Plausibility Check: Post ACW Congressional Apportionment Amendment

Here's my basic idea: Another Reconstruction Amendment is pushed through by the Radical Republicans that tweaks the formula for congressional representation. Rather than basing a state's representation on pure numbers, its based on the number of active voters (in congressional elections) over the last 10 years.

As long as states are operating under the same general voting laws, this shouldn't change much at all, since, overall, the ratio of voters to general population should remain relatively consistent (I'm basing this on no hard evidence).

However, any states that attempt to restrict voting through poll taxes and literacy tests and the like will have their political voice proportionately diminished.

This could cause complications regarding women's suffrage in a few decades (it could effectively double a state's representation if they're on the leading edge), or it could simply speed the process along. There also could be further complications with voter fraud (I'm picturing Tammany Hall having a field day with this).
 
Your first problem is one of contextual necessity: What, exactly, is going to motivate Congress to push through such an amendment? As concerns about voter participation as a harm to the republic are a distinctly modern thing. You might try angling this as a replacement for the OTL Fifteenth Amendment, but it's rather more circuitous way to address the issue of disenfranchisement of freedmen. (Though that also violates the spirit of the basic idea, which proposes your tweak as what'd be TTL's Sixteenth Amendment.) It'd also likely be a bear to actually administer such a system of apportionment and is anachronistically heavy on its reliance upon math, especially in an era when Congress was more apt to use its plenary power over its own size to address perceived representational issues.

As a practical matter, I think pegging representation in the House to "active voters" is going to encourage the prolific usage of voter qualifications. As, if Congressional representation is based on the fraction of a state's electorate is participating in Congressional elections, a state's political power is maximized by turning out as much of its electorate as possible. Because the states still have broad powers to regulate the size of their franchise, you will invariably see attempts to structure the size and composition of the electorate to guarantee as high a turnout as possible. There're some fairly interesting possibilities there, if for no other reason than the new constitutions of newly admitted states being warped relative to OTL by the different incentives. (To say nothing of the clashing political movements that might well spring up as state constitutional guarantees against franchise qualifications might come under assault.) Though you're also right that it might lead an enterprising state to expand the franchise to try and drive their numbers, but the way the system's setup, they might well be penalized if actual voting lagged behind the rate of franchise enhancement. (E.g. if you grant all women the franchise, but women vote at a lower rate than men, on-net your representation in the House of Representatives decreases.)
 
Though you're also right that it might lead an enterprising state to expand the franchise to try and drive their numbers, but the way the system's setup, they might well be penalized if actual voting lagged behind the rate of franchise enhancement. (E.g. if you grant all women the franchise, but women vote at a lower rate than men, on-net your representation in the House of Representatives decreases.)

I don't understand this statement. If no other state changes anything you should improve you percentage of representatives.

Math experiment:
For simplicity, say the total voting population of the union is 10,000,000.
Assume all are male.
Say 50% voting turnout, 5,000,000 people voted.
Your state has 1,000,000 voters, 50% vote ( 500,000 turnout.)
Since you have 10% (500,000 out of 5,000,000) of the actual voting turnout you get 10% of the representatives.
Now you allow females to vote, assume 50% of your population is female (1,000,000) and only 25% (250,000) of them vote.
Assume no other state changes their voting rules.
Now you have 750,000 voters out of 5,250,000 voters.
Now you get 14% of the representatives.

Is my math wrong or are my assumptions wrong.

Thank you,
MrBill

Edit:Fixed error
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Here's my basic idea: Another Reconstruction Amendment is pushed through by the Radical Republicans that tweaks the formula for congressional representation. Rather than basing a state's representation on pure numbers, its based on the number of active voters (in congressional elections) over the last 10 years.

As long as states are operating under the same general voting laws, this shouldn't change much at all, since, overall, the ratio of voters to general population should remain relatively consistent (I'm basing this on no hard evidence).

However, any states that attempt to restrict voting through poll taxes and literacy tests and the like will have their political voice proportionately diminished.

This could cause complications regarding women's suffrage in a few decades (it could effectively double a state's representation if they're on the leading edge), or it could simply speed the process along. There also could be further complications with voter fraud (I'm picturing Tammany Hall having a field day with this).
Why would this be necessary, though? After all, the 14th Amendment already allows the U.S. Congress to proportionally cut a U.S. state's representation in the House of Representatives if this state denies the suffrage to some/a part of its adult male population.

Indeed, while this power was never actually used, Congress still had this power.
 
Top