Better ways to reapportion Congress

[Pleonast]

A state’s apportionment in the House of Representatives is determined by the Constitution, Article I, Section 2:

Representatives … shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons

Maybe there’s a better way to apportion representatives? (Any change would require changing the Constitution, but let’s ignore that difficulty in this thread.)

Here is my suggestion. Apportionment would be by the total number of voters in the previous three presidential elections. Could be longer, could be shorter; I think two is too short because many presidents serve for two terms, and four seems way too long.

So, instead of the Census used to reapportion (could still be used for other purposes), the total number of people who voted in the previous three presidential election would be used. I foresee multiple effects.

1. States with higher voter turnouts would get more representatives.
2. States with more voter suppression would get less.
3. States with more unnationalized immigrants would get less.
4. States with more underage people would get less.

I think effects 1 and 2 are net benefits. State governments need strong encouragement to increase turnout and reduce suppression. Some states return to the “you count for representation, but not for voting” paradigm is extremely anti-democratic, like the old three-fifths compromise.

Point 3 would have a short-term impact on states with large immigrant populations, but the states would have a strong incentive to get them naturalized and reduce the long-term impact. Likewise, point 4 is self correcting, as they age up to voting age.

By the way, I worked things out as if the House were reapportioned following the 2016 presidential election.

Anyone else have ideas for improving Congressional apportionment?

[AlsoNamedBort]

@Pleonast

Point 3 would have a short-term impact on states with large immigrant populations, but the states would have a strong incentive to get them naturalized and reduce the long-term impact.

Do states have control over naturalization, or is that the federal government? It the feds control it, that would give incentive to speed up or slow down naturalizations in certain states.

[Johnny_Bravo]

Your system would also encourage outside-influenced voter suppression, something that already happens via misinformation and would now be further incentivized.

Voter fraud (which is currently not an issue) would suddenly have huge payoffs in safe states - if nobody is going to question California going blue, maybe they won’t question a few million extra blue votes.

[LSLGuy]

Before we can come up with something “better”, we need to know what the OP thinks is wrong with the current system. Then design policies to address those shortcomings, whatever they are.

I certainly have my opinions on how apportionment (and districting) are badly broken.

But I’d like to know which problems the OP sees. His proposal seems to be nothing more than “Pull an idea out of a silly hat and use it to generate a whole new bunch of strange side effects in addition to the existing ones.” IOW, it’s a classic “solution in search of a problem.” And not a even a good solution at that.

[Red_Wiggler]

Not to speak for the OP but we do indeed have apportionment problems. Partly because the House isn’t big enough to allow more equal representation. A simple fix like using the Wyoming Rule to determine the number of congresspeople would be a step in the right direction.

First past the post voting and gerrymandered districts are also major obstacles to providing the best representation we can achieve. Rep. Don Beyer’s Fair Representation Act takes aim at both of those problems and I hope it catches on.

[Duckster]

@Pleonast

Apportionment would be by the total number of voters in the previous three presidential elections.

The voting age population accounts for 247 million citizens. You would disenfranchise more than 82 million citizens who have a right to be represented.

[Pleonast]

@AlsoNamedBort

Do states have control over naturalization, or is that the federal government? It the feds control it, that would give incentive to speed up or slow down naturalizations in certain states.

The federal government has control over immigration, so that could be a problem and may already be a problem. But the states will have an incentive to make it easier, as far as they can.

[Pleonast]

@Johnny_Bravo

Your system would also encourage outside-influenced voter suppression, something that already happens via misinformation and would now be further incentivized.

Voter fraud (which is currently not an issue) would suddenly have huge payoffs in safe states - if nobody is going to question California going blue, maybe they won’t question a few million extra blue votes.

Good points, but in opposite directions. I think we have protection against ballot-box stuffing; maybe it’s not sufficient and should be improved. And states will be highly incentivized to counter voter suppression of any sort, unlike the current situation.

[Pleonast]

@LSLGuy

Before we can come up with something “better”, we need to know what the OP thinks is wrong with the current system. Then design policies to address those shortcomings, whatever they are.

I thought I described my thoughts here:

@Pleonast

I foresee multiple effects.

1. States with higher voter turnouts would get more representatives.
2. States with more voter suppression would get less.
3. States with more unnationalized immigrants would get less.
4. States with more underage people would get less.

I think effects 1 and 2 are net benefits. State governments need strong encouragement to increase turnout and reduce suppression. Some states return to the “you count for representation, but not for voting” paradigm is extremely anti-democratic, like the old three-fifths compromise.

Point 3 would have a short-term impact on states with large immigrant populations, but the states would have a strong incentive to get them naturalized and reduce the long-term impact. Likewise, point 4 is self correcting, as they age up to voting age.

Ask me something more specific if you wish.

[Pleonast]

@LSLGuy

I certainly have my opinions on how apportionment (and districting) are badly broken.

As I said:

@Pleonast

Anyone else have ideas for improving Congressional apportionment?

Please.

[Pleonast]

@Red_Wiggler

Partly because the House isn’t big enough to allow more equal representation.

I’ve brought this up before.

Constitutional Maximum for the House

I was going to post this in another thread, but instead of starting a hijack, I think I’d rather open a new discussion. This part could make an interesting debate: should we use the Constitutional maximum number of representatives of not more than one per 30,000 free persons? Based on the 2010 census, that’d give us 10,271 representatives. States would have between 19 and 1274 representatives. [spoiler]Alabama 159 Alaska 24 Arizona 213 Arkansas 97 California 1242 Colorado 168 Connectic…

[Pleonast]

@Duckster

The voting age population accounts for 247 million citizens. You would disenfranchise more than 82 million citizens who have a right to be represented.

True. And those same citizens cannot vote or drink alcohol and are restricted in many other ways.

[Duckster]

@Pleonast

True. And those same citizens cannot vote or drink alcohol and are restricted in many other ways.

So they become second class citizens. Shall we deny them due process and other constitutional rights as well?

[Pleonast]

@Duckster

So they become second class citizens.

They continue to be second class citizens.

[Duckster]

@Pleonast

They continue to be second class citizens.

So by your approach, your 17-year old gets busted for a criminal act. Since they are a second class citizen without due process, you never see them again.

[Pleonast]

@Duckster

So by your approach, your 17-year old gets busted for a criminal act. Since they are a second class citizen without due process, you never see them again.

That is your suggestion, not mine.

[Monty]

How many members would the House of Representatives have if the constitutional had not been amended to have the House have the current numper of reps?

[Lord_Feldon]

The Constitution was never amended to fix the current number of representatives. The size of the House has always been changed by ordinary legislation and it could be changed again by ordinary legislation.

[Lord_Feldon]

@Pleonast

States with more voter suppression would get less.

This is actually already required by the Constitution.* It has just never been enforced, even it when it was blindingly obvious that there were states suppressing the majority of their lawful voters.

*Section 2 of the 14th Amendment:

But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

[Omar_Little]

Criteria 1,3 and 4 appear to be objectively measured criteria.

Criteria 2 appears to be a subjectively measured criteria…which would be fraught with litigation, judiciary involvement in the political process. No thanks.