After scoring the largest upset in the history of war, we the people of the United States of America needed a government — we also needed to pay off the Revolutionary War.

After much haggling, the census was developed, thereby killing two birds with one stone. Found in Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, the practice is referenced as such: “Representation and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers … Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.”

While taxation is now under the purview of the U.S. Tax Code, and the Three-Fifths Clause — which meant slaves only counted for three-fifths of a state’s total population — is long over, the census is largely unchanged. While we likely don’t think about it much, it is still extremely important.

First, its results produce numbers highly involved with the distribution of the tax dollars we pay. Attempting to convince Americans to fill out their 2010 census forms, the U.S. Census Bureau’s Web site stresses that doing so “makes a statement about what resources your community needs.” Indeed, census numbers help determine how more than $400 billion of federal funding each year — more than $3 trillion every decade — is allocated to be spent on services such as hospitals, job training centers, schools, senior centers, infrastructure and emergency services.

The more obvious and important purpose of the census, however, is to protect our democratic form of government by serving as an instrument to link state population totals to their proportional number of representatives in the House.

This meant simply awarding states more representatives as their populations grew. That was until 1911, however, when representatives were capped at a total of 435.

But that didn’t do anything to decrease the census’ importance. “Equal proportions,” or apportionment — the process by which these 435 seats are now distributed — was adopted with a mathematical formula determining how each state’s representatives rise and fall. The formula is also used by the states themselves, guiding the process of “redistricting,” or redrawing, the political districts within states.

To sum it all up without boring you further, the census is, and always has been, fundamental to the “one person, one vote” requirement of American democracy. It’s about the voice of every citizen counting just as much as another’s, and you could probably say that I have a bit of a man-crush on it.

No wonder, then, that a much-hushed news item about the potential addition of a citizenship question to the census caught my attention last week. In short, two Republican senators have proposed that Census Bureau funds be frozen if the 2010 census form does not include a question asking respondents about their citizenship status.

A coalition led by minority lawmakers in the House shot the proposal down. As Rep. Nydia Velazquez, D-N.Y., stated, “Every census since 1790 has included citizens and non-citizens alike, and presidential administrations of both parties have repeatedly upheld counting all people residing in the United States.”

Others labeled the proposal a partisan political ploy, and Robert Groves, director of the U.S. Census Bureau, testified that with 400 million out of 600 million forms already printed, making changes now would be impractical and costly.

Aside from the logistical arguments, I’m going to surprise you here: Velazquez and her fellow Democrats are downright wrong, and Sen. David Vitter, R-La., one of the idea’s two proposers, is right.

As he put it, “If the current census plan goes ahead, the inclusion of non-citizens toward apportionment will artificially increase the population count in certain states, and that will likely result in the loss of Congressional seats.”

Personally, it makes no difference to me which states stand to gain or lose seats. What does matter is that the bedrock of our representative democracy is the equal representation of American citizens. The very simple logic is if you are not a citizen, and therefore not a potential voter  now or, regarding those under 18, in the future, your interests should not be represented in Congress.

I’m not calling for non-citizens who honestly answer the question to be immediately booted out of the United States. But just because we’ve been doing something for a couple hundred years, as Velazquez reminds, doesn’t make it right.

Likewise, just because making something right would cost some money and be a nuisance, as Groves asserts, doesn’t put it beyond remedy.

The Census Bureau declares, “As one of the foundations of our democratic process, the census provides every person in the United States with an equal voice in Congress.”

Replace “person” with “citizen,” and they’d have it right.

Steve Adams is a graduate student in journalism and mass communication from Annapolis, Md.