In comments to one of The Core posts here at F&V, Lewis Batson of Make My Vote Count brings up an excellent idea for a rule to determine the size of the US House of Representatives. Under the “Wyoming Rule,” the standard Representative-to-population ratio would be that of the smallest entitled unit–i.e. currently Wyoming.
The House is currently only slightly malapportioned, but it will get more so over time unless the House size is increased, because of the continuing widening disparity between the smallest states (like Wyoming) and the big ones (like my California).
Lewis notes that currently the Wyoming Rule would result in a House of 569 seats (still a bit small by the cube-root standard noted in my previous Core post, but much closer). California would have 69 seats instead of 53.
This plan should be part of the Democrats’ agenda for the 2006 elections and beyond. It will never get on the Republicans’ agenda, that is for sure. But if Democrats fought for this, it would be a difficult issue for Republicans to oppose (even though they would trot out all sorts of diversionary tactics like “Democrats want more politicians”). Unlike Senate reform (which I know is a long uphill slog, though that will not keep me quiet on it), expanding the House is essential to making it do what everyone understands from High School civics class is its core Constitutional role: Represent the population.
Naturally, if I could have my electoral dreams fulfilled, I would go to MMP at the same time as the House is increased. But I would settle for just a simple uptick in the number of members of the House to the mid-500s (with a mechanism for small upward adjustments after each census), and, of course, a 50-state process of fair redistricting. (And representation–in both chambers–for citizens of the capital territory.)
Representation without gerrymandering or malapportionment! Dare to dream.
Note: In addition to the comments and linked posts below, please also see US House size, continued.
Why would Republicans oppose it, prima facie? There are a lot of states where they could get a net win with extra seats, particularly by sheparding more minorities into majority-minority districts. More than likely, there would be the nice-for-Republicans side effect of further radicalizing the Democratic Party in Congress.
Think of Mississippi, currently split 2-2; it’d easily go to 3-2 or 4-2 Republican with more seats. Many southern states would have similar dynamics, which would only partially be offset by adding more urban reps.
Seed planted by Chris Lawrence — 01 December 2005 @ 12:34
I’ve always thought MMP a really bad idea in a presidential system. You cannot elect a governor or president by MMP. Electing the executive by FTP or STV and the legislature by MMP is halfway to the Scottish nightmare where they elect MPs by SMP, MEPs by List PR, MSPs by MMP and local councillors by STV.
The obvious way to fit in with your idea for senate reform is to use STv for senators, representatives and the presidency. I guess for the record I should say I’ve always regarded IRV as a subset of STV.
Seed planted by Alan — 01 December 2005 @ 15:59
Would it be consistent with existing Supreme Court doctrine for the Court to require this under one person-one vote?
Seed planted by Bob Richard — 01 December 2005 @ 18:04
An Intriguing Proposal
Given that the purpose of the House is to directly represent the citizens of the United States, there really is no cogent argument not to consider re-vamping the institution to insure that it is adequately representative. While application of the “Wyoming Rule†would not create perfect representation, it would significantly improve the situation and isn’t especially radical.
Ok, so if applied, what would happen?
Scion grafted by PoliBlog: Politics is the Master Science — 02 December 2005 @ 14:26
I agree: we need MORE Reps. My thoughts:
(1) The US CENSUS was designed to allow an ORDERLY EXPANSION of the House so that districts would be equal in size, and the number of districts would expand as the population expanded.
(2) The problem is that sinec 1920 the number of districts has been frozen at 435. This was done by an ACT OF CONGRESS; it can be undone by an ACT OF CONGRESS, too. It doesn’t require a constitutional amendment.
(3) Since 1920, every deccenial census has led to RE-APPORTIONMENT: changes/shifts of Reps withing the 435. Some states get more Representatives other states get theirs reduced.
Sometimes a state which has grown in population may have their number or Reps reduced becauee all states must have at least one Rep.
(4) The total number of Reps in the House could be and should be expanded – if not by the “Wyoming Plan” hoe about to a NICE ROUND NUMBER: 500 – an additonal 65 seats.
These could be/would be apportioned by population.
(5) Average district size would be each smaller – and more representative, AS THE FOUNDERS PLANNED.
More Reps would mean fewer committee assignments for each Rep and more constituent time.
(Also, the advent and pervasiveness of hi-tech communications makes the manmag,ment of a larger House less encumbering that in 1920, or since 1920. MANY national and state legislatures all over the world are bigger than 435. If they can mange it, then so can we.)
(6) As these 65 NEW SEATS would ALL BE OPEN SEATS, they’d be VERY competitive races at a time when most seats are NOT COMPETETIVE.
That’s a good thing too.
This would be A NEW BIRTH OF REPRERSENTATION, which would NOT make government bigger, but make it MORE RESPONSIVE AND MORE REPRESENTATIVE.
I DARE A BRAVE CONGRESSMAN TO INTRODUCE THIS.
It should get BI-PARTISAN SUPPORT, becasue open seats are VERY COMPETITIVE, and the GOP is VERY COMPETITIVE in the CITIES AND COUNTIES which have had the most growth.
What do you think!?
[I will post this and a link at my blog.]
ALSO: (7) This would change the ELECTORAL COLLEGE – making it even more reflective of the population.
Seed planted by relaipundit — 02 December 2005 @ 15:27
Hard to believe, but the impact of House size on the electoral college escaped my radar screen altogether! Probably because I want to abolish the EC itself. But for so long as we have it, we should at least demand that it, like the House, respond to increasing population to an extent greater than it can while the House is fixed at 435.
(Within a few days I will have some responses to the many interesting comments that this post has provoked. Thanks to all the seed planters!)
Seed planted by MShugart — 02 December 2005 @ 15:44
While you’re at it, please give the District of Colombia representation in the House. We’re not greedy, we don’t insist on Senate representation. But it’s time we had someone representing us in Congress!
Seed planted by nadehzda — 02 December 2005 @ 21:21
Absolutely. DC should have House and Senate representation. The USA is the only federation in the world with a special capital territory that lacks voting representation in the federal legislature. Other than pure racism, I can’t understand why this is tolerated.
Seed planted by MShugart — 03 December 2005 @ 11:30
The Australian federal parliament has almost the same structure as the US congress, although we have only 6 states, so each state has 12 senators with 6 year terms. Half the state senators face election by STV every 3 years. By Act of Parliament, both territories have 2 senators and they get representatives on the same basis as the states.
We don’t rotate territory senators because PR just does not work well with single vacancies so territory senators get 3 year terms and both senators for a territory face election at the same time.
While everything’s being hopelessly Utopian you could think about proposing electing DC senators in the same way.
Seed planted by Alan — 03 December 2005 @ 18:12
We could always go back to the original method for DC representation: count it as part of Maryland for electing Senators, Congressmen, and the President.
There is the question of apportionment; if it’s done through the Maryland legislature, what input would DC’ers have in the process?
Though as long as the districts remain at their current size it wouldn’t be too much of a problem, since DC is a bit under the population of a Congressional District (572,059 as if 2000). It’s when/if they have to divide it up that it becomes a problem.
Seed planted by Aaron Pollock — 04 December 2005 @ 13:16
I suggest that we expand the size of both our House and Senate. If we have 535 Congress members today, it’s because the House and Senate are fixed; after 1920, the size of the House has been stuck at 435 and up to now we have more people than in 1920 but the same number of reps. I think there’s a big problem.
If we consider D.C., Guam, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Mariana Islands and American Samoa for representation, let’s do this: each administration would get at least 1 Representative and 1 Senator. If we considered this today, the House would have 441 members and the Senate 106 members.
I suggest that the same time we have our census, we should determine how many more members the House should have. I propose that we expand our House to 500 and every 10 years we expand it a little more. If we had 500 reps now, in 2010 for example we’d have 510 members. Sound interesting?
The U.S. grows every 10 years and the more it grows, the more extra members it should have.
Seed planted by Derek Gorman — 17 March 2006 @ 05:26
How would increases in House size affect gerrymandering? We know that the least populous states (e.g. Alaska, Montana, Delaware, etc.) are currently not susceptible to gerrymandering, because the whole state comprises one big Congressional District. If we add more Representatives to those states, it will become possible to draw the District lines to suit political purposes. What about the more populous states, that already have a few Representatives – would it make gerrymandering easier there too? Is there a limit to this effect – for instance, would adding a few Representatives to California be likely to make a difference one way or the other, as far as ease of gerrymandering were concerned?
Seed planted by Nathan Larson — 16 August 2006 @ 21:06
On the other hand, could there be a threshold at which each increase in House size makes gerrymandering harder? Consider an extreme example in which every U.S. citizen were a member of the House of Representatives, and thus each Congressional District encompassed the residence of one individual. It would be as impossible to gerrymander as it would be in single-seat Wyoming today.
But let’s back up a little bit and consider a less extreme example. Suppose each Congressional District consisted of three people. In a state of 2/3rd Republicans and 1/3rd Democrats, the legislature could theoretically gerrymander all the districts so that they each consisted of two Republicans and one Democrat – and if the citizens voted along party lines, all the Representatives would be Republican. It would require the gerrymanderers to have very good information, though.
Seed planted by Nathan Larson — 17 August 2006 @ 09:42
Wiki and Wyoming
In this brave new world, a citation at Wikipedia has to be about as valuable as any. So, thanks to whoever cited one of this blog’s plantings at a page on the Wyoming Rule.
Scion grafted by Fruits and Votes — 12 June 2008 @ 20:56
This is such a good plan. I think it’s fair and representational. It’s realistic. And it’s keeping in the spirit of one person one vote.
I think a lot of us feel right now that the government is not representative of us. It’s more representative of interest groups.
MORE members in the House could be an answer towards reforming it. The more members we have, the harder it is for groups to control.
It would also make people feel their voices and interests were being heard.
When this country was founded, each member of Congress represented approx 30,000. Today they represent over 700,000. I believe this has “homogenized” the Congress and not given voice to all the thoughts and ideas out there.
Part of me would love to see a Congress based on the scale of our forefathers, with approx 10,000 members. I think it would be a far more representative and less corrupt body.
However, i think this plan is doable and realistic and i wish it got more play.
Very smart. Thank you!
Seed planted by MF — 28 October 2008 @ 14:46