Attention Math and Poli Sci majors...Why 435?

[Perky]

I am bored with the Bush-Bashing dujour. Its not that is wrong just tedious.


so Let chat about something eles.

Anyone know the real history behind the limiting the size of congress to 435 districts? Was it ever challenged in the courts?



I started looking at the impact of this issue a few weeks back. Here are some pretty stunning facts.

Wyoming as a population of 493,000 and has one representative. That is the low-end of population per rep. A couple of small stated Montana/Delaware and SD actually top the list at over 700,00r residents per rep. (It is so high because they did not have enough people to round up to two reps)

California has a population of 33,871,648 but is limited to 53 Congressional districts. In actuality, CA has on representative for every 639,000 to Wyoming’s one per 493,000. Big states get pretty screwed politically as well

The effect of this problem is that small states have disproportionate voting strength when compared to large states. This problem would not exist were it not for Congress artificially limiting membership to 435 members.

There is also a pretty significant Electoral College problem as well.

The rationale for the limitation is likely related to keeping Congress to a manageable size. But it pretty much hoses the equal protection clause here and it is amplified by the framer’s intent to have a bicameral legislature and the reasons behind it.

It might take a Constitutional amendment to fix this inequity.

Each state shall have at least one Congressional District. The population of the inhabitants of the least populated state shall be used to determine the number of Congressional districts in all other states. The population of any state shall be divided by the population of the smallest state to determine the whole number of Congressional districts of the state. Congress shall make no law nor impose any rule that shall have the effect of limiting the total number of Congressional District.

Now the interesting thing is that if you do it the appropriate way (using Wyoming as the baseline) Bush still wins the EV in both elections because Red states while they have disproportionate voting strength also tend to get a greater benefit from the rounding when dividing a state population by Wyoming. California tops out a 72 members.

So it really is not a DEM-GOP issue. It is a one-man one- vote issue, But it goes to relative voting strength and Gerrymandering and Voting rights for DC.


My guess is that the smaller the district the more democratic the Congress would become.

Thoughts?

[Inland]

1. Actually, the size of a body is an interesting question.

At some point, a body is too small to serve it's function. But at some point, it becomes too large to hold actual debates and it starts to organize into parties and committees that are manageable and get things done.

If you look at the House, it has always been largely in contol of party caucuses. Making this house, for example, six hundred members would merely mean that three hundred in the minority are ignored and powerless rather than the current two hundred.

[Perky]

3. The issue to me is not effectiveness

it is a matter of equal representation. Near as I can tell the number was set back in the 1930s before the internet or substantive commerical air traffic or mass media. Surely the electroing age nmakes the body more efficient or at least it should.

[Inland]

8. Oh, but it is.

After all, it's not voting that's hard with 435 members, it's debate and reaching consensus. That's why every bill gets broken down into committees that provides an up and down vote for the entire body that is rammed through by the majority. It's impossible to have a discussion by the whole without choices being narrowed to a couple.

That's why MORE members won't mean more democracy. There will still be twelve on teh committee, or subcommittee.

[benddem]

2. The same is true

of the Senate. Wyoming has 2 Senators and so does California.
Democratic Senators receive more votes than do Repugs. Wonder if that is true for Representatives too.

[Perky]

5. Actually the Senate is that way by design

The Great bicameral comproises was to give each state two seats in one house with longer terms representing the entire state and seconf house based on poplation. The idea is that having one house or the other disenfranchishes small or large states.

[Squatch]

4. How can anybody grow tired of Bush-bashing?

[Perky]

7. I simply want to get on with impeachment...haha n/t

[northzax]

6. it's been fixed at 435 since 1911

well, actually it was 433 in 1911, but there was a provision for adding a seat for New Mexico and Arizona when they became states. There was a temporary expansion for Alaska and Hawaii to 437, which was then reapportioned in the 1950 census.

I would think that it was simply logistics. If we took the original apportion of one member for ever 30,000 residents, we'd have 9858 congressmen. California alone would have 1129.

[Sammy Pepys]

To maintain some balance between bigger and smaller states

Less populous states like Alaska, Wyoming and the Dakotas don't even have enough population to be divided into districts, so all their members are "at large"...they are the Rep for the entire state.

If you made the baseline Wyoming and it's 439,000, you'd probably end up concentrating a pretty significant portion of the House into a small handful of states. As it is now, California and Texas account for almost 20% of the total Reps in the House. Of course the Senate helps to balance things too, but I think the effort is to not make the House so lopsided.

[TheBaldyMan]

9. One rep for the state with the smallest population still means you'd

get distortions of the kind you refer to between Wyoming and South Dakota. Even if you said the you had one rep for every 1/2 milliom voters that would mean over 500 representatives with the associated staff, office space, administration, health care costs, &c.

It could be a money saving measure.

IMO it would be more accurate to say all electoral systems are unfair. There will always be some level of distortion unless everybody actively participates directly in the legislative process.

Until someone figures out how to fit 290 million US citizens into a hall and has a system that allows everyone to participate in debate then you have to accept some form of delegated representation.

[Spinzonner]

10. Alternate SOlution

Cap the size of states to eliminate gross inequities (but obviously not all) and require large states to break up into multiple smaller ones.

Extra benefit: boon for flag makers

[Perky]

11. Interesting thought but unworkable

In small states, SD for examplway cast the poplulation of the largest city susidize highway and infrastructure cost as well as educational cost for the rest of thes state. You would wind relegating the true farmbelt to the statue of sceond class states.