Smallest congressional district ever?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 07, 2025, 11:15:34 AM
News: Election Calculator 3.0 with county/house maps is now live. For more info, click here

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Congressional Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Virginiá, KaiserDave)
  Smallest congressional district ever?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Smallest congressional district ever?  (Read 5399 times)
bgwah
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,833
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 07, 2005, 04:11:06 PM »

By land area, what is the smallest congressional district ever?

So in 1910, Manhattan has 2.3 million people... In 1912, New York State has 45 electoral votes which means they have 43 congressional districts.

So the 9,113,614 people living in NY state in 1910 divided by 43 electoral votes in 1912 equals about 211,945 people per distirct in NY.

That means that Manhattan alone had about 11 congressional districts! The island itself is only like 22 square miles or something. So the average district was probably only around 2 square miles.

There were certainly some very very densely poplated areas in Manhattan in 1910, I think the Lower Eastside was one. They could possibly have had a district smaller than 1 square mile there.

If anyone knows for a fact what the smallest one ever was, feel free to share.

and BTW, Manhattan does have less people than it did 95 years ago.
Logged
socaldem
skolodji
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,040


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 08, 2005, 02:21:43 AM »

I think back then districts weren't exactly apportioned equally...I think at some point a series of reforms were needed to make sure that urban representation was fair...but i might be wrong...the point is, it's quite possible ny had malapportionment back then...

On the other hand, a one mile square district would have been perfect for a nice, ol' fashioned Democratic machine...
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 56,312


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 08, 2005, 04:49:35 AM »
« Edited: May 08, 2005, 04:51:13 AM by jfern »

The Manhattan districts probably had more people than the average.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.prcdc.org/summaries/censushistory/censushistory.html
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 08, 2005, 07:16:48 AM »
« Edited: May 08, 2005, 07:18:25 AM by Emsworth »

I think back then districts weren't exactly apportioned equally...I think at some point a series of reforms were needed to make sure that urban representation was fair...
The Supreme Court did not rule in Reynolds v. Sims until 1964, or in Wesberry v. Sanders until 1965, so you are correct.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,233
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 08, 2005, 07:18:13 AM »

The Manhattan districts probably had more people than the average.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.prcdc.org/summaries/censushistory/censushistory.html
This is probably related to the fact that Congress (shamefully) failed to pass a reapportionment bill in 1920, so 1930's districts were 20 years out of date. The 800,000 district was probably in the outer parts of NY City somewhere. The 91,000 district was probably on the Lower East Side. They probably both had had at least very roughly 200,000 people in 1910.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.032 seconds with 9 queries.