Talk:United States congressional apportionment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States congressional apportionment is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
The options are: "FA", "A", "GA", "B", "Start", "Stub", "List", "Disambiguation", "Template", or "Category."
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
The options are: "Top", "High", "Mid", and "Low."
??? This article has not yet been assigned a subject.
The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", and "Event."

Contents

[edit] The Equal Proportions Method

Does anyone else see how the so called "Equal Proportions Method" is totally unequal? Why not just divide by population and round to the nearest whole congressman?

Depends what you mean by equal. For a particular mathematical measure of inequality, it is the fairest method possible. Whether you agree with that definition of fairness is another question. On the other hand, there's a lot of issues with your method (see Alabama paradox). It's been tried and the consensus seems to be that EP is better. Jtwdog 06:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
All methods will have paradoxes though. EP was created to prevent the big states from bullying the small states, but now the situation is reversed and EP helps the small states bully the big states. However, at least if the big states ruled, the power would be in the hands of the big populations. Under EP, it's minority rule. If you live in Wyoming, you have 4 times as much voting power than if you live in California or New York. Both the Senate and House of Representatives favor the voters in the small states. The presidential election is then based on the number of seats each state has in these houses. How is this fair?
The problem here is not congressional apportionment methods, but the Senate. The changes from different Congressional apportionment methods would be pretty small in the grand scheme of things. Wyoming is alway going to have a representative (it's in the Constitution), which will give its citizens way more voting power than those in California. It's giving it two Senators that's highway robbery.
But the fact that Senators vote according to their party and ideology, rather than by state, renders that somewhat unimportant. Wyoming gets 2 Republicans, but then Hawaii gets 2 Democrats.

As for apportionment for the House, there is no general agreement on what is more or less proportional. Which method is better than another will depend on ones ideas of proportionality. All methods will produce a perfectly proportional results when such a result is possible - but in reality it generally isn't. - Matthew238 07:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


The problem started with amending the constitution in June of 1804 "...when in every case, after the choice of the president, the person having the greatest number of votes shall be the vice president..." was amended to "...vote by ballot for president and vice president." Defending the constitution gave way to unprincipled partisan politics.

Orininally, "The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand," It seemed possible for (1) representative to confer with such a large constituency. Modern technology has made this task easier, but the task has exponentially exploded. US population is approaching three hundred million. Number of Reps: 435. Is it humanly possible, using modern technology, for (1) representative to confer with a constituency of half a million people of diverse economic backrounds?

Cognitive consent is prerequisite to culturally identify as democratic. Therefore, we the people must be vigilant because, robbing, ripping off, scamming, cheating, taxing and lying are not blessings of liberty, but cultural liability.

[edit] Utah & DC changes

A bill has passed a house committee to add 2 seats to the House or Representatives.[1]. One seat would go to Wash DC, giving it a full voting House member. The other seat would be available as a normal congessional seat, and currently would go to Utah. This wouldincrease the total number of seats to 437. I think this should be added to the article, but I'll someone more familiar with the article to add it.

The portion of the bill giving DC a vote in the house could be subject to the New States Paradox. In fact, there ought to be somewhere a study on weather or not if DC had been a state in 2000 (or part of Maryland in 2000 as well) if it would have affected the priority list in a paradoxial way. Jon 20:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Forgetting DC for the moment, by my calculations (which could be wrong), if we added six new representatives, the formula discussed in this article would give them to NY, IN, MI, TX, IL, and UT. I think this clarifies something about Utah's claim for an additional representative. 68.89.149.2 15:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I forgot to mention that I've listed the states in the order in which new representatives would be apportioned: If we added a 436th, it would go to NY. So, Utah is sixth on the list for getting an additional representative. 68.89.149.2 15:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    • That's not correct. With the EP formula and the 2000 census, the next 6 states that would receive a rep are Utah, New York, Texas, Indiana, Montana, Illinois, in that order. Schoop 20:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

Perhaps some history of the other methods used. A discussion of the pros and cons of various methods. Mention of proportional representation and the allocation of seats to parties - basically the very same problem. Just some ideas for article expansion.

[edit] Definition of "population"

Does anybody know what definition of population is used for the calculations? Is it total resident population, population of citizens, voting-eligible population, registered voters, something else? I'm pretty sure it's not registered voters, but I don't know how children, documented and undocumented aliens, prisoners, and other potentially ineligible groups are treated. Part of the reason that I'm wondering is that, according to this site, http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2004.htm, the fraction of voting-age residents who are eligible to vote varies from 79% in California up to 99% in Maine, North Dakota, Montana, and West Virginia, so the apportionment answer is likely to depend on the choice of definition. I also suspect that the period over which the population is measured matters, since some areas, such as Florida, have meaningfully large seasonal population changes.--Rkstafford 19:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is just population, plain and simple (minus untaxed Indians - see the Constitution). Apportionment does depend heavily on choice of defininition. Going from smallest to largest, we could use: Those voting, those registered to vote, those eligible to vote, population as a whole. The last (I think - certainly not any of the others), is what is used in the United States. Other countries with Single Member districts can use other criteria. In any event, population is never equal anyway; even going by Census figures to the exact individual and address, the Census is not perfectly accurate, and the very day after the Census is taken, population movements, births, deaths etc. will change the figures. Not to mention, as you did above, the variance in the number of people who actually vote, are allowed to vote, etc. - Matthew238 21:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
One of the Reconstruction Amendments reduces the representation in proportion to the number of adult male citizens who are deprived of the right to vote; I don't remember offhand whether it mentions convicts. —Tamfang 00:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colors on the Map

The colors on the map are really confusing. It is hard to tell +1 and -1 apart. Rdore 07:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Table Ratio of representation in the House

Does anyone have data to complete this table through the most recent census? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaedglass (talk • contribs) 00:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger proposal

They are all about the same thing, so why not? :) Foofighter20x (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Support. No point in having "Size of the United States House of Representatives".—Markles 11:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Agree with Markles.--Appraiser (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. I had know idea there were three articles discussing this.Dcmacnut (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
3?--Appraiser (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The number of members in the House is a separate issue from how those members should be apportioned. Ron Duvall (talk) 07:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I'm no fan of stub-length articles, and a page soley about the size of the House would most likely be a stub. And I disagree. House size is immensely important to apportionment, as it determines how many seats there are to be apportioned. What if the size of the House was set by law to only 50 seats, eh? Then we'd have another Senate, essentially... And constitutionally, it could happen!! Foofighter20x (talk) 04:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Let's do this!!

I have a goal. I'd like if we all put in an effort to get this page squared away with the page merge and history in order to achieve featured article status by April 2010, when the census takes place. Who's with me? :) Foofighter20x (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

To give an idea of what I'm thinking with the merger and a rewrite:

Intro...

  • Constitutional text
    • Art. I, Sec. 2, Cl. 3
    • Fourteenth Amd., Sec. 2
  • House size
    • Federalist 55
    • Public Law 62-5
  • Apportionment
    • When done, why, and who's counted
    • Current distribution method - Huntingdon-Hill Method (Method of Equal Proportions) 1940-present; uses geometric mean
    • Former methods
      • Jefferson's Method (Method of Greatest Divisors; biased to large states) 1790-1830
      • Webster's Method (Method of Major Fractions) 1840, 1910, 1930
      • Hamilton's Method (Method of Largest Remainder) 1850-1900; a.k.a. Vinton's Method
    • Proposed methods not used
      • Adam's Method (Method of Smallest Divisors; biased to small states); proposed by John Quincy Adams
      • Dean's Method (Method of Harmonic Mean); proposed James Dean (Professor of Mathematics at the University of Vermont, not the actor); resurfaced in federal courts in 1991 (United States Department of Commerce v. Montana, 503 U.S. 442 (1992))
      • Smallest State Method (Wyoming Rule); set ideal district size at population of smallest states, delimits house size; I have no clue where this first popped up... Help me out! :)
  • Controversies
    • No statistical sampling (Commerce Dept. v. U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316 (1999))
    • Imputation (Utah v. Evans, 536 U.S. 452 (2002))
  • Projected changes following the 2010 census
  • Past increases in House size
  • Past delegation sizes
  • References
  • Notes
  • See also
  • External links

What'cha guys think? Foofighter20x (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


  • Looks good to me. Go for it. Be Bold!—Markles 14:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)