New Hampshire House versus U.S. House of Representatives
Unlike the U.S. Congress, which has capped the House of
Representatives at 435 members to serve a population of 335 million, New
Hampshire has proportionally expanded its House to 400 members for a population
of just 1.4 million.[1] Instead of adopting New Hampshire’s model of
proportional growth, Congress has responded to population increases by
expanding House office staff. For example, staff per Representative grew from
two members during Franklin D. Roosevelt’s era (1933) to an average of 15 under
Joseph Biden’s administration (2023), creating a total staff of 6,680.[2]
Since the 1900 Census, when the U.S. population was
76,212,168, the size of congressional districts has ballooned from
approximately 194,000 constituents in 1907 (with the addition of Oklahoma) to
over 772,000 constituents in 2023.[3] This growth has made competitive House
campaigns nearly impossible without substantial personal funding or millions of
dollars in contributions from special interests. Candidates must raise these
funds to effectively campaign in districts so large that they now exceed the population
size of many small nations.
This dynamic has led to an increased reliance on polarizing
campaign issues, leaving moderate candidates underfunded and unable to connect
with constituents during primaries.[4] Furthermore, the massive size of
congressional districts has enabled advanced gerrymandering tactics, such as
“cracking” and “packing,” which strategically dilute or concentrate voting
groups.[5] These practices exacerbate partisan divisions, often circumventing
protections established by the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The current system has also created an imbalance in the
Electoral College. For example, New Hampshire, with a population of 1.39
million, has four Electoral votes (347,500 inhabitants per vote), while
California, with a population of 39.3 million, has 54 Electoral votes (727,777
inhabitants per vote).[6] This disparity was not the intention of the framers
of the U.S. Constitution,[7] nor of the First[8] and Second[9] Bicameral
Congresses, who believed small districts were essential to maintaining accountability
and direct representation in the House.
Fortunately, ratifying the proposed but unratified “Article
the First” is unnecessary to address this issue. Congress already has the
authority to limit congressional districts to 50,000 inhabitants (as proposed
in the 1789 Bill of Rights), 60,000 (as per the 1789 Senate cap), or any number
below 100,000 through a simple majority vote in both chambers.[10]
By adopting a congressional district cap similar to New Hampshire’s proportional model, several significant outcomes could be achieved:
- Reduction of Campaign Costs and Special Interest Influence: Smaller districts would substantially lower the cost of campaigning, decreasing candidates’ reliance on special interest funds.
- Elimination of Gerrymandering: With smaller, community-based districts, practices such as cracking and packing would become impractical.
- Correction of the Electoral College Imbalance: Allocating Electoral votes based on smaller districts would restore proportional representation.[11]
- Revitalization of Bipartisanship: Localized districts would encourage Representatives to address the needs of their communities rather than engage in polarizing national rhetoric.
- Enhanced Representation: Replacing 435 Representatives and 6,680 staff members with approximately 6,700 Representatives directly accountable to their constituents would strengthen democracy and governance.
A congressional district cap of 50,000 persons would
reinstate the founding vision of citizen-driven governance, effectively
addressing the structural issues plaguing the U.S. House of Representatives
today.
In this context, New Hampshire’s House of Representatives stands as a compelling example of how proportional representation can address modern governance challenges.
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:
“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 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.
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.
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.
A1HR urges all U.S. citizens to contact their Congressional representatives and advocate for a population cap of 50,000 per Congressional district. Implementing this reform would expand the House of Representatives, effectively addressing critical issues such as gerrymandering, the undue influence of special interests, and the imbalance within the Electoral College—all while maintaining the existing U.S. House structure. By restoring smaller, community-based districts, this proposal would strengthen democracy, enhance accountability, and ensure fair representation for all Americans.
Footnotes
[1] U.S. Census Bureau projected on December 28, 2023, that
the U.S. population would be 335,893,238 as of January 1, 2024.
[2] Congressional staff figures: CRS Report R43947,
Congress.gov.
[3] Census data: U.S. Census Bureau Newsroom, Press Release,
2023.
[4] Campaign dynamics: Biblical reference - "Because
thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I shall spew thee out of my
mouth."
[5] Example: In Louisiana, where the state’s population is
two-thirds Black, only one of six congressional districts is majority Black.
[6] Electoral votes are allocated based on Census with each
state receiving votes equal to the number of Senators and Representatives in
its U.S. Congressional delegation
[7] In the 1787 Philadelphia Convention, just before the
final signing of the present U.S. Constitution, Delegate Nathaniel Gorham suggested reducing the size of congressional districts from
40,000 to 30,000 citizens. A comparable proposal had been put forward earlier
but had fallen short of approval by a single vote. At this crucial juncture,
George Washington, serving as the Presidentof the Convention, voiced his support for smaller districts, marking
his sole substantive contribution to the Constitution's text. Without further
deliberation, the Convention embraced the 30,000 minimum, solidifying its
inclusion.
[8] First Congress’s Article the First capped districts at
50,000 inhabitants but contained a clerical error that rendered the amendment
dysfunctional. The House of
Representatives passed its "12 amendments," with its "Article
the First" or its First Amendment capping Congressional Districts
at 50,000 inhabitants. Simultaneously, the first U.S. Senate passed its "12
amendments" with its First Amendment establishing a cap of 60,000
inhabitants for Congressional Districts. It was during the 1789 House of
Representatives and US Senate Bill of Rights Conference Committees meeting that
its members agreed to adopt the HR version of the First Amendment by replacing
the word "less" in thepenultimate line ("in the last line but one") with the word
“more". Unfortunately, during the presentation of the Bill of Rights on
the House of Representatives floor, either the HR Clerk or HR Bill of
Rights Committee Chairman James Madison erroneously introduced the
wrong verbiage that struck out the word “less” in the last place, as opposed to changing it in the penultimate line, in Article
the First and substituted it with the word "more".
This mistake resulted in the incorrect replacement of "less" with
"more" in Article the First, rendering the proposed First
Amendment dysfunctional. Regrettably, this error went unnoticed for the
majority of the ratification process, with eight states, including New
Hampshire on January 25, 1790, ratifying Article the First before
Vermont achieved statehood on March 4, 1791.
[9] The Second Congress failed to rectify Article the First
but preserved the 50,000 cap through the Apportionment Acts of the 1790s–1830s. Background: the Second Bicameral Congress,
following the states' failure to ratify the dysfunctional First Amendment,
Congress responded by enacting the Apportionment Act of 1792. However, this
legislative measure was flawed, as it sought to reduce eight Constitutional
Districts below the constitutional population minimum of 30,000
inhabitants. Despite President George Washington's preference for smaller
Congressional Districts and his role in reducing the minimum size from 40,000
to 30,000, he, after extensive deliberation with Attorney General Randolph and
Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, exercised the first U.S. Presidential
veto. In his statement, he highlighted that "the Bill has allotted
to eight of the States more than one [representative] for thirty
thousand." Today, it remains unclear on why the Second Congress
did not rectify the verbiage error and resubmit Article the First to the
States. It is essential to emphasize that despite the states' failure to ratify
the proposed amendment, the Congressional District 50,000 inhabitant cap
endured through the U.S. Censuses of 1790, 1800, 1810, 1820, and 1830. In 1840,
the Whig Party secured majorities in both the Senate and House of
Representatives, advocating for Congress's supremacy over the Presidency and
endorsing a modernization program that included abandoning the Congressional
District 50,000 Citizens Cap outlined in Article the First. Over the subsequent
decades, the Whigs incrementally expanded Congressional Districts, growing from
53,000 citizens in the 1830s to over 80,000 in the 1840s and exceeding 100,000
citizens in the 1850s. Following the Republican Party's control of Congress in
the 1860s, the Republican majority continued this trajectory, enlarging
Congressional Districts from 135,000 in the 1870s to 200,000 citizens by the
1900s. Finally, in 1929, Congress enacted the Permanent Apportionment Act,
which permanently set the maximum number of representatives at 435.
Additionally, the law established a procedure for automatic reapportionment of
House seats three years after each census resulting in Congressional Districts
now exceeding 772,000 inhabitants.
[10] Congressional authority to adjust districts is
enshrined in the Constitution and capping districts at a 50,000 population does
not require a constitutional amendment .
[11] A 50,000 House of Representatives (HR) cap addresses the Electoral College imbalance without necessitating a constitutional amendment. Under this cap, New Hampshire, with a population of 1.39 million, would receive 30 Electoral votes, averaging 46,666 inhabitants per vote. In contrast, California, with a population of 39.3 million, would have 788 votes, resulting in 49,873 inhabitants per vote.
