In politics, compromise is often necessary in order to make some degree of progress or else the alternative is a likely dysfunctional society -- so then politics do indeed make strange bedfellows of which such proved necessary to have a constitution which became the prevailing law of the land. We find that in the United States, a compromise was reached with the Southern States during the convention, which established that those that were enslaved and thereby legally considered to be property were entitled from a congressional apportionment perspective to be counted as three-fifths of a person, which thereby meant that the Southern States got more representation than they ought to have had because that which is designated as property has no rights and therefore should not have been counted, in which, the ensuing result of this governance of, for, and by the people if this compromise had not been agreed upon would surely have been different. Yet, that is essentially what had to be done to get the thirteen States to agree to this Constitution.
We find that at the conclusion of the Civil War, as well as the ratification of the 15th Amendment, that this changed the enfranchisement dynamic. Yet, history tells us that this change which should have meant the fair enfranchisement of black male voters, soon became bastardized to the extent that the black people residing in the Southern States, now being counted as a full person, because they legally were persons, meant that these same Southern States, would essentially have more representation, of which, after a brief amount of time in which black candidates were duly elected to congress, that this subsequently ended, which thereby meant that the white man was not only able to re-impose their will against those formerly enslaved, but had also obtained more representative power because blacks were now counted the same in the apportionment of the representatives so earmarked for each State.
As it stands right now, the only way to change what we currently have, which amounts to counting up the number of people in a given State through a census, which does not take into account citizenship status or lack thereof, is for a Constitutional Amendment to change things to something more sensible. It would seem fairer to the general public, that representation in Congress should really be apportioned not strictly on population, but rather should be specifically done through the number of registered voters in a given State. That is to say, those that are of age to be a registered voter but do not register should not be counted for congressional apportionment. This would signify that States that aren’t doing their best to register all eligible voters or are being biased against certain potential voters, should suffer the fate of less representation, because quite frankly, those individuals that have not registered to vote or are ineligible to vote, aren’t engaged with their country, which seems to stipulate that they believe that their nation is of minimal value to them.
Furthermore, apportioning how many representatives each State receives is done every ten years, but should be changed to be in harmony with the fact that all Congressional representatives are up for election every two years. All of the above would therefore make for a better representative government because those exercising their suffrage rights are the very same that deserve that representation.