As the population grows... (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 24, 2024, 02:50:02 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Process (Moderator: muon2)
  As the population grows... (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: As the population grows...  (Read 3553 times)
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,144
United States


« on: May 13, 2012, 10:59:24 PM »

While I haven't done a statistical analysis, a look at the 2010 census results does not show that the smaller states are on average slower than the other states.  Indeed of the 10 slowest growing states, 5 of them are among our 10 biggest states and only 2 are among our 10 smallest.

Not that I don't agree we could use a larger House. I favor having a number of seats equal to the cube root of the population, which would give the house 675 seats, but the problem you are worried about does not appear to be significant.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,144
United States


« Reply #1 on: July 16, 2012, 10:28:04 AM »

How does a smaller House work to the advantage of smaller states? Montana has most number of people per congresscritter.

That's because Montana is at the sour spot for apportionment under our current system, just under √2 of an ideal House seat.  If it had had just a few more people then it would would had two Representatives and replaced Rhode Island for the distinction of having the least number of people per congresscritter.

Right now we have no States that are unfairly overrepresented because of the guaranteed House seat.  Back in 1900, Nevada had a population of only 42,335 at a time when an ideal House seat had 194,182 people.  That is the worst historical mismatch.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,144
United States


« Reply #2 on: July 16, 2012, 04:26:23 PM »

No state unfairly overrepresented? Ever hear of Wyoming?
Wyoming has enough population that even without the guaranteed seat for being a State it would still have a Representative of its own, so it isn't what I would call unfairly overrepresented.  Granted, the disparities between States would be reduced if we had enough Seats that every State would have at least two Seats, but that only would reduce us from 2:1 to √3:1 (1.73:1) as the maximum disparity possible.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,144
United States


« Reply #3 on: July 28, 2012, 12:23:24 AM »

I'm not going to do the detailed calculation, but every state would have at least 2 Representatives, and DC would have 4 electors, so there would be 1103 electoral votes.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,144
United States


« Reply #4 on: July 29, 2012, 09:02:53 PM »
« Edited: July 29, 2012, 09:08:02 PM by True Federalist »

They probably programmed it assuming people would want a 435 seat Congress and thus more than 60 seats per State would not be wanted.   They probably are generating the preference values for seats 2-60 for each State and then sorting that list.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.018 seconds with 10 queries.