For a more perfect union, 49 states from sea to shining sea

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Pfh. Fine. Have fun importing your wine from the evil French.

Really, people usually don't care about wine importation until they can drink....

My guess is that even the French would be watering down his wine.....

[migopod]

Really, people usually don't care about wine importation until they can drink....

My guess is that even the French would be watering down his wine.....

And probably not with just regular water....

[Hauptman]

I don't see how, since districts are based on the population, not the size of the area covered. That's why Wyoming has one House member and Massachusetts has ten.

However, you could reduce the size of the Senate by combining states. But this isn't an especially good idea either.



I disagree with this, too. It all depends on how the districts are drawn. In Pennsylvania, we have been losing congressional districts after each successive census since the 1930s, when we had an all-time state high of 36. Now, we send 19 reps to the House. Each time we shrink, districts get merged and redrawn (and gerrymandered) through the redistricting process following each census. And because this is handled by the state assembly, there is no incentive to make the districts any less partisan.

Also, fewer Congresspeople representing more citizens means less democracy.

Sorry if I wasn't clear... I wasn't referring to size strictly geographically, but by population size. So it would actually make more sense in terms of population to merge the Dakotas into one state.

And in terms of gerrymandering, it becomes much more difficult to do that as the population represented increases. I agree that the problem doesn't just go away, but I think it would help diminish it.

I think that the less people involved in a process, the more you are able to assess their role in that process. So to me, fewer congressmen equals greater accountability.

[Guided by Wire]

Sorry if I wasn't clear... I wasn't referring to size strictly geographically, but by population size. So it would actually make more sense in terms of population to merge the Dakotas into one state.

Doesn't matter. Merging two states would not reduce the number of delegates to the House.

To use your example, combining ND and SD into POD (Plain Ol' Dakota) would mean that the new state would have two House members. Which is exactly what ND and SD together sent before a merge.

ND (pop. 641,000) = 1 house seat
SD (pop. 804,000) = 1 house seat
POD (combined pop. 1.4 million) = 2 house seats

The only way you will be able to combine the Dakotas while keeping only one member to represent the new district is to get rid of a lot of Plain Ole' Dakotans.

[Philistine]

Sorry if I wasn't clear... I wasn't referring to size strictly geographically, but by population size. So it would actually make more sense in terms of population to merge the Dakotas into one state.

And in terms of gerrymandering, it becomes much more difficult to do that as the population represented increases. I agree that the problem doesn't just go away, but I think it would help diminish it.

I think that the less people involved in a process, the more you are able to assess their role in that process. So to me, fewer congressmen equals greater accountability.

Isn't the much easier way to do this (at least with regard to the House) to simply change the # of members of the House? There is no Constitutionally mandated number of members of the House other than a minimum of 50 (each state must have at least 1) and a maximum of about 1000 (one representative cannot represent fewer than 30,000 citizens). The 435 number is nothing particullarly special--it's been that way since the early part of the 20th Century, but can be changed by law.

Good luck getting a vote of congressment to substantially lower their numbers--essentially getting them to vote themselves out--but it's a probably somewhat less of an impossability than than merging and dividing states would be.

--Philistine

[Hauptman]

Doesn't matter. Merging two states would not reduce the number of delegates to the House.

To use your example, combining ND and SD into POD (Plain Ol' Dakota) would mean that the new state would have two House members. Which is exactly what ND and SD together sent before a merge.

ND (pop. 641,000) = 1 house seat
SD (pop. 804,000) = 1 house seat
POD (combined pop. 1.4 million) = 2 house seats

The only way you will be able to combine the Dakotas while keeping only one member to represent the new district is to get rid of a lot of Plain Ole' Dakotans.

My understanding is that since a congressional district can't be larger than the state it resides in, that would be your least common denominator. SO the smallest states set the baseline of what the size of a congressional district will be in terms of reps to population.

So for example, if Rhode Island is the smallest state by population and has one congressional district then every other state will have a number of districts in multiples of the population of Rhode Island. If we combine Rhode Island with a neighboring state then suddenly we have a different "smallest" state with a new baseline for the population represented in a congressional district.

Combine the smaller states and break up the larger states (by population), and it then dramatically changes the ratio of representatives between the largest and smallest states (by population). And you can reduce the overall number of congressmen in the process.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

My understanding is that since a congressional district can't be larger than the state it resides in, that would be your least common denominator. SO the smallest states set the baseline of what the size of a congressional district will be in terms of reps to population.

So for example, if Rhode Island is the smallest state by population and has one congressional district then every other state will have a number of districts in multiples of the population of Rhode Island. If we combine Rhode Island with a neighboring state then suddenly we have a different "smallest" state with a new baseline for the population represented in a congressional district.

Rhode Island is 43rd by population. It has more people than, say, Alaska. To increase the size of a house district, you can't just combine the small states like RI and VT, you're going to have to combine Alaska and Hawaii (probably together, and it's still small by population, and VERY problematic in terms of basic logistics.)

[Hauptman]

Rhode Island is 43rd by population. It has more people than, say, Alaska. To increase the size of a house district, you can't just combine the small states like RI and VT, you're going to have to combine Alaska and Hawaii (probably together, and it's still small by population, and VERY problematic in terms of basic logistics.)

lol.... I figured as much, but was too lazy to actually look up the population lists.

Notice that I was careful to say in my example, "...IF Rhode Island is the smallest..."

Ok, so I've looked it up now, and it appears that Wyoming and a few others are smaller than Alaska and could be combined with neighboring states. I'm sure that could still save us at least a few congressmen in the deal.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

I disagree with this, too. It all depends on how the districts are drawn. In Pennsylvania, we have been losing congressional districts after each successive census since the 1930s, when we had an all-time state high of 36. Now, we send 19 reps to the House. Each time we shrink, districts get merged and redrawn (and gerrymandered) through the redistricting process following each census. And because this is handled by the state assembly, there is no incentive to make the districts any less partisan.

Also, fewer Congresspeople representing more citizens means less democracy.

Wow! I like to start threads (well over 200 so far) and I like to see whatever interesting discussion comes out of that - but I can not remember anytime before when one of the threads that I started got 27 responses in less than a day!

Gerrymandering is a problem that comes from the bad practice of 1-seat districts. If a state would instead have all its representatives elected at-large, with proportional representation, then the a lot of its pernicous effects would disappear. For starters, there would be whole lot more competitive races. But I repeat meyself; I have written in more detail on this topic several times before here on f.net.

Anyone care to envision - in more detail - what would become of a free nation of Idaho, as I outlined in the threadstart? Idahoans on their own, only without any access to trade with, or any other direct contact with, the remaining 49 states? What would life be like in Boise a few years after the independence?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[migopod]

Hi!




Wow! I like to start threads (well over 200 so far) and I like to see whatever interesting discussion comes out of that - but I can not remember anytime before when one of the threads that I started got 27 responses in less than a day!

Gerrymandering is a problem that comes from the bad practice of 1-seat districts. If a state would instead have all its representatives elected at-large, with proportional representation, then the a lot of its pernicous effects would disappear. For starters, there would be whole lot more competitive races. But I repeat meyself; I have written in more detail on this topic several times before here on f.net.

Anyone care to envision - in more detail - what would become of a free nation of Idaho, as I outlined in the threadstart? Idahoans on their own, only without any access to trade with, or any other direct contact with, the remaining 49 states? What would life be like in Boise a few years after the independence?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

The problem with taking a state's representatives and having them be elected by the general population is that the US representatives are probably more accountable to their specific constituents than any other elected federal official (or should be). If the general population of a state like California is overall majority Democrat with a significant Republican minority (60/40 (not exact ratio, but that general idea)), the general population would be much more likely to elect a Democrat than a Republican representative, effectively leaving 40% of the population unrepresented. I think the districting is a good thing, and a useful tool to represent the minority. I also think that in most states with more than one representative there's a tendency to gerrymander districts such that people in power wind up in safe seats where they tend to stay in power. A non-partisan approach to districting would be a good thing post census.

As far as what would happen to Boise... I'm thinking Lord of the Flies, only with more potatoes.

[Guided by Wire]

Hi!
Gerrymandering is a problem that comes from the bad practice of 1-seat districts. If a state would instead have all its representatives elected at-large, with proportional representation, then the a lot of its pernicous effects would disappear. For starters, there would be whole lot more competitive races. But I repeat meyself; I have written in more detail on this topic several times before here on f.net.

Well, then you effectively have a bunch of mini-Senators in a state instead of representatives with distinct constituencies.

The interests, values and priorities of one district in a state are not the same as another. E.g. Downtown Philadelphia is not the same makeup as the PA-05, a very large rural district in the north-central part of the state where forestry is an important economic concern. Not too much forestry in urban Philly.

Having every state elect all of their MOCs as at-large, statewide reps would certainly eliminate the problem of gerrymandering. By similar logic, I can eliminate the problem of having to buy my wife an anniversary present by simply divorcing her.

[Guided by Wire]

If the general population of a state like California is overall majority Democrat with a significant Republican minority (60/40 (not exact ratio, but that general idea)), the general population would be much more likely to elect a Democrat than a Republican representative, effectively leaving 40% of the population unrepresented.

Hmmm. I think his suggestion was to have proportional representation. So, e.g. a state with ten seats and a 60/40 electorate would elect, via a statewide ballot, 6 Dems and 4 Repubs, all at-large members.

At least that's how I read it (could be mistaken).

A non-partisan approach to districting would be a good thing post census.

YES! Iowa does this. So does one other state that I can't recall at the moment. That's a practical, workable approach to minimizing partisan gerrymandering.

[Guided by Wire]

Ok, so I've looked it up now, and it appears that Wyoming and a few others are smaller than Alaska and could be combined with neighboring states. I'm sure that could still save us at least a few congressmen in the deal.

Really, it won't. Because of the way the representatives in the House are apportioned, the only way to reduce members of congress is to find some way to combine states without increasing their population (assuming we're sticking with the 435 number). Merging and splitting states will not have any effect on the total number of Congresspeople that represents the citizens in those new states.

Simply put, there's about one Rep. for every 700,000 people. Combining states (and presumably their residents) does not get around this.


Now if your goal is to instead completely redraw all state lines so that no single state has, say, less than five reps or more than 15, that's theoretically possible.

[Hauptman]

Really, it won't. Because of the way the representatives in the House are apportioned, the only way to reduce members of congress is to find some way to combine states without increasing their population (assuming we're sticking with the 435 number). Merging and splitting states will not have any effect on the total number of Congresspeople that represents the citizens in those new states.

Simply put, there's about one Rep. for every 700,000 people. Combining states (and presumably their residents) does not get around this.


Now if your goal is to instead completely redraw all state lines so that no single state has, say, less than five reps or more than 15, that's theoretically possible.

I don't understand; is the required minimum 700,000? I assumed that was just the size of the smallest state which then has one district of approx.700,000.

If small states are combined and now the smallest state has 1,000,000 people, wouldn't it still have just one district but this time of one million? And then all the other districts would be based on that one million figure? Then all of the states dividing their population by one million instead of 700k would mean fewer districts and fewer congressmen.

Am I missing something?

[Bayou Bum]

I don't understand; is the required minimum 700,000? I assumed that was just the size of the smallest state which then has one district of approx.700,000.

If small states are combined and now the smallest state has 1,000,000 people, wouldn't it still have just one district but this time of one million? And then all the other districts would be based on that one million figure? Then all of the states dividing their population by one million instead of 700k would mean fewer districts and fewer congressmen.

Am I missing something?

Yes, a large portion of your brain. This a wonderful example of how little you know. You should be embarrassed. I'm embarrassed for you.

You have ruined it for me. I will never again be able to take one of your posts seriously.

[Guided by Wire]

I don't understand; is the required minimum 700,000? I assumed that was just the size of the smallest state which then has one district of approx.700,000.

If small states are combined and now the smallest state has 1,000,000 people, wouldn't it still have just one district but this time of one million? And then all the other districts would be based on that one million figure? Then all of the states dividing their population by one million instead of 700k would mean fewer districts and fewer congressmen.

Am I missing something?

The size of an average Congressional district (in terms of people represented) is not based on the population of the smallest state.

You are describing something called the "Wyoming Rule" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule). But it's not how things are done. It's a proposal for how things could be done.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Really, it won't. Because of the way the representatives in the House are apportioned, the only way to reduce members of congress is to find some way to combine states without increasing their population (assuming we're sticking with the 435 number). Merging and splitting states will not have any effect on the total number of Congresspeople that represents the citizens in those new states.

Simply put, there's about one Rep. for every 700,000 people. Combining states (and presumably their residents) does not get around this.


Now if your goal is to instead completely redraw all state lines so that no single state has, say, less than five reps or more than 15, that's theoretically possible.

I don't understand; is the required minimum 700,000? I assumed that was just the size of the smallest state which then has one district of approx.700,000.

If small states are combined and now the smallest state has 1,000,000 people, wouldn't it still have just one district but this time of one million? And then all the other districts would be based on that one million figure? Then all of the states dividing their population by one million instead of 700k would mean fewer districts and fewer congressmen.

Am I missing something?

You are missing that GBW set the #housecritters = 435. If you redraw state borders so that all states have populations between 1 and 15 million, then some people presently residing in small states would hve to share their representative with a few hundred thousand more voters. OTOH, voters presently residing in some large states would get more representation (representative/voter).

House seat apportionment starts out with a set number of house seats, which then are doled out to the states so that everyone gets at least one, while at the same time preserving as much proprtionality as possible.

The pie does not shrink in size just because it is cut in more evenly-sized slices.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Well, then you effectively have a bunch of mini-Senators in a state instead of representatives with distinct constituencies.

The interests, values and priorities of one district in a state are not the same as another. E.g. Downtown Philadelphia is not the same makeup as the PA-05, a very large rural district in the north-central part of the state where forestry is an important economic concern. Not too much forestry in urban Philly.

Parties in multi-seat constituency countries deal with this quite simply. They field a list of candidates, and make sure that no important demographic is missing. If they would not do that, they would lose a lot of potential voters. The US. political parties are sufficiently able to figure out what is in their self-interest to do the same. Over here, the parties in my district (Skåne) each field lists of candidates which can be 60 people strong, despite that this district only has 30 or so seats in parliament. The candidates represent all major towns, different ages, both sexes, many different jobs, and a whole lot of other descriptions. Almost everyone can find some candidate which is quite similar to himself. By fielding so many candidates, the parties ensure that they do not miss any single demograpic group.

If the differences in preferences between different parts of the district are so large so that candidates appeaking to different parts can not be accomodated in one single party, then there is a solution to that too. Pennsylvanians could form different rural and urban parties, and once elected the representatives would have to work together, if one party can not form a one-party majority.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Hmmm. I think his suggestion was to have proportional representation. So, e.g. a state with ten seats and a 60/40 electorate would elect, via a statewide ballot, 6 Dems and 4 Repubs, all at-large members.

At least that's how I read it (could be mistaken).

Yes, that is it. However, with all house members elected at large, something else would happen. Parties which attract 10% of the voters would become viable since such a party should get 1 out of those 10 house seats. Voters would not have to worry about wasting votes so much.

Further on, in the bigger states, the GOP would have to defend against voter defections both to the dems and to the libertarians while at the sime time winning over independents and previous non-voters, and democrats would have to defend against losses to both the GOP and to the greens/various other parties. This leads to a more complex gameplan, and in this new environment negative campaigning is much more liekly to backfire.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Hauptman]

The size of an average Congressional district (in terms of people represented) is not based on the population of the smallest state.

You are describing something called the "Wyoming Rule" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule). But it's not how things are done. It's a proposal for how things could be done.

Ahhh... I see now... I didn't know about the Reapportionment Act of 1929 or the Wyoming Rule.

Based off of the text in the Constitution I always just assumed that as the most logical method.

Thanks for the info!