If reps were at large, constituencies, or SIGs, would grow to support them. The strength of the SIG would be exactly proportionate to the number of voters. If a SIG had a reasonable amount of internal loyalty and consistence, it could be a very powerful voting block. It would be true democracy.

Any individual could chose vote with any SIG so of course they would have to compete for ideas and loyalty (since the vote is secret).

Greg, Now I see the point you were making about districts. You’re right on that point, then and, apparently there’s no (Contitutionally-based) reason why states–even some subset of them–couldn’t elect all their House of Rep. members “at large” and still keep a correspondence between number of voters per representative–as long as every state has a total population of at least one representative’s worth of voters.

There’s at least one practical consequence if that method was adopted: we lose “not only” in “fact” but also in “theory” the idea that a particular representative is accountable to a defined set of voters–IOW, there’d be only statewide “constituencies”, leaving each representative open toan even easier and more flagrant defiance of any minority’s particular needs as long as, over the state as a whole, enough voters find that representative’s votes not so terrible as to warrant getting rid of him or her. At this point in our democratic degradation, its hard to imagine how our present system could actually be worse. But, here, by diluting representation across a state–think of California, for example–elected officials wouldn’t even have to pretend to cater to voters’ (other than corporate donors-as-ersatz-voters) interests. And, if those Reps. still bothered to respond to letters of complaint from a minority interest which couldn’t afford expensive lobbyists, all he or she would have to do is offer a cynical, “Don’t lilke it? So, vote me out of office next time.”

Guess my question was kinda both those really.

Your question could be interpreted in either of two ways:

1) Why did the original drafters decide as they did?
2) Why do we continue to do things (when we do them) the same way today. Others above have offered answers to 2). As for 1), see below, in James Madison’s Notes on the Debates of the Convention. E.g. @ June 19 – 21.

—–
Text of James Madison’s
Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787

Links : June 19th: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_619.asp
………………. 20th: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_620.asp
……………….. 21st: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_621.asp

The House of Representatives’ proportional representation (a.k.a “one perosn, one vote”) is an essential feature of democracy ( which the Senate violates; and yes, that’s just wrong, democratically speaking) and established in both the Constitution’s Article 1, Section 2, clause 3 and in case law from state and federal courts as well as acts of Congress.

So, even in the U.S., states aren’t supposed to be free to just arrange their election of U.S. House representative any old way they may like to see fit. Of course, organized money has learned to simply buy out the entire weapon of democratic electoral politics and make it its own property–“lock, stock and barrel.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment

http://www.census.gov/population/apportionment/about/history.html

Maybe it’ll be included in the curricula for the FEMA reeducation camps…

Especially when I’m really tired and tipsy after work, a few beers and stuff all sleep which is, well most days really and today no exception, sigh.

Also my impression from HP is that very few if any wizarding families were really “pure blood” and that the best of them were certainly hybrids so yeah – and thanks again for all the extra stuff I’ve learned just now. 🙂