Question what if representation rather than being based off raw population was instead based on the voting population of a state and more specifically on the number of people who actually voted in said states election. To provide some context:
In the United States representation within the house of representatives has always technically been based off the raw general population of a specific area for the most part determined via census. X number of people = y number of representatives within the house. Exceptions for small states like Wyoming which get atleast one representative despite their small populations. Currently as of now due to the fixed number of representatives(435) this means for every roughly ~750,000 you get atleast 1 representative; as mentioned before exceptions noted for states who have below that number of people who get 1 representative.
This has created a bit of conflict in the past with one of the earliest the 3/5th compromise. This stemmed from the desire of slaves states wishing to expand their power by having the slaves counted for population/representation despite the fact said slaves were from a legal standpoint the equivalent of tools or farm animals rather than actual people. On the other end other states which had less slaves and/or desired to abolish the practice wished that slaves would be subject to property taxes like the aforementioned tools or farm animals. The compromised was made to satisfy both sides. Other more recent conflicts relate toward things like the Wyoming rule and so on so on.
What I wish to ask about is similar but a little different from many of the normal conflicts related toward representation specifically it is about the nature of representation in the first place and on who should and possibly should not count for representation within the house.
So I will reiterate my previous introduction, what if representation within the house was in direct correlation to the voting population and maybe even determined based off voter turnout? How could such a thing be bought about and what would its effects be? Would it be an overall net positive or would it cause more negatives?
In my eyes the earliest I can see something like this coming about would be sometime in the mid 19th century around the time of reconstruction and when Jim crow was in it's birth bed. The reasoning behind it would be a rather admirable one. Within many of said jim crow states launched a "valiant" to do everything in their power to disenfranchise those who were viewed as undesirables, most notably recently freed blacks but also poor whites to some degree. They were smart and didn't technically outright ban said persons from voting but instead used various methods(intimidation, poll taxes, etc) to discourage them from doing so resulting in incredibly low voter turnouts. From what I remember states like Louisiana had voter turnouts as low as or below 10% but despite that fact they still received representation in accordance with their entire population which allowed groups like the Dixiecrat to infest the house which helped aid in the death of reconstruction. The results are rather well known, the the slow motion nightmare of "the nadir of race relations" and all the tragedy that came with it. Under the proposed system though, probably bought about via amendment, could be a potential means to combat said jim crow and though yes groups like the redeemers would still be capable and willing to disenfranchise their fellow man at least they would be punished for it on the national level. Best of all it doesn't even require federal action technically which is good considering said action was becoming tired off and unpopular with the general public.
Conversely though it is a double edged sword. Would it combat jim crow in the short term? yes. But on the otherhand it does in the long term shoot the makers of this system in the foot. As time goes on immigrants increased dramatically in some states which under this system wouldn't count for representation which I can't see not earning their ire. This would be especially contentious in the modern day for obvious reasons.
But I digress I think I will stop talking for now. What do you think the results of this system would be and how could it be implemented in the first place? Would it be good or bad or maybe a mixed bag? Discuss. I wish to hear your thoughts on the matter.
In the United States representation within the house of representatives has always technically been based off the raw general population of a specific area for the most part determined via census. X number of people = y number of representatives within the house. Exceptions for small states like Wyoming which get atleast one representative despite their small populations. Currently as of now due to the fixed number of representatives(435) this means for every roughly ~750,000 you get atleast 1 representative; as mentioned before exceptions noted for states who have below that number of people who get 1 representative.
This has created a bit of conflict in the past with one of the earliest the 3/5th compromise. This stemmed from the desire of slaves states wishing to expand their power by having the slaves counted for population/representation despite the fact said slaves were from a legal standpoint the equivalent of tools or farm animals rather than actual people. On the other end other states which had less slaves and/or desired to abolish the practice wished that slaves would be subject to property taxes like the aforementioned tools or farm animals. The compromised was made to satisfy both sides. Other more recent conflicts relate toward things like the Wyoming rule and so on so on.
What I wish to ask about is similar but a little different from many of the normal conflicts related toward representation specifically it is about the nature of representation in the first place and on who should and possibly should not count for representation within the house.
So I will reiterate my previous introduction, what if representation within the house was in direct correlation to the voting population and maybe even determined based off voter turnout? How could such a thing be bought about and what would its effects be? Would it be an overall net positive or would it cause more negatives?
In my eyes the earliest I can see something like this coming about would be sometime in the mid 19th century around the time of reconstruction and when Jim crow was in it's birth bed. The reasoning behind it would be a rather admirable one. Within many of said jim crow states launched a "valiant" to do everything in their power to disenfranchise those who were viewed as undesirables, most notably recently freed blacks but also poor whites to some degree. They were smart and didn't technically outright ban said persons from voting but instead used various methods(intimidation, poll taxes, etc) to discourage them from doing so resulting in incredibly low voter turnouts. From what I remember states like Louisiana had voter turnouts as low as or below 10% but despite that fact they still received representation in accordance with their entire population which allowed groups like the Dixiecrat to infest the house which helped aid in the death of reconstruction. The results are rather well known, the the slow motion nightmare of "the nadir of race relations" and all the tragedy that came with it. Under the proposed system though, probably bought about via amendment, could be a potential means to combat said jim crow and though yes groups like the redeemers would still be capable and willing to disenfranchise their fellow man at least they would be punished for it on the national level. Best of all it doesn't even require federal action technically which is good considering said action was becoming tired off and unpopular with the general public.
Conversely though it is a double edged sword. Would it combat jim crow in the short term? yes. But on the otherhand it does in the long term shoot the makers of this system in the foot. As time goes on immigrants increased dramatically in some states which under this system wouldn't count for representation which I can't see not earning their ire. This would be especially contentious in the modern day for obvious reasons.
But I digress I think I will stop talking for now. What do you think the results of this system would be and how could it be implemented in the first place? Would it be good or bad or maybe a mixed bag? Discuss. I wish to hear your thoughts on the matter.