The argument is that our country should be governed with political power equally allocated on a ‘one person, one vote’ basis.  This standard was articulated by the Supreme Court in the 1960s when it ruled that state legislative districts had to have equal numbers.   At that time, in many states rural districts had greater representation than urban districts due to people moving from the country-side into the cities and suburbs.  Today, the situation is reversed, with urban areas having greater representation due to their disproportionately larger non-citizen populations overall compared to rural areas.

In the 1960s these Supreme Court cases were very controversial, and there was a major drive for an Article V convention to amend the Constitution to reverse those decisions.  However, the principle of “one person, one vote” laid down in those cases is now broadly accepted.  Then Democrats were strong advocates of such equal representation, both on principle and because it would benefit them politically.  The principle of “one person, one vote” remains the same.  Now the question is what do Democrats do when the principle of equal representation may conflict with their political interests in many (but not all) cases.