US Congress with 10,000+ House districts

[Storebought]

Suppose we return to the Congressional mandate of every House district representing a district of 30,000 residents (neglecting the "Indians-not-taxed" and "three-fifths-of-a-person" qualifiers). That would lead to a House of Representatives of at least 10290 members. This is basically the size of the undergraduate student body of a state university.

Rather than dismiss this as unwieldy, how would you organize a 10,000-member House to be a meaningful legislative body? Could it be organized into campuses or colleges to be more manageable? Or would it resemble the shareholders (with voting rights) of a publicly-traded corporation, with members voting by proxy on legislation handed to them?

[The Arizonan]

If the House of Representatives had that many members, it would be a nightmare for each of the party's leaders just to manage and communicate with the members of their respective parties. The leaders would have to have their own lieutenants who in turn would have their own lieutenants and so on and so forth.

For example, Steve Scalise, who is the House Majority Whip, would have to delegate a huge chunk of his work to his subordinates in order to make sure that his fellow Republicans vote lockstep on a House bill.

[Storebought]

If the House of Representatives had that many members, it would be a nightmare for each of the party's leaders just to manage and communicate with the members of their respective parties. The leaders would have to have their own lieutenants who in turn would have their own lieutenants and so on and so forth.

For example, Steve Scalise, who is the House Majority Whip, would have to delegate a huge chunk of his work to his subordinates in order to make sure that his fellow Republicans vote lockstep on a House bill.

I actually see the opposite -- since each House member represents a district so small there will be less incentive for the representative to "act-out" since the party at large can easily find a replacement. There will be a strong inducement for parties in federal elections to select candidates who tow the line.

But the threat of institutional gridlock is there in the sense that the House leadership will only present bills that have absolute assurance of being passed, which means bills of no particular significance.
 

[The Arizonan]

Why would it be easier to find a replacement for a congressperson with this arrangement?

[Mr. Reactionary]

Why would it be easier to find a replacement for a congressperson with this arrangement?

I think the argument would be that increasing name recognition among such a small sized population would be less expensive and easier to organize for a national party apparatus.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Black sheep would become more common. Also could we get a map of the districts per state under this plan?

[muon2]

The 2010 population of IA was 3046K and the House has 100 members drawn with neutral districts with about 30,460 person in each. So if they were drawn to IA standards they would be close to the IA result.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Black sheep would become more common. Also could we get a map of the districts per state under this plan?

[Strudelcutie4427]

Well if this is gonna be a thing. Might as well start off easy with Vermont

Thinking 17 Dems, 3 Reps, and a toss up

[Kamala]

Here's South Dakota - with a slight Democratic gerrymander.



19 Republicans, 6 Democrats, 2 Toss-Ups.

The light brown district on the southern border is also a minority-majority district, with 78.8% of the VAP being Native American, thanks to Oglala Lakota , Todd, Mellette, Bennett, and Jackson counties.

[Lachi]

If there was 10,000 or more house districts, the us would HAVE to go to either pure PR, or some form of Multi-member districts

[Kamala]

If there was 10,000 or more house districts, the us would HAVE to go to either pure PR, or some form of Multi-member districts

Mixed-member proportional could be easy to do if we use the existing districts and simply increase the # of reps per district to 20-something.

[Lachi]

If there was 10,000 or more house districts, the us would HAVE to go to either pure PR, or some form of Multi-member districts

Mixed-member proportional could be easy to do if we use the existing districts and simply increase the # of reps per district to 20-something.

MMP does not require multi member districts, but I guess, since we are working with 10,000+ members, it would have to be.

[Heisenberg]

How many do members each should the multi-member districts be?

[Heisenberg]

Here's Wyoming:

McCain won all 19, the closest ones being WY-01 (Blue, Cheyenne City, McCain +8.2), WY-05 (Yellow, north Laramie County and most of Carbon County, McCain +8.2), WY-06 (Teal, south Laramie County and territories westward, McCain +6., and WY-18 (the yellowish district near the Grand Tetons, McCain +9). The others all went for him comfortably. That's what the legislature would probably draw (if told to do single-member seats). In a fair map, a compact Demcoratic seat can be drawn around Laramie, and another around Jackson. A third Democrat-leaning district isn't really possible, most Wyoming Democrats are packed around Jackson and Laramie.

[Oryxslayer]

Dave's redistricting only goes up to 499 districts per map...so yeah that kills the idea SMDs. If we do MMDs, the I suggest not having a set number of seats per MMD. Instead, we should seek to nest seats within cities and counties with a maximum/minimum seat count for the MMDs. Something like 5 seats minimum and 10 seats maximum per MMD with a preference to geographic barriers rather then a equity of seats.

[Strudelcutie4427]

Here's New Hampshire. I got 18 Republicans, 16 Democrats, and 10 seats that I'm just calling toss ups incase the Trump numbers were a fluke (Such as the Coos and S/W Sullivan County districts)


Southern New Hampshire zoomed in

[Strudelcutie4427]

Maine under 5 member districts (4 for the Casco Bay district- the purple one)

District 1- Coastal York County (LEAN DEM)
District 2- Portland and Inner suburbs (SAFE DEM)
District 3- Casco Bay (LIKELY DEM)
District 4- Northern York/Bridgeton/West Lewiston (LEAN REP)
District 5- Augusta Area (LEAN DEM)
District 6- Central Coast (LIKELY DEM)
District 7- Northwest (LIKELY REP)
District 8- Bangor Area (LEAN REP)
District 9- Northeast (LIKELY REP)



Rhode Island divided into 7 five member districts

District 1- Newport and Bristol County (Safe Dem)
District 2- Providence/SE Cranston (Safe Dem) *Minority Majority* 42% Hispanic
District 3- East Providence, Pawtucket, Central Falls (Safe Dem)
District 4- NE Providence County (Likely Dem)
District 5- Cranston and Warwick (Likely Dem)
District 6- NW Rhode Island (Likely Rep)
District 7- South (Lean Dem)

[jimrtex]

Dave's redistricting only goes up to 499 districts per map...so yeah that kills the idea SMDs. If we do MMDs, the I suggest not having a set number of seats per MMD. Instead, we should seek to nest seats within cities and counties with a maximum/minimum seat count for the MMDs. Something like 5 seats minimum and 10 seats maximum per MMD with a preference to geographic barriers rather then a equity of seats.

When I was doing my cube-root legislatures, I was using a range of 3 to 5, with an exception to go up to 6 if needed to avoid going outside a county or town. A county entitled to 5.5 members could be kept in the county as a single MMD, rather than one MMD in the county, and another that included part of the county and other counties.

I was apportioning fractional representative (rounded to the nearest 1/5). This would be used with temporal weighting, where the number of representatives would vary throughout the 5 terms in a decade. A district entitled to 3.6 representatives would have 3 representatives for 3 terms, and 2 representatives the other two terms; rather than 3 representatives, an arm, a leg, and a nose of another.

You can apportion in total 5 X the nominal number of members. This must be a multiple of five for the whole country. So floor(US_Population/30000) * 5 = total 1/5ths of representatives. Apportion that many among the states based on St. Lague.

Within a state, counties with more than 15/5ths of a representative should form one or more districts, with a maximum of up to 30/5ths for any district. Smaller counties should be grouped together, but it may be necessary in a few instances to place a smaller county with a larger county, and treat the two as a whole - keeping the smaller county in one district.

After you have generated the districts, reapportion using St.Lague so that the sum of the districts equals the statewide total. This may result in a district entitled to 3.52 representatives receiving 3.4 rather than 3.6 representatives, but this is a small error.