New Model Apportionment

[jimrtex]

1792

This is a hypothetical apportionment scheme.

Madison's rule In 1789, Representative James Madison proposed 12 Amendments to the Constitution. 10 of them have become known as the Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791. One was belatedly ratified in 1992, and is now known as the 27th Amendment. One is still pending and likely never be ratified.

This last amendment would regulate apportionment of the House of Representatives. It is  actually the first listed by Madison, who proposed that his amendments be made inline in the text of the original constitution, and this amendment would have been made in Article 1, Section 2.

Madison's version provided for an apportionment of one representative per 30,000 until the number reached ______, after which the number shall be at least ______ but no more than ______. But every state shall have at least two representatives.

It was customary at this time to introduce bill language with blanks for numbers to be determined during debate.

A selection committee filled in the blanks, so that there would be one representative per 30,000 until the number reached 100, and thereafter the number be regulated between 100 and 175. The committee changed the minimum per state back to the one representative in the constitution.

Subsequent debate modified this proposed amendment even further resulting in the nonsensical version that is still pending ratification.

But this hypothetical apportionment explores what would have happened in the minimum apportionment had remained as Madison proposed at two.

There were 65 representatives apportioned among the 13 original States by the Constitution, 59 to the 11 States that had ratified the Constitution by March 4, 1789 when Congress first met. When North Carolina and Rhode Island joined the Union in 1789 and 1790, respectively, they received their five and one representatives specified in the Constitution.

When Vermont joined the Union on March 4, 1791 they were apportioned two representatives, bringing the total to 67.

When the Bill of Rights, along with apportionment amendment were ratified by 10 of 14 States late in 1791, Delaware and Rhode Island were apportioned an additional representative to bring their representation to two each, and the total to 69.

Kentucky joined the Union in 1792, and was apportioned two representatives. Kentucky had been part of the Virginia prior to this, and one of Virginia's 10 congressional districts covered Kentucky. Two others were west of the Blue Ridge Mountains, incorporating modern West Virginia and the Shenandoah Valley. After Kentucky became a state, Virginia continued to be represented by 9 representatives for the remainder of the Second Congress. Thus, effectively, Virginia transferred one of its representatives to Kentucky, and the second representative for Kentucky came from expansion of the House to 70 members.

This is the state of apportionment prior to the apportionment for the Third Congress, which was based on the 1790 Census.



States in yellow have the same number of representatives as prescribed in the Constitution. Maine is shown as having 0 representatives, since its representation was part of that of Massachusetts. In practice, Maine had its own representatives. For example, as part of the 8-member Massachusetts delegation to the First and Second Congresses, the District of Maine, had one district.

States in light green, Delaware and Rhode Island, gained a representative under the Madison rule. States in dark green, Vermont and Kentucky, were newly admitted with two representatives. Virginia, in pink, lost a representative who had been elected from the portion of the state that became Kentucky.

[jimrtex]

1793

Following the 1790 Census, Congress apportioned the House of Representatives for the first time. This apportionment was first used for election of the Third Congress, whose term began on March 4, 1793 (elections were held from August 1792 through September 1793), as well as determining the number of electors for the second presidential election in 1792.

In this model, Congress decided to base the number of representatives on the cube root rule, but limiting the rate of increase to no more than 15% per decade. Direct application of the cube root rule would have results in a House of 157 representatives, more than doubling the size after just four years. It would have also violated the limit in the Constitution of at least 30,000 persons per representative (157 members would have averaged 24,800 persons). I have ignore the 3/5 rule in these calculations.

So beginning with 70 members, the increase was limited to 15% or a maximum of 80 members.

Representatives were apportioned using Adams method. Under Adams method, a state's population is divided by a quota, and the resulting quotient is rounded up to the next larger whole number (i.e. ceiling). This ensures that the average population per representative for any state is less than the quota. The quota is in effect a cap on district population - if representatives are elected by single member districts.

Adams method may be applied directly using the quota, or using a priority list, where the divisor for a State's 3rd representative is 2, for the 4th representative is 3, for a n^th representative n-1. Either calculation produces the same result. I use the quota since it provides the quality of a maximum number of persons per representative.

In practice, there might be experimentation (e.g. if I use a quota of 40,000 how large would the House be?) The same could be done with the priority list method, there is no reason that priority for a 433rd, 434th, 435th, 436th, 437th representative could not be calculated, and then the size of the House decided. This would likely be a political decision. If your state was 437, you would argue for a larger House. If the next decade you were 433, you would argue that the larger House had proven itself unworkable.

What I did was first choose the target size, then adjust the quota to the smallest multiple of 1000, such that the number of apportioned representatives was less than or equal to the target. This produces a nice round quota, and may slightly lessen the chance a split where two states are virtually tied.

The US population in 1790 was 3,893,523. Under the cube root rule this would result in a House of 157(.32) members, more than doubling the existing size of 70. 115% of 70 is 80(.50). The target size is 80.

A quota of 53000 would have resulted in 82 members, a quota of 55000 would result in 79. The final quota of 54000 results in 80 members. In real life, the House had 105 members.

The new apportionment results in the following changes. The large increases for Virginia and North Carolina are in part due to ignoring the 3/5 rule.

Virginia	+5
North Carolina	+3
Massachusetts	+1
New York	+1
Pennsylvania	+1
Georgia	-1

Dark Green states, VA(+5), and NC(+3) gained multiple representatives. Light green states, MA, NY, and PA increased by one representative. ME is part of MA, its share of the 9 representatives would be 2, one more than its 1/8 share that Massachusetts had allocated to it under the Constitution.

States in pink, GA lost a representative. This suggests that the estimate use for the Constitution had been too high.

States in yellow have no change.

States with two representatives, DE, GA, KY, RI, and VT, earned them under Adams method - they each had a population greater than the quota of 54,000 but less than two quotas or 108,000. There was no need for application of Madison's rule (but it is possible that the Adams method might have been chosen for that reason).