- Joined
- Mar 6, 2019
- Messages
- 34,198
- Reaction score
- 34,454
- Location
- PNW
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
In 1929 the Permanent Apportionment Act was passed. We've been on the path wway from democratic representation ever since.
Some background:
fivethirtyeight.com
Since its passage, the House has stagnated at 435 voting members, although the US population has tripled. That means the average seat represents 760,000 people. But, that is the average - part of the problem. It varies from 542,000 to 991,000. It skews the Electoral College and House significantly toward rural people and underrepresents the majority of the population.
"the average number of people represented in a district has more than tripled, from about 210,000 in 1910 to about 760,000 in 2020.; In 1910, the largest state, New York, had about 9 million more people than the smallest — that is, least populous — state, Nevada. But today, the largest state, California, has nearly 39 million more people than the smallest, Wyoming.
....
Take the smallest and largest states with only one representative: Wyoming and Delaware, respectively. Wyoming, with just under 578,000 people, winds up overrepresented because it’s guaranteed a seat despite falling well short of that 760,000 national average. Conversely, Delaware has nearly 991,000 people, which leaves it underrepresented because it isn’t quite large enough to earn a second seat. Meanwhile, Montana has only about 95,000 more people than Delaware, but that’s enough for the apportionment formula to eke out a second seat, meaning Montana will have two districts to Delaware’s one and an average district size of just over 542,000, making its constituents the most represented in the country."
The average constituent count in rural districts is much smaller than the average in urban districts.
www.azavea.com
Expansion is not without is own problems. "Clearly, there are pros and cons to increasing the size of the House, but at the very least, the idea should be more openly debated because, in terms of changes that could be made to our institutions, expanding the House is actually doable. For instance, the Senate’s small-state bias often gets a lot more attention, but any change to the Senate would require a constitutional amendment whereas the size of the House could be altered with a simple bill.
“It’s going to be difficult to increase the size of the House of Representatives; I’m under no illusions,” said Frederick of Bridgewater State University. Nevertheless, it may be time for a change given how unequal districts have become between states and how underrepresented Americans are after more than 100 years of being stuck at 435 House members. Said Frederick, “There’s no doubt that a larger House with smaller constituency population size per district would improve the representational quality that citizens receive from members of Congress.”
Some background:
How The House Got Stuck At 435 Seats
Apportionment, or the process of determining the number of seats each state has in the U.S. House of Representatives, happens like clockwork at this point. Ever…
fivethirtyeight.com
Since its passage, the House has stagnated at 435 voting members, although the US population has tripled. That means the average seat represents 760,000 people. But, that is the average - part of the problem. It varies from 542,000 to 991,000. It skews the Electoral College and House significantly toward rural people and underrepresents the majority of the population.
"the average number of people represented in a district has more than tripled, from about 210,000 in 1910 to about 760,000 in 2020.; In 1910, the largest state, New York, had about 9 million more people than the smallest — that is, least populous — state, Nevada. But today, the largest state, California, has nearly 39 million more people than the smallest, Wyoming.
....
Take the smallest and largest states with only one representative: Wyoming and Delaware, respectively. Wyoming, with just under 578,000 people, winds up overrepresented because it’s guaranteed a seat despite falling well short of that 760,000 national average. Conversely, Delaware has nearly 991,000 people, which leaves it underrepresented because it isn’t quite large enough to earn a second seat. Meanwhile, Montana has only about 95,000 more people than Delaware, but that’s enough for the apportionment formula to eke out a second seat, meaning Montana will have two districts to Delaware’s one and an average district size of just over 542,000, making its constituents the most represented in the country."
The average constituent count in rural districts is much smaller than the average in urban districts.
Blog • Element 84
Data doesn’t have any value unless you can use it… and trust it. Users need to quickly access data and know where it came from. This is especially true with the integration of AI, making quick access more achievable but data provenance more opaque. This is where STAC comes in. The reinsurance...
www.azavea.com
Expansion is not without is own problems. "Clearly, there are pros and cons to increasing the size of the House, but at the very least, the idea should be more openly debated because, in terms of changes that could be made to our institutions, expanding the House is actually doable. For instance, the Senate’s small-state bias often gets a lot more attention, but any change to the Senate would require a constitutional amendment whereas the size of the House could be altered with a simple bill.
“It’s going to be difficult to increase the size of the House of Representatives; I’m under no illusions,” said Frederick of Bridgewater State University. Nevertheless, it may be time for a change given how unequal districts have become between states and how underrepresented Americans are after more than 100 years of being stuck at 435 House members. Said Frederick, “There’s no doubt that a larger House with smaller constituency population size per district would improve the representational quality that citizens receive from members of Congress.”
