I wanted to experiment by devising a Senate that still has 100 seats but equally represents populations. This plan would allow as many Senators from each state as the percentage of the state's overall US population and would allow combinations of states. This is how it sets up. I would do this based on the projected 2020 populations. I'm going to follow up with a post on each state, how it voted in the past and predict a potential senate election based on the senate district.
California - 12
Texas + Louisiana - 10
Florida + Alabama - 8
New York - 6
Ohio + Kenucky - 5
Illinois - 4
Pennsylvania - 4
Washington + Oregon + Hawaii - 4
Georgia - 3
North Carolina - 3
Michigan - 3
New Jersey - 3
Virginia + West Virginia - 3
Arizona + New Mexico - 3
Massachusetts - 2
Tennessee - 2
Indiana - 2
Missouri - 2
Wisconsin - 2
Colorado - 2
Minnesota - 2
South Carolina - 2
Maryland + Delaware + DC - 2
Oklahoma - 1
Utah - 1
Iowa - 1
Nevada - 1
Arkansas - 1
Mississippi - 1
Kansas - 1
Connecticut + Rhode Island - 1
Nebraska + North Dakota + South Dakota + Wyoming - 1
Alaska + Idaho + Montana - 1
Maine + New Hampshire + Vermont - 1
This is by no means a professionally created scheme, just doing this for fun.
While I was doing my North Dakota legislative history, I had figured out a comparable congressional redistricting.
Under the (original) North Dakota constitution, it was invalid to attach part of a county to another county (whole or part of). This resulted in three types of senate districts:
(a) Part of a large county (must be whole number of districts in county).
(b) A single whole county.
(c) Two or more contiguous whole counties.
Representatives were apportioned to the senate districts and elected at large.
The number of senators in North Dakota was similar to the number of counties (49 districts vs. 53 counties) so that in a largely rural North Dakota a whole-county senate district was normative.
To give a comparable model for my Congress, there are 50 senators and 150 representatives.
| 1 | CT, ME. NH, RI, VT | 1 | 3 |
| 2 | MA | 1 | 3 |
| 3,4,5 | NY | 3 | 9 |
| 6,7 | NJ | 2 | 4 |
| 8,9 | PA | 2 | 6 |
| 10 | MD, DE, DC | 1 | 3 |
| 11 | VA | 1 | 3 |
| 12,13 | NC | 2 | 4 |
| 14 | SC | 1 | 2 |
| 15,16 | GA | 2 | 4 |
| 17,18,19 | FL | 3 | 9 |
| 20 | AL | 1 | 2 |
| 21 | TN | 1 | 3 |
| 22 | KY, WV | 1 | 3 |
| 23 | IN | 1 | 3 |
| 24,25 | OH | 2 | 5 |
| 26,27 | MI | 2 | 4 |
| 28 | WI | 1 | 2 |
| 29,30 | IL | 2 | 6 |
| 31 | MO | 1 | 2 |
| 32 | MS, AR | 1 | 2 |
| 33 | LA | 1 | 2 |
| 34,35,36,37 | TX | 4 | 12 |
| 38 | OK, KS | 1 | 3 |
| 39 | IA, NE, MT, WY | 1 | 3 |
| 40 | MN, SD, ND | 1 | 3 |
| 41 | CO, NM | 1 | 3 |
| 42 | AZ | 1 | 3 |
| 43 | UT, NV, ID | 1 | 3 |
| 44 | WA | 1 | 3 |
| 45 | OR, HI, AK | 1 | 2 |
| 46,47,48,49,50 | CA | 5 | 18 |
If you read the text of the constitution, it says contiguous, if practicable; then affinity. Thus the New England district that skips Massachusetts is constitutional as in the Pacific district of Oregon, Hawaii, and Alaska.
On a raw basis, California would be entitled to 6 districts, but I didn't find a way to draw other districts and produce 50 total. The goal was to have all districts between 2/3 and 4/3.
Overall the relative standard deviation is 15.13%.
