ABSTRACT
Political representation, and its implementation in apportionment and districting practices, comes close to encompassing the full sweep of interests of democratic man. Within the line of development of consensual systems of representation, analysis has tended to proceed on two levels: one concerns the nature and goals of an operating consensual system, i.e., representative democracy or a thing called by that name; the other concerns the formalization of representation inside a democratic system. A careful analysis of egalitarianism and its relation to representation theory and problems was notoriously lacking in oral arguments presented to the Supreme Court in cases which led to the 1964 reapportionment decisions, and in the Court's opinions. A more helpful observation may be the following, focusing on the quality of the "representation" received by the district minority, particularly if it be a part of the statewide minority in a legislative election.
