51st state?

[NWI_Irish96]

I still say that the top five  metro areas should be their own states.  Otherwise the heavily blue urban areas have too much pull over heavily red rural areas, at least when it comes to state politics.

Nationally, I would think things would still tend to balance out.

Rural states tend to be over-represented in Congress. You are guaranteed two senators and one representative, no matter your population. The two-senators thing is by design (because the Senate is intended to put the brakes on populous states), but the House representation throws everything out of whack. There are only 435 representatives, no matter what. That means, in the case of states with very low population, like Wyoming, you end up with a representative with far fewer constituents than a rep in a higher-population state. For example, Oklahoma has 9.3 million residents and 5 House seats, meaning each rep has 780,000 people they represent. Wyoming has 585,000 people in the whole state, all of which share one rep, so one voter's say is more influential in Wyoming than it is in Oklahoma (since they have 195,000 people fewer that their vote has to compete against).

This would be simple to fix, by increasing the size of the House until the average population of one congressional district was 585,000, but the House chamber is too small to fit the appropriate number of representatives. Which is the original reason they put the cap at 435 in the first place–the House did not want to appropriate money to build a larger chamber. Decades later, due to population growth patterns nobody really saw coming when that rule was passed, it's causing these imbalance issues, which of course have deeper, if subtle, implications on policy in a 21st-century America.

I like this idea.  Pass a law that the size of the House of Representatives = Total population of US / Population of smallest state, then adjust the size every 10 years after each Census.  You can never eliminate disproportionality as others have noted, but this reduces it quite a bit.  The only way to completely eliminate disproportionality is to have districts cross state lines but that's not realistic.

[kalvado]

I still say that the top five  metro areas should be their own states.  Otherwise the heavily blue urban areas have too much pull over heavily red rural areas, at least when it comes to state politics.

Nationally, I would think things would still tend to balance out.

Rural states tend to be over-represented in Congress. You are guaranteed two senators and one representative, no matter your population. The two-senators thing is by design (because the Senate is intended to put the brakes on populous states), but the House representation throws everything out of whack. There are only 435 representatives, no matter what. That means, in the case of states with very low population, like Wyoming, you end up with a representative with far fewer constituents than a rep in a higher-population state. For example, Oklahoma has 9.3 million residents and 5 House seats, meaning each rep has 780,000 people they represent. Wyoming has 585,000 people in the whole state, all of which share one rep, so one voter's say is more influential in Wyoming than it is in Oklahoma (since they have 195,000 people fewer that their vote has to compete against).

This would be simple to fix, by increasing the size of the House until the average population of one congressional district was 585,000, but the House chamber is too small to fit the appropriate number of representatives. Which is the original reason they put the cap at 435 in the first place–the House did not want to appropriate money to build a larger chamber. Decades later, due to population growth patterns nobody really saw coming when that rule was passed, it's causing these imbalance issues, which of course have deeper, if subtle, implications on policy in a 21st-century America.

I like this idea.  Pass a law that the size of the House of Representatives = Total population of US / Population of smallest state, then adjust the size every 10 years after each Census.  You can never eliminate disproportionality as others have noted, but this reduces it quite a bit.  The only way to completely eliminate disproportionality is to have districts cross state lines but that's not realistic.

There is no disproportionality per se. What gets people agitated is that small states have higher representation in electoral college, especially since last presidential election. But that is because of +2  votes for each state - as number of electors for state = number of representatives + 2 senators.  If the goal is to level that out, either "+2" has to be abolished (good luck), or "+2"  has to be drowned in number of representatives. If there were, say, 10,000 representatives - 100 senator votes wouldn't play a role.

[kkt]

House districts were originally supposed to have 30,000 people.  That would be small enough to campaign door-to-door, and representatives and constituents could really know each other.  Advertising money would not play a dominating role in campaigns.  However, the total size of the house would be unwieldly large.

[mgk920]

I still say that the top five  metro areas should be their own states.  Otherwise the heavily blue urban areas have too much pull over heavily red rural areas, at least when it comes to state politics.

Nationally, I would think things would still tend to balance out.

Rural states tend to be over-represented in Congress. You are guaranteed two senators and one representative, no matter your population. The two-senators thing is by design (because the Senate is intended to put the brakes on populous states), but the House representation throws everything out of whack. There are only 435 representatives, no matter what. That means, in the case of states with very low population, like Wyoming, you end up with a representative with far fewer constituents than a rep in a higher-population state. For example, Oklahoma has 9.3 million residents and 5 House seats, meaning each rep has 780,000 people they represent. Wyoming has 585,000 people in the whole state, all of which share one rep, so one voter's say is more influential in Wyoming than it is in Oklahoma (since they have 195,000 people fewer that their vote has to compete against).

This would be simple to fix, by increasing the size of the House until the average population of one congressional district was 585,000, but the House chamber is too small to fit the appropriate number of representatives. Which is the original reason they put the cap at 435 in the first place–the House did not want to appropriate money to build a larger chamber. Decades later, due to population growth patterns nobody really saw coming when that rule was passed, it's causing these imbalance issues, which of course have deeper, if subtle, implications on policy in a 21st-century America.

I like this idea.  Pass a law that the size of the House of Representatives = Total population of US / Population of smallest state, then adjust the size every 10 years after each Census.  You can never eliminate disproportionality as others have noted, but this reduces it quite a bit.  The only way to completely eliminate disproportionality is to have districts cross state lines but that's not realistic.

There is no disproportionality per se. What gets people agitated is that small states have higher representation in electoral college, especially since last presidential election. But that is because of +2  votes for each state - as number of electors for state = number of representatives + 2 senators.  If the goal is to level that out, either "+2" has to be abolished (good luck), or "+2"  has to be drowned in number of representatives. If there were, say, 10,000 representatives - 100 senator votes wouldn't play a role.

AND - the EC means that candidates *must* pay attention to the medium and small states in order to win.  No EC (ie, direct popular election) means that flyover country will become FLYOVER COUNTRY, to be completely forgotten and raked over the coals with no fears of repercussions (ie, traditionally 'blue' West Virginia going 4-1 'red' in the 2016 election).  The candidates will put all of their resources into the major media markets only.  Fargo?  Is that a place in Germany?

Mike

[mgk920]

House districts were originally supposed to have 30,000 people.  That would be small enough to campaign door-to-door, and representatives and constituents could really know each other.  Advertising money would not play a dominating role in campaigns.  However, the total size of the house would be unwieldly large.

And besides, how much would it co$$$$$t to rebuild the Capitol to hold such a body?



Mike

[jp the roadgeek]

Heck, even CT can be split into two states: BridgeHartHavenBury, and the rest of the state.  The former is an almost as far left as California faction, while the rest of the state tends to lean center-right.  Unfortunately, the people in those 4 cities where most are on the dole have elected officials that have turned our state into a state that people are fleeing from like an erupting volcano, and businesses avoid like The Plague (GE jumped ship, Amazon basically laughed at our proposals for their second headquarters), and each is in a separate congressional district so our delegation is among the hardest left in the union.   

[Brandon]

House districts were originally supposed to have 30,000 people.  That would be small enough to campaign door-to-door, and representatives and constituents could really know each other.  Advertising money would not play a dominating role in campaigns.  However, the total size of the house would be unwieldly large.

Maybe having a House that size wouldn't be a bad thing.  With over 7,500 Representatives, maybe it might not be so clubby, and we might cut down on the buddy-buddy back-door shit.

[abefroman329]

House districts were originally supposed to have 30,000 people.  That would be small enough to campaign door-to-door, and representatives and constituents could really know each other.  Advertising money would not play a dominating role in campaigns.  However, the total size of the house would be unwieldly large.

Maybe having a House that size wouldn't be a bad thing.  With over 7,500 Representatives, maybe it might not be so clubby, and we might cut down on the buddy-buddy back-door shit.

Read up on the New Hampshire legislature.  It's the third-largest legislative body in the world, behind only the UK Parliament and the US Congress.  Since there are so many elected officials, annual pay is a tiny travel stipend, meaning that most legislators are college students, retirees, and others who are able to perform this duty and still survive on money they make elsewhere.  I leave it to you to determine whether it's a success or failure.

[spooky]

I think the Perkins Union is going to be the 51st state.

[KeithE4Phx]

House districts were originally supposed to have 30,000 people.  That would be small enough to campaign door-to-door, and representatives and constituents could really know each other.  Advertising money would not play a dominating role in campaigns.  However, the total size of the house would be unwieldly large.

With roughly 320 million people in the US now, the size of Congress would be 10,666 members.  Add staff, and at current overpaid salaries, that would be one huge tax liability.

[Scott5114]

First of all, you realize you're talking about a total of maybe 10 seats being oh-so-disproportional?

Population of California is 39.5 million ÷ 53 seats = 745,283. So there's 53 seats that are disproportionately under-represented compared to Wyoming (a good deal more than 10).

Interestingly, this math shows that a district in Oklahoma (a red state) is more under-represented than one in California (a blue state), so it appears to be hurting both sides of the aisle.

AND - the EC means that candidates *must* pay attention to the medium and small states in order to win.  No EC (ie, direct popular election) means that flyover country will become FLYOVER COUNTRY, to be completely forgotten and raked over the coals with no fears of repercussions (ie, traditionally 'blue' West Virginia going 4-1 'red' in the 2016 election).

We already are completely forgotten. No Presidential candidate in their right mind would ever visit Oklahoma, since all 77 counties have voted for the Republican in three consecutive elections (the last Democrat Oklahoma voted for was Lyndon B. Johnson). We are a waste of time, so our interests don't factor in at all to Presidential politics.

On the other hand, without the Electoral College, the Democrat could hit up Norman and downtown Oklahoma City to try to pick up some votes, since each one would actually count toward the national total.

House districts were originally supposed to have 30,000 people.  That would be small enough to campaign door-to-door, and representatives and constituents could really know each other.  Advertising money would not play a dominating role in campaigns.  However, the total size of the house would be unwieldly large.

And besides, how much would it co$$$$$t to rebuild the Capitol to hold such a body?



Mike

I've seen it suggested that votes of the full House could be handled through teleconferencing. Speeches to the House could be done by uploading videos to the Congressional website (they're often done by shouting into an empty House chamber anyway, the aim being to get them transcribed into the Congressional record). Much of the House's important business is done in smaller committees like the Ways and Means Committee anyway.

Turn on C-SPAN sometime–it is not quite as boring as its reputation–and ask yourself if what you're seeing really needs to be done in person in 2018.

[kalvado]

First of all, you realize you're talking about a total of maybe 10 seats being oh-so-disproportional?

Population of California is 39.5 million ÷ 53 seats = 745,283. So there's 53 seats that are disproportionately under-represented compared to Wyoming (a good deal more than 10).

California has 1:702,905 representation rate (2010 census data) compared to 1:708,376 target. As such, CA is overrepresented by almost 0.8% compared to average!
As long as there is a limited number of representatives (lower than a total population), you can always find states with the greatest deviation and claim the rest of the states are under (or over)represented.

[kalvado]

House districts were originally supposed to have 30,000 people.  That would be small enough to campaign door-to-door, and representatives and constituents could really know each other.  Advertising money would not play a dominating role in campaigns.  However, the total size of the house would be unwieldly large.

With roughly 320 million people in the US now, the size of Congress would be 10,666 members.  Add staff, and at current overpaid salaries, that would be one huge tax liability.

If 30k people are to pay for  one representative with about $1M/year budget (current number is a bit higher, though), it is only $30 per person - noticable, but not back breaking. And if we're talking telecommute, work from home becomes an option...

[kkt]

I've seen it suggested that votes of the full House could be handled through teleconferencing. Speeches to the House could be done by uploading videos to the Congressional website (they're often done by shouting into an empty House chamber anyway, the aim being to get them transcribed into the Congressional record). Much of the House's important business is done in smaller committees like the Ways and Means Committee anyway.

Turn on C-SPAN sometime–it is not quite as boring as its reputation–and ask yourself if what you're seeing really needs to be done in person in 2018.

I'm sure the voting could be handled.  However politics requires face-to-face contact, to do negotiations, to build trust and find common ground, or to find weaknesses and intimidate.

And with 10,000 legislators, a smaller body would need to be making the actual decisions.  Right now we have sort of an unfortunate seniority system for getting on the powerful committees.  That rewards the career politician, which is not necessarily in the national interest.

[abefroman329]

I've seen it suggested that votes of the full House could be handled through teleconferencing.

Yeah, they started talking about that after 9/11.  Trouble is, there's no way to authenticate that it's actually the Member of Congress placing the vote.

[bing101]

Anyone wanna hear a good idea?

Make L.A. County it's own state.

Dredge up land along the coast, wrap it southeast to O.C. and north to Ventura, and make that part of the rest of California, effectively marooning the new state in.

Watch as people lose their s**t over it.

There. Problem solved.

Heck put a wall on Yolo, Solano and Sacramento counties and make Sacramento pay for the wall on these three counties. These three counties are always the source of the scapegoat everytime some lobbyist and superpac tries to convince the rest of California why the state needs to be split from Sacramento Delta's water deals to Vallejo recovering from bankruptcy as the source for the scapegoating.

[sparker]

Always thought that a small increase in the House of Representatives would be a good idea (if gerrymandering were removed from the picture).  I had the number 499 in mind, up from the present 435; it would make the majority an easy-to-remember 250.  I'm sure the additional seats would likely come from the West Coast, the growing areas of the Mountain States, and the Gulf Coast and/or southern Texas; it would likely shake out reasonably evenly between the existing two parties (would be nice to have a few independents in there for good measure!), with (R) getting much of the mountains and gulf and (D) continuing to dominate the West Coast.  Not a drastic change (a bit under 15%) but probably one that would afford a bit more representation to areas that are currently shorted! 

[Scott5114]

I've seen it suggested that votes of the full House could be handled through teleconferencing.

Yeah, they started talking about that after 9/11.  Trouble is, there's no way to authenticate that it's actually the Member of Congress placing the vote.

Well, there is–public/private key encryption technology is one option. I mean, we've always had a (lower-tech) way to authenticate Presidential nuclear launch orders, and that's a lot more difficult to roll back than a House vote.

Always thought that a small increase in the House of Representatives would be a good idea (if gerrymandering were removed from the picture).  I had the number 499 in mind, up from the present 435; it would make the majority an easy-to-remember 250.

Gerrymandering is an entirely different kettle of fish; one the Supreme Court is planning on looking into soon. I would hope that's a problem everyone would be interested in resolving, since even if your team is drawing the lines now there's nothing to guarantee that will always be the case.

I wouldn't think adding 65 more representatives would rebalance things enough to have much of an effect. Something like 1000 reps would put a bigger dent in the problem.

[kalvado]

I wouldn't think adding 65 more representatives would rebalance things enough to have much of an effect. Something like 1000 reps would put a bigger dent in the problem.

And what exactly you see as a problem?
under/over-representation is a small mathematical glitch in a grand scheme of things; true question is quality over quantity. And with politics becoming more and more of a family business, more job opportunities for  family members is not an answer.
I for one see single elected person per voting area as a biggest issue in polarizing the system.

[abefroman329]

I've seen it suggested that votes of the full House could be handled through teleconferencing.

Yeah, they started talking about that after 9/11.  Trouble is, there's no way to authenticate that it's actually the Member of Congress placing the vote.

Well, there is–public/private key encryption technology is one option. I mean, we've always had a (lower-tech) way to authenticate Presidential nuclear launch orders, and that's a lot more difficult to roll back than a House vote.

Right, but you're talking about one authentication process that may never need to be used and one that will need to be used several times a day while Congress is in session.  Plus this was almost 17 years ago, when BlackBerrys were shiny new technology and little more than glorified two-way pagers.

[kkt]

Historically, Congress has admitted states in pairs to keep the balance of power.  Slave state and a free state, even the last pair admitted Alaska is mostly on the libertarian wing of the Republican party and Hawaii is mostly Democratic.  Now, however, the obvious candidates for admission would all probably lean left-wing:  Puerto Rico, DC as a state, Guam.

[Road Hog]

Historically, Congress has admitted states in pairs to keep the balance of power.  Slave state and a free state, even the last pair admitted Alaska is mostly on the libertarian wing of the Republican party and Hawaii is mostly Democratic.  Now, however, the obvious candidates for admission would all probably lean left-wing:  Puerto Rico, DC as a state, Guam.

Negative. Guam is heavily military and extremely conservative. (Which makes it ideal to pair with PR.)

[Hurricane Rex]

Historically, Congress has admitted states in pairs to keep the balance of power.  Slave state and a free state, even the last pair admitted Alaska is mostly on the libertarian wing of the Republican party and Hawaii is mostly Democratic.  Now, however, the obvious candidates for admission would all probably lean left-wing:  Puerto Rico, DC as a state, Guam.

Negative. Guam is heavily military and extremely conservative. (Which makes it ideal to pair with PR.)

Split California up like the proposal and it also can make a good pair with Puerto Rico or DC

[Scott5114]

I wouldn't think adding 65 more representatives would rebalance things enough to have much of an effect. Something like 1000 reps would put a bigger dent in the problem.

And what exactly you see as a problem?
under/over-representation

Thank you for answering your question for me.

[kalvado]

I wouldn't think adding 65 more representatives would rebalance things enough to have much of an effect. Something like 1000 reps would put a bigger dent in the problem.

And what exactly you see as a problem?
under/over-representation

Thank you for answering your question for me.

I am still confused why you see that as a problem.
anyway, lets try to look at the numbers again:

5 smallest states have population (in thousands, 2010 census) of 563; 625; 672; 710; 814;
As of right now they have 1 representative each, some are underrepresented by your metrics, some are over.
You propose to set ratio to 1:smallest state. Which would make 4 out of these states underrepresented by your metrics. An intentionally discriminatory policy towards flyover states  given the distribution of population.

Or you have any other ideas?