Why do congressional districts have to be confined within state borders?

[AGA]

Another way to phrase this question is: why can't congressional districts transcend state borders? I understand that the House of Representatives votes as state delegations when there is no electoral college majority in the presidential election, but this could just be replaced with a normal vote.

If congressional districts can be in multiple states, it would be easier to have population equality. For example, in Montana, there is an at-large congressional district that has over one million people, much more than the average district population of about 710,000. Montana could have a congressional district with around 710,000 people in it, and another one that has the rest of the states population and has some area in another state as well to reach population equality. The issue of population equality also exists with the states of Wyoming and Vermont, which each have around 600,000 people.

[The Arizonan]

I think it's because of some provision in the Constitution.

Doesn't this quirk provide more political power to smaller states?

[Coolface Sock #42069]

I think it's because of some provision in the Constitution.

Doesn't this quirk provide more political power to smaller states?

Well, right now, it's providing more power to the smallest state of all (Rhode Island, which barely qualifies for two seats), but I think that's just a fluke. They are projected to go down to 1 seat in 2022.

[pbrower2a]

Federalism. Duh-uh.

[Figueira]

I think it's because of some provision in the Constitution.

Doesn't this quirk provide more political power to smaller states?

Not really. The states it helps and hurts are random.

[muon2]

1. Representatives are apportioned to states in whole numbers.
2. Representatives are elected from single member districts.

I suppose if a law provided for fractional apportionment of representatives to the states, then two or more states could enter into an agreement that would create multi-state districts. Those districts would pool fractions such that the value of each district equaled 1 representative.

[jamestroll]

Interestingly enough, I was just thinking about a way to reform the US Senate.

When the founding fathers wrote our constitution, the population differences between the largest and smallest states were not near the difference of today.

If we were to reform the US Senate, I would propose something like this:

1) One senator per state.
2) Then we create as many senate districts as there are states. Those districts would be able to cross state lines. That way each state would still have their own Senator, but half the Senate would be population based.

I would keep the Senators of the States at six year terms, but the senators based on the districts at two year terms. The latter is because the districts would change every ten years.

I do not know how much sense my proposal makes, but it is something I thought up as I was dreaming one night.