US federal government today, would look radically different.  The final, into perpetuity, apportionment described in Article the First was a limit of one congressperson per 50,000 citizens.  This translates today into a congress of approximately 6000 members.
Article the First translates into an 1860 congress of 720 members, twice the 304 actual serving congresspersons.  What if decisions leading up to the civil war had been made in a congress of 720 members?  A radically different congress, likely, would have forged a radically different solution to the issue of slavery in the southern states and the impending civil war.
There are no federal laws limiting democratic representation apportionment.  Apportionment was discussed under Theodore Roosevelt and dismissed as being insignificant beyond 535 congressional membership.  There is an important natural historic law that applies to apportionment. This law is described by Robert Michels:
The iron law of oligarchy is a political theory, first developed by the German syndicalist sociologist Robert Michels in his 1911 book, Political Parties.[1] It claims that rule by an elite, or “oligarchy“, is inevitable as an “iron law” within any organization as part of the “tactical and technical necessities” of organization.[1] Michels particularly addressed the application of this law to representative democracy, and stated: “It is organization which gives birth to the dominion of the elected over the electors, of the mandataries over the mandators, of the delegates over the delegators. Who says organization, says oligarchy.”[1] He went on to state that “Historical evolution mocks all the prophylactic measures that have been adopted for the prevention of oligarchy.”[1] Michels stated that the official goal of representative democracy of eliminating elite rule was impossible, that representative democracy is a façade legitimizing the rule of a particular elite, and that elite rule, that he refers to as oligarchy, is inevitable.[1]  Iron Law of Oligarchy:
Was the Iron Law of Oligarchy the reason for the 1790 concerns addressed in Article the First?  230 years after the 1790 democratic revolution, using 20/20 hindsight, the answer to this question might reveal itself.
Assume the Iron Law of Oligarchy is natural in representative democracies.
Assume the Iron Law of Oligarchy has affected US representative democracy.
  • Elected democracy becomes elected oligarchy.
  • Symptoms of oligarchy appear as representative democracy is usurped.
  • Re-apportionment is avoided by the ruling elected oligarc
The numbers are astonishing enough to be graphed.  The following graphs define apportionment in terms of a power factor in regards to representative democracy.
  • The power factor of a single presiding president is the number of citizens in the United States.
  • The power factor of a senator is 1/2 the number of citizens in a state.
  • The power factor of a House representative is the number of citizens in the representative’s congressional district.
  • Average Congressional Power factor is citizen population divided by total congressional membership.
  • Small power factors provide greater citizen representation in congress. (less citizens per congressperson)
  • Larger power factors provide less citizen representation in congress. (more citizens per congressperson)



About coach2640220

#g7780 democracy shares power. 535+1 autocracy is unshared power. Citizen is coach to team democracy. Coach is responsible for success. It’s your call, coach.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s