Would the Wyoming rule be a good idea?

[The Mikado]

The Wyoming Rule is that the size of the House of Representatives should expand to be the population of the United States divided by the size of the smallest state. The argument goes that the 435 cap means that large states end up underrepresented even though the House is SUPPOSED to be proportional to population. EG California, on 2019 estimates, has 68 times the population of Wyoming, but "only" 53 House seats to Wyoming's one.

The Wyoming Rule, on 2019 estimates, would increase the House of Representatives from 435 seats to 567 seats and most states would end up with House seats with a population around 570k rather than over 700k. Rather than California having 53 seats to Wyoming's 1, California would have the full 68 seats to Wyoming's 1. This has a number of benefits: more lower population seats makes gerrymandering both harder and less productive, as every individual seat matters less. It also means that Representatives, having smaller districts, are forced to be more accountable to individual constituents. If you only represent a seat that has about 3/4ths the people the old one did, it stands to reason that every voter weighs 4/3rds more in your mind than they did before.

The House of Representatives chamber would likely have to be modified to fit that many people, but such a thing has happened before and can happen again. Also, there'd need to be one more House Office Building, but that's really a pretty petty concern.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

No

Chief among the problems is that the House in a Wyoming rule situation can expand as a nation shrinks or shrink as a nation expands. Also, gerrymandering will be a thing no matter how large or small districts are on this scale, to correct a false statement of yours.

[Xeuma]

It's not clear to me that smaller seats makes gerrymandering harder. If anything, the opposite seems to be true.

On the main point, the Wyoming Rule would be an improvement over what we have now, but a better rule would be something which is proportional directly to the total population of the country. Otherwise we hit a paradox where states which gain population may end up losing seats.

[lfromnj]

It's not clear to me that smaller seats makes gerrymandering harder. If anything, the opposite seems to be true.

On the main point, the Wyoming Rule would be an improvement over what we have now, but a better rule would be something which is proportional directly to the total population of the country. Otherwise we hit a paradox where states which gain population may end up losing seats.

Slower growing states should lose seats if its quite slow, thats why the cube root rule makes the most sense, it prevents a super sized HoR in the thousands of members but slowly expands to the house each decade as long as the US population increases.

[OBD]

Small seats makes gerrymandering harder. Logically, it makes sense - the less population in a district, the less leeway the ruling party has to draw it to be favorable to themselves. For an extreme example, a 400-seat map of Oregon that I drew nearly perfectly represented the electorate, as effectively gerrymandering was basically impossible. However, I do concur that the difference between the current House and the Wyoming Rule house will not make gerrymandering significantly more difficult.

I do support this, though. We need to make Congress more representative of the general population, instead of disproportionate rural overrepresentation.

[Stuart98]

Cube root rule > Wyoming rule

[jimrtex]

The Wyoming Rule is that the size of the House of Representatives should expand to be the population of the United States divided by the size of the smallest state. The argument goes that the 435 cap means that large states end up underrepresented even though the House is SUPPOSED to be proportional to population. EG California, on 2019 estimates, has 68 times the population of Wyoming, but "only" 53 House seats to Wyoming's one.

The Wyoming Rule, on 2019 estimates, would increase the House of Representatives from 435 seats to 567 seats and most states would end up with House seats with a population around 570k rather than over 700k. Rather than California having 53 seats to Wyoming's 1, California would have the full 68 seats to Wyoming's 1. This has a number of benefits: more lower population seats makes gerrymandering both harder and less productive, as every individual seat matters less. It also means that Representatives, having smaller districts, are forced to be more accountable to individual constituents. If you only represent a seat that has about 3/4ths the people the old one did, it stands to reason that every voter weighs 4/3rds more in your mind than they did before.

The House of Representatives chamber would likely have to be modified to fit that many people, but such a thing has happened before and can happen again. Also, there'd need to be one more House Office Building, but that's really a pretty petty concern.

Historically this has been known as the Delaware Rule or the Delaware-Nevada rule.

Delaware was the smallest state from 1790-1840, except in 1820 when Illinois was.

Florida and Oregon trailed the pack in 1850 and 1860, respectively.

Nevada took the tail in 1870 and held it until 1950. The maximum house size would have been 1794 in 1900, gradually declining to 942 in 1950.

Alaska took over for the next three decades, and by 1980 the House had 564 members.

From 1990 to 2010, Wyoming was the smallest. The House size of 548 in 2010 would have been the smallest since 1850.

[lfromnj]

^^^

So over a century despite our population tripling the house size would be 1/3 the original. Not a good idea.

[jimrtex]

Under the cube root rule, from 1790 to 1860, no state would have been entitled to less than one representative.

In 1870, Oregon would been slightly below 1/338 of the population, and Nevada would have been severely below.

In 1880, Nevada would have been alone.

In 1890, MT, ID, and WY would have joined NV.

In 1900, MT would have escaped.

In 1910, ID would have escaped, but DE would have joined WY and DE.

In 1920 and 1930, there was no change.

In 1940, DE would have escaped.

In 1950, WY would have escaped.

In 1960, AK would have joined NV.

In 1970, WY would have slipped below 1/588 to join AK, while NV escaped.

In 1980, both AK and WY escaped, and since then every state would have been entitled to at least one representative.

In fact, in 2010, all but WY and VT would have 2 or more.