“The Case for Enlarging the House of Representatives” has just been published by Lee Drutman, Jonathan D. Cohen, Yuval Levin, and Norman J. Ornstein. See it here.
“The Case for Enlarging the House of Representatives” has just been published by Lee Drutman, Jonathan D. Cohen, Yuval Levin, and Norman J. Ornstein. See it here.
USA H reps became total mob scene after 1870 — 1870 Census
EX-slave States gained a higher percent of seats – 14-2 amdt.
Total enlarged so no free/Union State lost any Rep seats.
—-
PR — NOOOO need for any mob scene legis bodies.
APPV
TOTSOP
Nice to see they’re using my state of West Virginia as an example. Bookmarked for later read. Their proposal is to add 150 seats, but if they’d just follow the Wyoming Rule, there would be 138 added and no need for anyone to pick an arbitrary number. Well, at least they’re not pushing that crazy Tactical Civics 15,000 House size nonsense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule
Four ( ( (scholars) ) )
Ah, the arbitrariness of the numbers for representation. There is natural law rule for political conventions for representation. George Washington wanted one Representative per thirty thousand population. No one can say why. One Representative per one million population? No one can say why not when individuals no longer matter in a fascist police state.
DFR
330 MILL pop / 50 states = 6.6 mill AVE — USA minority rule Senate
—
TOTAL power madness in Devil City.
30,000 per representative is what makes for a representative who can effectively have time to meet with or otherwise speak to/correspond with and actually represent constituents. Obviously, not each and every of the 30,000, but the numbers that typically seek to actually meet with and get constituent services from the rep. This original idea for district representation has been replaced with the influence of big money and special interest politics.
Wyoming Rule is very simple: the number of Reps would be proportioned to the least populous state.
One point they make it that the House should be increased by a number that results in a total number of odd seats, to minimize tie votes. HOWEVER, if the number of House seats is ODD, THEN the number of Presidential Electoral Votes becomes EVEN with the addition of DC’s 3 Electoral Votes.
IMO, it’s better to risk tie votes in the House than in the Electoral College.
They mention as a criticism of the Wyoming Rule that if the population of the least populous state increases significantly, then it’s possible for the total number of seats to decline, and make reapportionment more challenging.
This is a valid point. IMO, this can be fixed by a proviso in the Wyoming Rule that the total number of seats not be reduced after any census, regardless of the change in population of the least state.
It’s interesting to note that if the Cube Root Rule were applied to California, then the State Assembly should be increased from 80 to 340 members.
Just finished reading the article and the Cube Root Rule does seem to be the best method. 692 seats. It cuts the gap between largest and smallest district size in half. The more legislators, the more bills getting introduced, i.e. more pork and stuff jammed up in committee just wasting resources. Hope this gets some attention.
Interesting that California only has 80 members in it’s state assembly and we here in West Virginia have 100 delegates and 34 state senators, YET WE JUST LOST a US Rep. Things that make you go hmmmm.
Limited USA govt legislative powers —
esp subverted since 1936. — 181 gen welfare and 183 comm cl
States almost DEAD — pass thru agents of Fed **aid**.
Thus – REDUCE # of Reps — to 201 ???
2020 Census 330,000,000 / 30,000 = a mere 11,000.
Take over local Devil city stadiums for photo ops. of the gerrymander monarchs/oligarchs.
New Hampshire has 400 state representatives, one for every 3,444 people. Because we have overlying floterial districts to even out the averages, most people have more than one state rep–and even state reps have state reps.
Congressional districts within a state should be required to have the same number of voters, which would provide more equal access for voters to their representative.
Representatives should be apportioned to the nearest 1/5 of a representative, with the whole number for a state varying throughout a decade between censuses. A state entitled to 10.4 representatives would have 10 representatives for three sessions and 11 for the other 2.
Representation should follow the cube root rule which would eliminate manipulation of the number.
Also, if we look at the population of the next three states (TX, FL, and NY), and using the Cube Root Rule:
Texas should increase the size of its House of Reps from 150 to 310 members,
Florida should increase the size of its House of Reps from 120 to 280 members, and
New York should increase the size of its State Assembly from 150 to 272 members.
Of course, an alternative would be to divide these most populous states into several new, smaller states.
Would NH have to decrease their legislature?
@WZ,
What was then called the Delaware Rule, the HOR would have increased from 66 to 99 members. Statehood for Illinois just before 1820, would have expanded the HOR to 175. The rule would be once again based on Delaware in 1830, reducing the HOR to 167, unless the Ziobro Proviso kept it at 175.
In the next four decades the HOR would expand to 218, 265, 599, and 898 based on least populous Delaware, Florida, Oregon, and Nevada.
By 1900 there would be 1795 representatives. The size would decline to 548 in 1990 and 2010. It would be known as the Nevada Rule from 1870-1950, Alaska Rule from 1960 to 1980 and Wyoming rule from 1990.
It is interesting to speculate whether it will ever be known as the Vermont Rule.
How about a Rhode Island Rule ???
– home of Dorr’s War in 1840-1842 >>>
1844 RI Const — last of 13 original States to get a Const.
—-
NO ratio mess Rules —
PR
@ JR:
Thanks for that. Interesting speculative history.
Any idea what the historical size of the HOR might be under the Cube Root Rule?
@ Dem Rep:
Actually, I have proposed a Rhode Island Rule, but based on district size, not population. No congressional district should be smaller than 1,000 square miles, about the size of RI.
The intent is to create multi-member districts in metro ares.
@ Gio:
No need for any state to make its own legislature smaller, if it doesn’t want to.
The size of the HoR in Massachusetts was 749 in 1812. That would be interesting to have again.
Last thing we need is more politicians. The Emperor’s council should fit comfortably around a kitchen table where everyone can speak and be heard comfortably without shouting or amplification.
Bigger legislatures are better. More consensus building required; helps fulfill the intent of Madison in Fed #10.
It’s not working out that way in practice.
Actually, it is.
@WZ,
In 1790 and 1800, applying the cube root rule would have violated the constitutional minimum size of 30,000 per representative.
In 1810 to 1830, the cube root rule tracked the actual apportionment fairly accurately.
1810 189 CRR, 182 actual, 96% ratio actual/CRR
1820 208, 213, 102%
1830 229, 240, 105%
In 1840 the HOR dropped from 240 to 223, and only increased by 1860.
1860 241, 310, 78%
After the Civil War the Northern Hegemons were concerned that the elimination of the 3/5 rule would result in loss of representation to the Southern states so they increased the the HOR dramatically.
1870 338, 292, 86%
Over the ensuing decades the HOR increased slightly faster than the cube root rule so that by 1910
1910 451, 435, 96%
The size was frozen in 1910.
2020 692, 435, 63%
Note the paper in the original suggested that the cube oot rule could be gradually restored. If we assume continued population growth at the rate of 2010-2020, then recovery within 50 years by 2070 could be achieved by a decennial increase of 12.3%.
2030 489
2040 549
2050 617
2060 693
2070 778
The average representative in a population of 471M would be around 605K.
@WZ,
In Massachusetts, each town could have as many representatives as they could support. This would likely have advantaged Boston since representative could live at home and perhaps conduct business during a legislative session. It would be more of a hardship for towns in the Berkshires or Maine which would have less $$$ and higher transportation costs.
Bigger legislatures nowadays just mean more pork barrel spending, plus their own bloated salaries and perks, plus staff, security, accommodations, etc. Far from consensus, they’ve devolved into partisan bickering ever more. Members are led around by the nose by leadership, donors, supposed experts, and sometimes staff, as well as their own greed and ambition.
@ Justin:
IMO, the less they get done, the better. Bigger legislative bodies help accomplish that.
@ JR
Thanks for running those numbers on the CRR. Fascinating.
It’s not that they get less done. They still manage to spend trillions on an ever growing list of entitlements and handouts, criminalize an ever growing list of behavior, etc, etc. It’s just that they are beset with the factional sniping that Madison sought to avoid, at the same time. The same holds true in many states. Larger legislative numbers have not put a stop to it.
@WZ,
While trying to determine whether Congress might have been aware of the cube root rule, I came across this paper from 1972 which was apparently the first observation of the phenomena. In essence, the cube root rule is NOT what size legislatures should be, but rather what size they tend to be.
http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/45g370k4
@WZ,
This paper critiques the derivation of the cube root law, and notes that it is not even the best fit to the data in the original paper.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2020.614596
Maybe congress doesn’t need to physically meet anymore? Or maybe they could meet in state Capitols then teleconference from there?
@Ian,
Eliminate the House of Representatives, and half the Senators, who would then serve more in role of emissary from their respective legislature.
The Senate is supposed to represent the states and the house is supposed to represent the people, although this design was altered with direct election of senators.