What If the 1921 Apportionment Were Done

Discussions that don't belong elsewhere in the forum, but hopefully are still somewhat relevant to TTO.
Forum rules
As elsewhere in the TTO forum, no harangues, scurrilities, chicanery or mongering is permitted. However, repartees and irreverence is tolerated as long as they are not fatuous. Those who fail to abide by these rules may be subject to objurgation.  

What If the 1921 Apportionment Were Done

Postby HankW501 » Tue Jan 28, 2014 4:45 am

The decennial apportionment of House seats was not done after the 1920 census, despite its being a constitutional requirement. Out of curiosity I calculated how it would have turned out if 435 seats were apportioned based on the 1920 census. In other words, what parts of the 1933 changes would have taken effect ten years earlier if the rules passed in 1929 were in effect before the 1920 census. 40% of the 48 states (19 of them) would have had a change in their apportionment. Listed below are the names of the 19 states and the actual number of House seats apportioned to each after the 1910 and 1930 censuses with the differences. The last two columns show the changes that would have happened in 1921 and 1931 if the current rule had been applied in 1921 (they are labeled 'S.H.B.' for 'should have been').

Code: Select all
              1911      1931     1921     1931
             actual    actual   S.H.B.   S.H.B.
             ------   -------   ------   ------
California     11     20 (+9)     +3       +6
Connecticut     5      6 (+1)     +1        -
Indiana        13     12 (-1)     -1        -
Iowa           11      9 (-2)     -1       -1
Kansas          8      7 (-1)     -1        -
Kentucky       11      9 (-2)     -1       -1
Louisiana       8      8  (-)     -1       +1
Maine           4      3 (-1)     -1        -
Michigan       13     17 (+4)     +2       +2
Mississippi     8      7 (-1)     -1        -
Missouri       16     13 (-3)     -2       -1
Nebraska        6      5 (-1)     -1        -
New Jersey     12     14 (+2)     +1       +1
New Mexico      1      1  (-)     +1       -1
New York       43     45 (+2)     -1       +3
Ohio           22     24 (+2)     +2        -
Texas          18     21 (+3)     +1       +2
Virginia       10      9 (-1)     -1        -
Washington      5      6 (+1)     +1        -

I went on to figure out how the listed 1920 changes would have affected the outcomes of the 1924 and 1928 presidential elections. The differences are insignificant. In each election, two additional votes would have gone to each of the Republican candidates which instead went to the Democrats.

1924 - Actual Results:
  • 382 votes --> Coolidge/Dawes
  • 136 votes --> Davis/Bryan
  • 13 votes --> La Follette/Wheeler
1924 - Should Have Been:
  • 384 votes --> Coolidge/Dawes
  • 134 votes --> Davis/Bryan
  • 13 votes --> La Follette/Wheeler
1928 - Actual Results:
  • 444 votes --> Hoover/Curtis
  • 87 votes --> Smith/Robinson
1928 - Should Have Been:
  • 446 votes --> Hoover/Curtis
  • 85 votes --> Smith/Robinson
The rule applied in 1890, 1900 and 1910 was to assign seats until no state lost a seat. Applying the same rule to the 1920 census totals yields 485 seats, with the 485th seat going to Missouri. Continuing with the 1930 census yields 557 seats, with the 557th seat going to Montana.

Code: Select all
                1880  1890  1900  1910  1920  1930
                ----  ----  ----  ----  ----  ----
Alabama           8    +1     -    +1    +1    +1
Arizona                             1    +1     -
Arkansas          5    +1    +1     -    +1     -
California        6    +1    +1    +3    +5    +10
Colorado          1    +1    +1    +1     -    +1
Connecticut       4     -    +1     -    +1    +1
Delaware          1     -     -     -     -     -
Florida           2     -    +1    +1     -    +3
Georgia          10    +1     -    +1    +1     -
Idaho                   1     -    +1     -     -
Illinois         20    +2    +3    +2    +3    +5
Indiana          13     -     -     -     -    +2
Iowa             11     -     -     -     -     -
Kansas            7    +1     -     -     -    +1
Kentucky         11     -     -     -     -    +1
Louisiana         6     -    +1    +1     -    +2
Maine             4     -     -     -     -     -
Maryland          6     -     -     -    +1     -
Massachusetts    12    +1    +1    +2    +2    +1
Michigan         11    +1     -    +1    +4    +5
Minnesota         5    +2    +2    +1    +1    +1
Mississippi       7     -    +1     -     -    +1
Missouri         14    +1    +1     -     -    +1
Montana           1     -     -    +1    +1     -
Nebraska          3    +3     -     -     -     -
Nevada            1     -     -     -     -     -
New Hampshire     2     -     -     -     -     -
New Jersey        7    +1    +2    +2    +2    +4
New Mexico                          1    +1     -
New York         34     -    +3    +6    +4    +10
North Carolina    9     -    +1     -    +2    +2
North Dakota      1     -    +1    +1     -     -
Ohio             21     -     -    +1    +4    +4
Oklahoma                            8    +1    +2
Oregon            1    +1     -    +1    +1     -
Pennsylvania     28    +2    +2    +4    +4    +4
Rhode Island      2     -     -    +1     -     -
South Carolina    7     -     -     -    +1     -
South Dakota      2     -     -    +1     -     -
Tennessee        10     -     -     -    +1    +1
Texas            11    +2    +3    +2    +3    +6
Utah                          1    +1     -     -
Vermont           2     -     -     -     -     -
Virginia         10     -     -     -    +1     -
Washington        1    +1    +1    +2    +1    +1
West Virginia     4     -    +1    +1    +1    +1
Wisconsin         9    +1    +1     -    +1    +1
Wyoming                 1     -     -     -     -
HankW501    
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 11:44 pm
Stance: Pro-Enlargement

Return to Whatever...

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron