You raise some very enlightened arguments.
I expect the Founders did not anticipate the huge changes in store from agricultural science, the industrial age, population explosion, medical advances, extended life expectancy, immigration etc., (In 1750 the world’s population was 700 million - today it is 7 billion).
Next up?
@ redpoll : The Star Wars Senate :-) ... I kind of dig that idea myself ... one of the only good things to come from the “new” films :-)! Realistically though, I think distributing the House across the USA would be a better solution than building a stadium (however, spending my tax dollars on a levitating platforms is appealing ... it’s one step closer to owning a Landspeeder :-) :-) ).
@sodpoodle : I agree that our Founders were not prophets. No human being is perfect in both determining the events of the future nor interpreting events of the past. There are always going to be flaws or loopholes. However, they were, for the most part, experts in human history and created our Representative Republic based on experiences learned from other failed government experiences of the past. They founded this country based on the history of recorded civilization at the time. They had to know for certain that population growth was a dynamic that needed to be addressed and it was in the framing of the Constitution.
There were many arguments early on about “one person, one vote”. These arguments led to the shaping of the US House and its role of the citizenry in our government. The very fact that the 30K citizens per Representative role exists in the Constitution shows they anticipated growth. Maybe not the factor-of-10 growth worldwide over 250 years, but I doubt they’d agree that a body of 435 people constituting the US House that now “serves” (yeah, right) the desires of 300M people makes little sense.
I wish I could site from memory who said this, but I recall reading some article from the mid 1800s on this very topic where someone from Pennsylvania stated that “there will be 100 Representatives alone from Pennsylvania by the beginning of the 20th Century”.
I’ll try to find the source of the article for a proper citation as typing that is rather worthless without it. I also know he wasn’t far off as the argument was for 50,000 reps per citizen, not 30,000.