Read Section Two of Thirty-Thousand.org.
Forum rules
Before posting, be sure to read Section Two: Article the first of The Bill of Rights. Discussion is limited to that subject. All other discussion will be moved or deleted. No incivility or partisan advocacy allowed.
Post Reply
HankW501
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 11:44 pm
First Name: Hank
Stance: Pro-Enlargement

Continuing the Pattern in Article the First

Post by HankW501 »

If you make a table of all possible population totals of at least three million and the resulting rule according to the instructions in Article the First, it would look something like this:

Code: Select all

      U.S. Population                   Rule
      ---------------                   ----
   3,000,000 to  4,000,000   # of Representatives =  100
   4,000,000 to  8,000,000   Max. District Size = 40,000
   8,000,000 to 10,000,000   # of Representatives =  200
  10,000,000 to   infinity   Max. District Size = 50,000
I recently decided to see what the House size would be based on each U.S. census if the same proposed pattern in Article the First were continued without limit and if the proposed maximum district sizes were instead average district sizes. Here are the numbers I came up with for every U.S. census to date:

Code: Select all

Census:  Reps x Avg. Dist.
------   ----   ----------
  1790:   100 x    36,674
  1800:   126 x    40,000
  1810:   168 x    40,000
  1820:   200 x    46,941
  1830:   252 x    50,000
  1840:   300 x    55,588
  1850:   380 x    60,000
  1860:   439 x    70,000
  1870:   500 x    76,231
  1880:   600 x    82,285
  1890:   689 x    90,000
  1900:   747 x   100,000
  1910:   829 x   110,000
  1920:   900 x   116,970
  1930:  1000 x   122,288
  1940:  1008 x   130,000
  1950:  1100 x   136,268
  1960:  1200 x   148,799
  1970:  1300 x   155,734
  1980:  1400 x   161,362
  1990:  1460 x   170,000
  2000:  1561 x   180,000
  2010:  1622 x   190,000
Although a population of 190,000 per district is almost four times the highest maximum district size given in the original proposal, it is only 26.8% of the average you get by dividing the 2010 census total by the absurdly low current House size of 435. That means it is not only a step in the right direction; it's a giant step in the right direction! And with the public being used to the current House size for over a century now, I'm sure an increase to 1622 would be a lot easier for the public to swallow than a jump to well over 6000.

To show the number of Representatives for any population total according to my proposal, in an Excel sheet designate cell B2 as the total population of all of the states and cell B4 as the number of Representatives, and enter the following formula in cell B4:

Code: Select all

=MAX(ROUNDUP(B2/((ROUNDUP(SQRT((B2/1000000)+1),0)+1)*10000),0),(ROUNDUP(SQRT((B2/1000000)+1),0)-2)*100)
Here are the 50 states in order by 2010 population and the number of Representatives that would be apportioned to each based on a House size of 1622 and the state populations counted in the 2010 census:

Code: Select all

CA = 196
TX = 132
NY = 102
FL =  99
IL =  68
PA =  67
OH =  61
MI =  52
GA =  51
NC =  50
NJ =  46
VA =  42
WA =  35
MA =  34
IN =  34
AZ =  34
TN =  33
MO =  32
MD =  30
WI =  30
MN =  28
CO =  26
AL =  25
SC =  24
LA =  24
KY =  23
OR =  20
OK =  20
CT =  19
IA =  16
MS =  16
AR =  15
KS =  15
UT =  15
NV =  14
NM =  11
WV =  10
NE =  10
ID =   8
HI =   7
ME =   7
NH =   7
RI =   6
MT =   5
DE =   5
SD =   4
AK =   4
ND =   4
VT =   3
WY =   3
Lastly, here are the recipients of the most electoral votes from 1816 to 2012 and their percentage of electoral votes followed by what would have been if my proposal were in place and every state always used the winner-takes-all system (year: actual max.; max. that would have been (in parentheses is the party favored by the change)):
  • 1816: Monroe=82.8%; Monroe=87.02% (D-R)
  • 1820: Monroe=98.3%; Monroe=100.0%
  • 1824: Jackson=37.9%; Adams=36.9% (A)
  • 1828: Jackson=68.2%; Jackson=71.9% (J)
  • 1832: Jackson=76.0%; Jackson=73.7% (A-J)
  • 1836: Van Buren=57.8%; Van Buren=56.5% (W)
  • 1840: Harrison=79.6%; Harrison=78.8% (D)
  • 1844: Polk=61.8%; Polk=61.9% (D)
  • 1848: Taylor=56.2%; Taylor=57.4% (W)
  • 1852: Pierce=85.8%; Pierce=85.7% (W)
  • 1856: Buchanan=58.8%; Buchanan=59.5% (D)
  • 1860: Lincoln=59.4%; Lincoln=56.0% (D)
  • 1864: Lincoln=90.6%; Lincoln=90.7% (R)
  • 1868: Grant=72.8%; Grant=73.8% (R)
  • 1872: Grant=81.3%; Grant=81.7% (R)
  • 1876: Hayes=50.1%; Tilden=50.8% (D)
  • 1880: Garfield=58.0%; Garfield=58.2% (R)
  • 1884: Cleveland=54.6%; Cleveland=55.0% (D)
  • 1888: Harrison=58.1%; Harrison=58.3% (R)
  • 1892: Cleveland=62.4%; Cleveland=62.0% (R)
  • 1896: McKinley=60.6%; McKinley=62.2% (R)
  • 1900: McKinley=65.3%; McKinley=65.7% (R)
  • 1904: Roosevelt=70.6%; Roosevelt=71.9% (R)
  • 1908: Taft=66.5%; Taft=68.9% (R)
  • 1912: Wilson=81.9%; Wilson=81.2% (Pro.)
  • 1916: Wilson=52.2%; Wilson=51.0% (R)
  • 1920: Harding=76.1%; Harding=75.4% (D)
  • 1924: Coolidge=71.9%; Coolidge=72.0% (R)
  • 1928: Hoover=83.6%; Hoover=84.1% (R)
  • 1932: Roosevelt=88.9%; Roosevelt=89.1% (D)
  • 1936: Roosevelt=98.5%; Roosevelt=98.7% (D)
  • 1940: Roosevelt=84.6%; Roosevelt=85.2% (D)
  • 1944: Roosevelt=81.4%; Roosevelt=81.7% (D)
  • 1948: Truman=57.1%; Truman=57.0% (R)
  • 1952: Eisenhower=83.2%; Eisenhower=83.4% (R)
  • 1956: Eisenhower=86.1%; Eisenhower=86.1% (R)
  • 1960: Kennedy=56.4%; Kennedy=59.0% (D)
  • 1964: Johnson=90.3%; Johnson=90.6% (D)
  • 1968: Nixon=55.9%; Nixon=55.1% (D)
  • 1972: Nixon=96.7%; Nixon=96.9% (R)
  • 1976: Carter=55.2%; Carter=56.6% (D)
  • 1980: Reagan=90.9%; Reagan=91.7% (R)
  • 1984: Reagan=97.6%; Reagan=97.9% (R)
  • 1988: Bush=79.2%; Bush=79.5% (R)
  • 1992: Clinton=68.8%; Clinton=69.8% (D)
  • 1996: Clinton=70.4%; Clinton=71.9% (D)
  • 2000: Bush=50.4%; Gore=51.0% (D)
  • 2004: Bush=53.2%; Bush=51.9% (D)
  • 2008: Obama=67.8%; Obama=69.0% (D)
  • 2012: Obama=61.7%; Obama=63.0% (D)
Last edited by HankW501 on Tue Oct 15, 2013 3:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
JEQuidam
Posts: 209
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:45 pm
First Name: Jeff
Stance: Pro-Enlargement
Location: Dunwoody, Georgia
Contact:

Re: Continuing the Pattern in Article the First

Post by JEQuidam »

HankW501 wrote:... I recently decided to see what the House size would be based on each U.S. census if the same proposed pattern in Article the First were continued...

Given your analysis and interest in math, you will want to download & read "The Minimum and Maximum Size of the U. S. House of Representatives" as it covers pretty much the same ground.

Please encourage everyone to like TTO on Facebook! Thirty-Thousand.org is dedicated exclusively to representational enlargement, and widespread popular support is needed in order to help advance this important and non-partisan solution.
HankW501
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 11:44 pm
First Name: Hank
Stance: Pro-Enlargement

Re: Continuing the Pattern in Article the First

Post by HankW501 »

JEQuidam wrote:Given your analysis and interest in math, you will want to download & read "The Minimum and Maximum Size of the U. S. House of Representatives" as it covers pretty much the same ground.
I finished reading the .pdf you referenced. It contains quite a bit of information of which I had not been aware. MANY THANKS!
Epicurus
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 12:48 pm
First Name: Sam
Stance: Pro-Enlargement

Re: Continuing the Pattern in Article the First

Post by Epicurus »

Although a population of 190,000 per district is almost four times the highest maximum district size given in the original proposal, it is only 26.8% of the average you get by dividing the 2010 census total by the absurdly low current House size of 435.
K Street would probably see 1700 members as a still manageable number. 6000 would frighten them.
Post Reply