Continuing the Pattern in Article the First
Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2013 5:35 am
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:
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:
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:
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:
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)):
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
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
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)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
- 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)