Congressional reapportionment over time - charts

[Joe Republic]

I've plotted a pair of charts showing the congressional reapportionment trends by region.

The regions, like the reapportionments themselves, are determined by the Census Bureau.

Region Map

Regional Apportionment of House Seats Over Time








Regional Apportionment Percentage Over Time

[Nym90]

Very interesting (though nothing too surprising in the data).

Probably the biggest would be that the Northeast hasn't lost nearly as much representation proportionally speaking in the last 100 years as I'd have thought (the Midwest seems to have lost more), and that the South hasn't gained nearly as much as thought (the West gaining far more, though of course the West as we know it now basically didn't exist for the first 70 years or so of our country's history).

[Padfoot]

Very interesting (though nothing too surprising in the data).

Probably the biggest would be that the Northeast hasn't lost nearly as much representation proportionally speaking in the last 100 years as I'd have thought (the Midwest seems to have lost more), and that the South hasn't gained nearly as much as thought (the West gaining far more, though of course the West as we know it now basically didn't exist for the first 70 years or so of our country's history).

The West's gains can almost exclusively be attributed to California.  Over the last 100 years the California congressional delegation has grown by approximately 500% and the state population has grown by double digit percentages every decade since statehood in 1850.

[Хahar 🤔]

I found it interesting, though I didn't really have much to say.

[Cubby]

The West's gains can almost exclusively be attributed to California.  Over the last 100 years the California congressional delegation has grown by approximately 500% and the state population has grown by double digit percentages every decade since statehood in 1850.

California is likely to either remain unchanged or lose a seat this year. It doesn't seem to be growing faster than the national average anymore.

I hope Rhode Island doesn't lose its 2nd seat.

I'll never understand how the South was able to get away with blocking re-apportionment in 1920.

[memphis]

Very interesting (though nothing too surprising in the data).

Probably the biggest would be that the Northeast hasn't lost nearly as much representation proportionally speaking in the last 100 years as I'd have thought (the Midwest seems to have lost more), and that the South hasn't gained nearly as much as thought (the West gaining far more, though of course the West as we know it now basically didn't exist for the first 70 years or so of our country's history).

Not ony has the South not grown much, nearly all growth has been in FL and TX. Outside of a few other hotspots (metro Atlanta, DC) the South has declined substantially. To me, the real story in the graphs in the growth of the West.

[minionofmidas]

I spent over an hour putting these together, and I get one inane, semi-useless response? 

You spent over an hour putting together some inane, semi-useless graphs featuring only common knowledge, and then you have the cheek to complain?

*shakes head in wonder*

[Joe Republic]

I spent over an hour putting these together, and I get one inane, semi-useless response? 

You spent over an hour putting together some inane, semi-useless graphs featuring only common knowledge, and then you have the cheek to complain?

*shakes head in wonder*

You can be a real dick sometimes.  Most times, in fact.

[minionofmidas]

I spent over an hour putting these together, and I get one inane, semi-useless response? 

You spent over an hour putting together some inane, semi-useless graphs featuring only common knowledge, and then you have the cheek to complain?

*shakes head in wonder*

You can be a real dick sometimes.  Most times, in fact.

It has been a pleasure to serve you.

[Free Palestine]

And still, the size has remained the same since the 1920s.

[Padfoot]

And still, the size has remained the same since the 1920s.

They really should have made the Hawaii/Alaska expansion permanent.  Not that it would make a huge difference but reverting back to 435 seems so silly.  Whats so magically about 435?  I understand the "mathematical allure" of having 100 Senators but whats so special about having 435 Representatives?  500 seems a much better number to me.  Maybe it will be reevaluated if/when Puerto Rico becomes a state.

[Free Palestine]

And still, the size has remained the same since the 1920s.

They really should have made the Hawaii/Alaska expansion permanent.  Not that it would make a huge difference but reverting back to 435 seems so silly.  Whats so magically about 435?  I understand the "mathematical allure" of having 100 Senators but whats so special about having 435 Representatives?  500 seems a much better number to me.  Maybe it will be reevaluated if/when Puerto Rico becomes a state.

We have 435 representatives because in the 1920s, the newly-elected Republican majority was wary about reapportioning the House.  They were required to increase it's size three years after the Census of 1920, but they didn't.  And in 1929 they froze the size of the House.

Five hundred would not be enough.  We need at least twice as many Congressmen as we do today.

[true liberty]

maybe we should use some kind of proportional representation so that third parties can finally get some seats.

[Bo]

maybe we should use some kind of proportional representation so that third parties can finally get some seats.

Yes, but that would mean all of a state's representatives would focus towards getting money for that state's major cities while ignoring that state's small towns and rural areas.

[Хahar 🤔]

maybe we should use some kind of proportional representation so that third parties can finally get some seats.

Yes, but that would mean all of a state's representatives would focus towards getting money for that state's major cities while ignoring that state's small towns and rural areas.

Not true.

[Free Palestine]

maybe we should use some kind of proportional representation so that third parties can finally get some seats.

Yes, but that would mean all of a state's representatives would focus towards getting money for that state's major cities while ignoring that state's small towns and rural areas.

The point is that PR would give those small towns and rural areas representation, regardless of where the money is.  Hence, proportional representation.