3 ms·

> Alaska with a population around 700,000 also has 2 senators As does: 1. Wyoming (Population: 572,381) 2. Vermont (Population: 627,180) 3. Alaska (Populati

by eunoia 7y ago

> Alaska with a population around 700,000 also has 2 senators As does: 1. Wyoming (Population: 572,381) 2. Vermont (Population: 627,180) 3. Alaska (Population: 735,720) 4. North Dakota (Population: 760,900) 5. South Dakota (Population: 892,631) 6. Delaware (Population: 975,033) 7. Rhode Island (Population: 1,056,738) 8. Montana (Population: 1,074,532) 9. Maine (Population: 1,342,097) 10. New Hampshire (Population: 1,363,852) These states combined control 20% of the Senate with a roughly combined population of 10 million people. That's only 25% the population of California alone, or 3% of the total country. Now obviously the Senate/House power balance was designed with this in mind. But the House hasn't reapportioned representation by population in a century. Seems to me like the American democratic system has a very large bias for rural voters, especially when you consider where in the country presidential campaigns start every 4 years.

peapicker 7y ago
"But the House hasn't reapportioned representation by population in a century." Not sure where you live, but since 1914 in Colorado: 1914 - four representatives 1973 - five representatives 1983 - six representatives 2003 - seven representatives So clearly seats are added as population changes in a state. See also: https://www.insightsassociation.org/article/states-expected-gain-or-lose-congressional-seats-after-2020-census https://www.insightsassociation.org/article/states-expected-...
- eunoia 7y ago
  I stand corrected. Feeling particularly silly as I’m from Colorado and probably should have known that.
- jonathankoren 7y ago
  No. 385 are redistributed, which still enforces unequal representation, as states with less population than some territories have more purchasing power in the House. For example, Wyoming get a rep for 500,000 people, but everyone else has to pay 700,000 people. To truly remedy this situation in the House, you have to bring the House up to about 930. https://time.com/5423623/house-representatives-number-seats/ https://time.com/5423623/house-representatives-number-seats/
  - peapicker 7y ago
    Of course, if we went by the original law of 30,000 people per congressperson, we'd have over 10,000 representatives. I'm not sure adding more reps would make the system work any better - part of me thinks it would be even more expensive and chaotic.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- barryp 7y ago
  Yes, Colorado gained states, but some other states lost seats. The overall size of the House is unchanged in over a century.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> But the House hasn't reapportioned representation by population in a century. The House reapportions by population after each census (10 years), with the exception of the notable failure after the 1920 Census. The House hasn't increased total size since the reapportionment after the 1910 census, which is probably what you are thinking of.
- ska 7y ago
  > The House hasn't increased total size since the reapportionment after the 1910 census, which is probably what you are thinking of. Doesn't this effectively make it impossible to correctly reapportion by population though, because without a change in size a number of low population states "should" have < 1 member?
  - NeoBasilisk 7y ago
    That is correct.
  - adolph 7y ago
    No, they are performing the task as outlined by the constitution, which is the “correct” method, and which the people are free to amend. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_Stat...
    - ska 7y ago
      Ok, but that's heading into a circle though. The complaint I thought is that the "correct" method does not result in proportion by population, and some people think that would be better.
      - adolph 7y ago
        Many people often think that something different than an existing system would be better or more advantageous for themselves and advocate for it. Claiming rightness or correctness is an appeal to a moral sense of fair play for which their counter-parties are not likely imagine reciprocated once the change comes to fruition. I’m surprised that given technology advances people don’t just cut out the expensive elected officials and put everything up to several national votes per day. If you think that the founders got the proportional balance wrong, what about the temporal balance? Why invest decision making power in one person over such long time frames?

by eunoia 7y ago

peapicker 7y ago

"But the House hasn't reapportioned representation by population in a century." Not sure where you live, but since 1914 in Colorado: 1914 - four representatives 1973 - five representatives 1983 - six representatives 2003 - seven representatives So clearly seats are added as population changes in a state. See also: https://www.insightsassociation.org/article/states-expected-gain-or-lose-congressional-seats-after-2020-census https://www.insightsassociation.org/article/states-expected-...

eunoia 7y ago
I stand corrected. Feeling particularly silly as I’m from Colorado and probably should have known that.
jonathankoren 7y ago
No. 385 are redistributed, which still enforces unequal representation, as states with less population than some territories have more purchasing power in the House. For example, Wyoming get a rep for 500,000 people, but everyone else has to pay 700,000 people. To truly remedy this situation in the House, you have to bring the House up to about 930. https://time.com/5423623/house-representatives-number-seats/ https://time.com/5423623/house-representatives-number-seats/
- peapicker 7y ago
  Of course, if we went by the original law of 30,000 people per congressperson, we'd have over 10,000 representatives. I'm not sure adding more reps would make the system work any better - part of me thinks it would be even more expensive and chaotic.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
barryp 7y ago
Yes, Colorado gained states, but some other states lost seats. The overall size of the House is unchanged in over a century.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> But the House hasn't reapportioned representation by population in a century. The House reapportions by population after each census (10 years), with the exception of the notable failure after the 1920 Census. The House hasn't increased total size since the reapportionment after the 1910 census, which is probably what you are thinking of.

ska 7y ago
> The House hasn't increased total size since the reapportionment after the 1910 census, which is probably what you are thinking of. Doesn't this effectively make it impossible to correctly reapportion by population though, because without a change in size a number of low population states "should" have < 1 member?
- NeoBasilisk 7y ago
  That is correct.
- adolph 7y ago
  No, they are performing the task as outlined by the constitution, which is the “correct” method, and which the people are free to amend. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_Stat...
  - ska 7y ago
    Ok, but that's heading into a circle though. The complaint I thought is that the "correct" method does not result in proportion by population, and some people think that would be better.
    - adolph 7y ago
      Many people often think that something different than an existing system would be better or more advantageous for themselves and advocate for it. Claiming rightness or correctness is an appeal to a moral sense of fair play for which their counter-parties are not likely imagine reciprocated once the change comes to fruition. I’m surprised that given technology advances people don’t just cut out the expensive elected officials and put everything up to several national votes per day. If you think that the founders got the proportional balance wrong, what about the temporal balance? Why invest decision making power in one person over such long time frames?