The Congressional Apportionment Amendment was designed to guarantee an adequate number of representatives in Congress. The reasons for it were many.


As James Madison wrote, in [Federalist Paper Number 55](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed55.asp):

> [F]irst, that so small a number of representatives will be an unsafe depositary of the public interests; secondly, that they will not possess a proper knowledge of the local circumstances of their numerous constituents; thirdly, that they will be taken from that class of citizens which will sympathize least with the feelings of the mass of the people, and be most likely to aim at a permanent elevation of the few on the depression of the many;

Basically, he feared that if the ratio of representatives to citizens grew too small:

1. That an unduly small number of representatives would be too vulnerable to corruption by powerful interests.

2. That if each representative was charged with too many constituents, he would become out-of-touch with their interests.

3. That if Congress became too exclusive a group, it would end up being drawn solely from the wealthy elites- who would prioritize the interests of elites over the masses.


Whatever you think of point #1, there is no doubt that points 2 and 3 have become a reality.


When you understand Madison's reasoning for setting the ratios as he did, you understand that it doesn't matter that this would lead to over 6000 representatives today.  The Amendment's intentions were quite clear- one representative per 50,000 people (the version that implies no MORE than one per 50,000 was a misprint by a scribe.  The correct language, and what the states thought they were voting on, was one per 50k.  The Senate version was even more clear with its language, one per 60k...)