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:

“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 not be less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.”[2]

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]

---

Overcoming the Challenges

Critics argue that a larger House would be unwieldy. However, history and international comparisons suggest otherwise. The British Parliament, for example, has over 650 members yet functions effectively.[12]

Concerns about cost are similarly overstated. While adding Representatives would increase direct expenses, these costs would be offset by reducing reliance on unelected staff and lobbyists. The long-term benefits of a more accountable and responsive government far outweigh the financial implications.

---

A Call to Action

The Founders understood that representation must remain “vital and connected to the people.”[13] Yet, over time, the principles of Article the First have been eroded, leaving citizens disconnected from their government. Restoring these principles is not just an opportunity—it is a responsibility.

By capping districts at 50,000 citizens, Congress could:

• Strengthen citizen-driven governance.
• Reduce the influence of money in politics.
• Restore balance to the Electoral College.
• Eliminate gerrymandering.
• Reinvigorate the principle of “one person, one vote.”

This change does not require a constitutional amendment. Congress has the authority to pass a new apportionment law, undoing the arbitrary cap set by the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929.

Let us honor the vision of Madison, Washington, and the other framers who understood that representation must remain “of the people, by the people, for the people.” The time has come to build a bigger House—one that truly serves its citizens.

---

References—also see Research Notes

1.    Madison’s speech in the First Congress, June 8, 1789.

2.    Article the First, 1789.

3.    House of Representatives Historian, The 1911 House Reapportionment.

4.    Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Maxwell Palmer, A Two Hundred-Year Statistical History of the Gerrymander.

5.    Brookings Institution, Vital Statistics on Congress.

6.    Rosiak, Luke. The Washington Times, June 6, 2012.

7.    Chang, Alisa. When Lobbyists Literally Write the Bill, NPR, Nov. 11, 2013.

8.    Thirty-thousand.org, Analysis of Article the First.

9.    Fang, Lee. Where Have All the Lobbyists Gone?, The Nation, March 10–17, 2014.

10. Sabato, Larry. Expand the House of Representatives, Democracy Journal of Ideas, Spring 2008.

11. U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Census Data, 1790–2020.

12. House of Representatives Historian, The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929.

13. Madison, Federalist Papers, No. 10. 

Visit Research Notes For "More or Less"

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