4 ms·
"But the House hasn't reapportioned representation by population in a century." Not sure where you live, but since 1914 in Colorado: 1914 - four representativ
by 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 agoI stand corrected. Feeling particularly silly as I’m from Colorado and probably should have known that.
- jonathankoren 7y agoNo. 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 agoOf 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 agoYes, Colorado gained states, but some other states lost seats. The overall size of the House is unchanged in over a century.