Should the size of the House increase with population?

[Indy Texas]

The population per district would be fixed at a certain amount (say, 500,000). Every decennial reapportionment would involve dividing the latest population of every state by that figure and rounding to the nearest integer.

As a result, states would only lose congressional districts if they had a sufficient decrease in population, rather than the current system where one can lose a district simply by failing to grow as fast as the country as a whole.

This would also imply that the smallest state will not necessarily only have one CD. For example, if Wyoming's population grew larger than 750,000, it would have two districts.

Under this system, assuming a 500K people per district rule, California would have 75 representatives rather than 53 (and 77 EVs rather than 55). Texas would have 50 representatives rather than 36 (and 52 EVs rather than 38). The House has a whole would have 632 seats rather than 435.

When the number of representatives was capped at 435 in 1911, the population per district based on the 1910 census was roughly 212,000 people per CD. Today, the figure is well over 700,000 people per CD.

[Dave from Michigan]

I strongly support increasing the size of the House of Representatives so I would support your plan here, or almost any plan that increased the size. 500K is a nice number to base it on. I was actually working on a map for Michigan with 20 seats which would be 494K a seat. I would even prefer 400K a seat although that would probably increase the overall seat total over 700 if at 500K it would be 632. 700K districts in Michigan leads to awkward districts with areas that don't belong together.

[Mordecai]

I think the size of the House should have continued to increase but not according to your rule of districts being fixed at a certain amount.

I like the Wyoming rule (cube root is good too, whatever produces the smaller number), but there should be a cap on it at 650. Any larger and it becomes unwieldy.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I like the cube root rule as well, and it does follow the historical trend for the House fairly well until it was fixed at 435. The Wyoming rule at present gives a smaller House. For the 2010 census the cube root rule gives 675 Representatives with an average district size of 456K.  The Wyoming rule gives 548 Representatives with a district size of 564K.  As for unwieldiness, the House has long since passed the point of being a deliberative body, so I see no need to cap it's growth.

[politicallefty]

I like the cube root rule as well, and it does follow the historical trend for the House fairly well until it was fixed at 435. The Wyoming rule at present gives a smaller House. For the 2010 census the cube root rule gives 675 Representatives with an average district size of 456K.  The Wyoming rule gives 548 Representatives with a district size of 564K.  As for unwieldiness, the House has long since passed the point of being a deliberative body, so I see no need to cap it's growth.

I am in total agreement with this. The Wyoming rule would be an improvement over the current size, but the cube root rule would be ideal with our current FPTP system. It'd only set the House just a bit bigger than the British House of Commons (despite the fact that the US population is about five times that of the UK). Depending on how rounding is dealt with, the House would have increased from 655.3 in 2000 to 675.9 in 2010. According to current Census estimates, it'd be 693.8 in 2020 and 710.3 in 2030. Even its most distant projection in 2060 would be 749.0 (where the US population is projected to be just over 420 million). That is modest growth that would pose virtually no problem. I think it's the best compromise between a reasonably sized House and smaller district sizes.

Fwiw, the House would be apportioned like this as of 2010:

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Wyoming or Cube is fine with me.

My only problem is that DE gets a second district, and I think it is neat to have one state that has not had a change in boundaries since the beginning of the House.

[Hatman 🍁]

I'm a big fan of the Wyoming rule. However, I would cap the maximum size of the House at 1000, as anything larger than that would seem unmanageable.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

No.

[ElectionsGuy]

No, because this would eventually end up with so many districts it would be too complicated. If anything we need to simplify things.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Wyoming or Cube is fine with me.

My only problem is that DE gets a second district, and I think it is neat to have one state that has not had a change in boundaries since the beginning of the House.

That's only because Delaware elected both of its representatives at-large from 1812 to 1820.

[Flake]

Yes, I don't understand how it would complicate things, the only changes are more representative districts, and we would need to have more renovations to the Capitol building.

[politicallefty]

No.

No, because this would eventually end up with so many districts it would be too complicated. If anything we need to simplify things.

Would you also oppose a one time increase from 435 seats (as opposed to increasing the House each Census)? Where would you draw the line in terms of population per representative? In 50 years, it'll be about a million people per district. The cube root rule balances that quite well. With current growth estimates, the House would increase by no more than 20 members per decade (after an initial jump).

[Redalgo]

To be honest, I do not understand the appeal of large legislative bodies.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

To be honest, I do not understand the appeal of large legislative bodies.

It is not the appeal of large legislative bodies but on the contrary, the appeal of smaller districts that makes it so alluring.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Wyoming or Cube is fine with me.

My only problem is that DE gets a second district, and I think it is neat to have one state that has not had a change in boundaries since the beginning of the House.

That's only because Delaware elected both of its representatives at-large from 1812 to 1820.

I'd allow Delaware to do that just for the sake of continuing tradition (weak argument, I know). Having two at-large congressmen would be interesting.