3 ms·

No, the House isn't proportional. There is a minimum of one House member per State: each State shall have at Least one Representative. At 321.4 million / 435 =

No, the House isn't proportional. There is a minimum of one House member per State: each State shall have at Least one Representative. At 321.4 million / 435 = 738850. Wyoming wouldn't even get a House member. Vermont wouldn't either.

noobermin 9y ago
I suppose the principle of charity would lead us to believe they meant the House is more proportional compared to the Senate.
jghn 9y ago
Thus the "supposed to be". A better way to have phrased it would be quasi-proportional. I was suggesting that your beef really should be with the House.
- CalChris 9y ago
  The Senate represented the States. Senators until the 17th Amendment were appointed by State legislatures. The President was elected by the Electoral College with votes apportioned to the States. House members were popularly elected but only by white men; indeed the 1790 Naturalization Law said that only free white men could vote. Only 6% of the population could vote. This is your original intent. This is your design.
drewmol 9y ago
It was intended to continue to grow with population, I copied this from a previous comment of mine bc I'm lazy: "The U.S. Constitution called for at least one Representative per state and that no more than one for every 30,000 persons." [1] The Appointment Act of 1911 and subsequent Permanent Appointment Act of 1929 capped the total number of House congressional representatives at 435 [2], so the degree of seperation between an individual elector and their representative in any given congressional district continues to grow as population increases. This also has an effect on the Electoral College, as it's membership numbers are based on the number of congress persons. Furthermore, I will assume this limit, combined with a growing population will increase the chances of a Presidential Candidate winning election without also winning the national popular vote, as we have seen on multiple occasions in recent decades. [1] http://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The.. http://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The.... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929
- CalChris 9y ago
  The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand Remember, the same people who wrote the Second Amendment wrote this. In any case, that was superseded post Civil War by Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment. That allows for the Reapportionment of 1929. It would seem that that would override the 1 House member minimum but it doesn't because, because nothing.

noobermin 9y ago

I suppose the principle of charity would lead us to believe they meant the House is more proportional compared to the Senate.

jghn 9y ago

Thus the "supposed to be". A better way to have phrased it would be quasi-proportional. I was suggesting that your beef really should be with the House.

CalChris 9y ago
The Senate represented the States. Senators until the 17th Amendment were appointed by State legislatures. The President was elected by the Electoral College with votes apportioned to the States. House members were popularly elected but only by white men; indeed the 1790 Naturalization Law said that only free white men could vote. Only 6% of the population could vote. This is your original intent. This is your design.

drewmol 9y ago

It was intended to continue to grow with population, I copied this from a previous comment of mine bc I'm lazy: "The U.S. Constitution called for at least one Representative per state and that no more than one for every 30,000 persons." [1] The Appointment Act of 1911 and subsequent Permanent Appointment Act of 1929 capped the total number of House congressional representatives at 435 [2], so the degree of seperation between an individual elector and their representative in any given congressional district continues to grow as population increases. This also has an effect on the Electoral College, as it's membership numbers are based on the number of congress persons. Furthermore, I will assume this limit, combined with a growing population will increase the chances of a Presidential Candidate winning election without also winning the national popular vote, as we have seen on multiple occasions in recent decades. [1] http://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The.. http://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The.... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929

CalChris 9y ago
The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand Remember, the same people who wrote the Second Amendment wrote this. In any case, that was superseded post Civil War by Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment. That allows for the Reapportionment of 1929. It would seem that that would override the 1 House member minimum but it doesn't because, because nothing.