What Congress would look like with 100 additional seats 

By statute, there are 435 members in the U.S. House of Representatives. But it doesn't have to be that way. Congress can, at any time, add new seats by statute. Unless major changes are made, the new ones would be awarded to states according to the same formula currently used, which is the most logical method.

In the formula, which you can see at right, P is a state's population and n is the number of seats it currently has. The state that produces the largest A value at any point in the process is next in line to gain its (n+1)th seat. The formula ensures at each point that the next seat added goes to the state that (1) is farthest from the average per district population AND (2) does not become farther from the average if it is given an additional seat.

Anyway, that's the boring math part. Here's the more interesting democracy part: It's probably a really good idea to add more seats, given that each member of a 435-man Congress is representing, on average, more than 700,000 constituents, whereas originally, the target was about 30,000 constituents per member. In Federalist Number 55, James Madison discussed the dangers of both a too-large Congress and a too-small one:

Sixty or seventy men may be more properly trusted with a given degree of power than six or seven. But it does not follow that six or seven hundred would be proportionably a better depositary. And if we carry on the supposition to six or seven thousand, the whole reasoning ought to be reversed. The truth is, that in all cases a certain number at least seems to be necessary to secure the benefits of free consultation and discussion, and to guard against too easy a combination for improper purposes; as, on the other hand, the number ought at most to be kept within a certain limit, in order to avoid the confusion and intemperance of a multitude. In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever character composed, passion never fails to wrest the sceptre from reason. Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.

One interesting idea, mentioned in a Wikipedia stub but barely anywhere else, is the so-called "Wyoming Rule," which proposes to add districts until the smallest single-district state (population 568,000) is not so badly over-represented. As it happens, you can get pretty close to that number (average 579,000) by adding exactly 100 districts.

I think this would be great, just because it would improve most people's representation. But I think the folks discussing this idea are confused on a number of levels. For one thing, Wyoming is not the most overrepresented state -- by a long way, that distinction goes to Rhode Island, with its two districts, average population 528,000.

Second, their discussion seems to suggest that an enlargement of the House would benefit Democrats because it would add clout to larger states like California. In fact, it would probably make little difference for either party. And large states like California and Texas are the least likely to benefit or suffer. Their large numbers of districts guarantee that they are always close to mean representation, no matter how large the House gets.

To give you some idea of how this all works out, I've calculated what Congress would look like if you added 100 seats. Here is the table:

 

State Add'l seats
Pop. per seat, 2010 Population New pop. per seat New Number of seats % Change in state's representation
Alabama 1 686,140 4,802,980 600,373 8 -7.08%
Alaska 0 721,523 721,523 721,523 1 -18.69%
Arizona 2 712,522 6,412,698 582,973 11 -0.62%
Arkansas 1 731,557 2,926,228 585,246 5 1.64%
California 11 704,566 37,341,998 583,469 64 -1.82%
Colorado 2 720,704 5,044,928 560,548 9 4.54%
Connecticut 1 716,326 3,581,630 596,938 6 -2.43%
Delaware 1 900,877 900,877 450,439 2 62.62%
Florida 6 700,029 18,900,783 572,751 33 -0.62%
Georgia 3 694,826 9,727,564 572,210 17 -1.27%
Hawaii 0 683,431 1,366,862 683,431 2 -18.69%
Idaho 1 786,750 1,573,500 524,500 3 21.96%
Illinois 4 714,688 12,864,384 584,745 22 -0.62%
Indiana 2 722,398 6,501,582 591,053 11 -0.62%
Iowa 1 763,447 3,053,788 610,758 5 1.64%
Kansas 1 715,953 2,863,812 572,762 5 1.64%
Kentucky 2 725,101 4,350,606 543,826 8 8.41%
Louisiana 2 758,994 4,553,964 569,246 8 8.41%
Maine 0 666,537 1,333,074 666,537 2 -18.69%
Maryland 2 723,741 5,789,928 578,993 10 1.64%
Massachusetts 2 728,849 6,559,641 596,331 11 -0.62%
Michigan 3 707,973 9,911,622 583,037 17 -1.27%
Minnesota 1 664,360 5,314,880 590,542 9 -8.53%
Mississippi 1 744,560 2,978,240 595,648 5 1.64%
Missouri 2 751,435 6,011,480 601,148 10 1.64%
Montana 1 994,416 994,416 497,208 2 62.62%
Nebraska 0 610,608 1,831,824 610,608 3 -18.69%
Nevada 1 677,358 2,709,432 541,886 5 1.64%
New Hampshire 1 660,723 1,321,446 440,482 3 21.96%
New Jersey 3 733,958 8,807,496 587,166 15 1.64%
New Mexico 1 689,091 2,067,273 516,818 4 8.41%
New York 7 719,298 19,421,046 571,207 34 2.39%
North Carolina 4 735,829 9,565,777 562,693 17 6.33%
North Dakota 0 675,905 675,905 675,905 1 -18.69%
Ohio 4 723,031 11,568,496 578,425 20 1.64%
Oklahoma 2 752,976 3,764,880 537,840 7 13.83%
Oregon 2 769,721 3,848,605 549,801 7 13.83%
Pennsylvania 4 707,495 12,734,910 578,860 22 -0.62%
Rhode Island 0 527,624 1,055,248 527,624 2 -18.69%
South Carolina 1 663,711 4,645,977 580,747 8 -7.08%
South Dakota 0 819,761 819,761 819,761 1 -18.69%
Tennessee 2 708,381 6,375,429 579,584 11 -0.62%
Texas 8 701,901 25,268,436 574,283 44 -0.62%
Utah 1 692,691 2,770,764 554,153 5 1.64%
Vermont 0 630,337 630,337 630,337 1 -18.69%
Virginia 3 730,703 8,037,733 574,124 14 3.48%
Washington 2 675,337 6,753,370 562,781 12 -2.43%
West Virginia 1 619,938 1,859,814 464,954 4 8.41%
Wisconsin 2 712,279 5,698,232 569,823 10 1.64%
Wyoming 0 568,300 568,300 568,300 1 -18.69%

The most underepresented state in the House right now is Montana, where 994,000 people share a single congressman. If you added 100 seats to the Congress, Montanans would gain one seat and 63% percent more representation in Congress. Californians would lose a small amount of congressional clout.

Other small states like Alaska and South Dakota would suffer in a 535-member House. By the very nature of the process, small states are the most likely to win or lose big in reapportionment. The question of who wins or loses (Delaware, say, or South Dakota?) is really a random one, depending less on the mean population of the districts than on the exact point at which you stop awarding new seats. Someone is always going to be on the cusp of getting a new seat, and they're the ones most likely to lose or gain.

About The Author

David Freddoso

Bio:
David Freddoso came to the Washington Examiner in June 2009, after serving for nearly two years as a Capitol Hill-based staff reporter for National Review Online. Before writing his New York Times bestselling book, The Case Against Barack Obama, he spent three years assisting Robert Novak, the legendary Washington... more
Pin It
Favorite

More by David Freddoso

Latest in Nation

Saturday, Jul 30, 2016

Videos

Most Popular Stories

© 2016 The San Francisco Examiner

Website powered by Foundation