I ran a double Wyoming Rule through my Excel worksheet and the spread between the highest and lowest average district sizes was larger than I was expecting. That’s not necessarily a deal breaker for me, though, since those ranges were still much lower than they are now and no state populations were unfairly treated.
What does this even mean?
Agreed. This would also help make the Electoral College less unrepresentative.
I’m not sure if I remember my thinking at the time I wrote that. Sorry. Maybe it’ll come back to me as the conversation continues.
Months later! (as I was looking for a thread to post something else I found interesting)
I think I was clumsily trying to say that the average representation was generally closer than it was under the current apportionment with only 435 members. The ratio of California:Wyoming was better under a double Wyoming rule.
Anyway, Wasserman tossed out a challenge this week to his followers: basically, see who could redistrict Iowa without splitting counties and come up with the smallest spread between the most populous and least populous districts. The winner drew up a very valid looking map, either a 3-1 split in favor of the Rs or a 2-2, with a total population spread of 5(!).
On first read I was like, “Five what?”
Turns out the answer is five people! Amazing!