Americas 51st and 52nd States?

[jimrtex]

I tried some other apportionment methods just to see the result.  If as the divisor used to generate priority values, instead of using the geometric mean of n and n+1 (where n is the number of seats the State has already) one uses the arithmetic mean, you get the same results in 2000 for the 435 seats, but the 436th would go to New York instead of Utah.  If you use simply n as Verily was suggesting, you get a result that is much more favorable to small states.

You really ought to use the harmonic mean.

  2(n+1)n
  ------------
     2n+1

[jimrtex]

As far as increasing the size of the House goes, the size of the House was fixed at 435 by the Reapportionment Act of 1929.  Congress has the authority to alter the size of the House whenever it wishes by passing a new law.  The Constitution's only input on the matter is that a Representative may have no less than 30,000 people in their district.

Since the 1790 Census, Congress had varied the size of the House of Representatives after each census.  Often there were considerations such as preventing a slow-growing state from losing representation.  There were also debate about the method of apportionment.

After the 1910 Census, the size of the House of Representatives was set at 433, with the anticipation that the admission of Arizona and New Mexico to the Union would increase it to 435 (I think Arizona and New Mexico were actually conditionally incorporated in the reapportionment bill).

After the 1920 Census, Congress failed to reapportion.  The 1910's had seen a sever drought in the Midwest that had seen farm state population remain static after having increased every census.  Meanwhile states in the Northeast and Great Lakes area were seeing large growth in cities due to industrialization.  So New York would gain bunches of representatives, while midwestern states would lose.

Finally, President Hoover pushed through reapportionment legislation that defined the method of apportionment and set the size of the HoR at 435, with the apportionment formula applied automatically.   This was used in 1930, and basically there has never been an impetus to change it since.  At best, you might have congressmen from states losing representation filing a bill to increase the size of the HoR.

When Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the Union in 1959 and 1960, they were apportioned a single representative each, increasing the size of the HoR to 437, and the number of electors from 531 to 537.  The law also provided that the HoR would revert to 435 representatives after the 1960 Census, which it did.  Since Hawaii gained a 2nd representative as a result of the census, other states in effect lost 3 representatives.

Because of the passage of the 23rd Amendment (DC Presidential Vote), the number of electors changed from 537 in 1960 to 538 in 1964.

The current legislation, provides that the 2 additional representatives due not increase the size of the HoR on a permanent basis (it will revert to 435 after the 2010 Census).  It addition, it states that Utah will not gain an (6th) elector for the 2008 presidential election.

It appears that after 2010 Census that the number of electors will decrease to 537 (since DC will have one of the 435 representatives), but its number of electors is based on the 23rd Amendment and not on its number of House Members.

[jimrtex]

The current legislation, provides that the 2 additional representatives due not increase the size of the HoR on a permanent basis (it will revert to 435 after the 2010 Census).  It addition, it states that Utah will not gain an (6th) elector for the 2008 presidential election.

It appears that after 2010 Census that the number of electors will decrease to 537 (since DC will have one of the 435 representatives), but its number of electors is based on the 23rd Amendment and not on its number of House Members.

This is not true.  In the original bill (HR 2043) proposed by Rep. Davis (R-VA-11) the House would have reverted to 435 after the 2010 Census.  However, in a revised version (HR 5388) the increase was made permanent and if the bill had passed it would have increased the size of the House to 437 members beginning with the 110th Congress for all Congresses afterward.  I beleive one of the reasons the second bill went farther then the first was because the increase was made permanent rather than being temporary.  This was done to avoid having an entire state delegation block the bill because one state would have lost a CD to DC.  Also, Utah's new CD would have brought the EV total to 539 making an EC tie impossible.  Alas, the do-nothing Congress lives up to its name and was unable to push this bill through even though Utah drew a new CD map and it made it through all the committee hearings.  Hopefully the Democrats will live up to their promise to make the bill a top priority in the 110th.

I had searched, and HR 2043 had come up and had seen that Rep. Davis was a sponsor, and saw that no action had been taken, and assumed that was the bill.

Actually, the bill was referred to two committees.  It made it through the Government Reform committee (which Davis heads) - 2 days after it was introduced.  There was also a hearing in the subcommittee on the Constitution of the Judiciary Committee in September, with no action taken (the transcript of this hearing is online - and is interesting reading).

I don't know whether they could have bypassed the Judiciary Committee.  But would the Senate have even considered it?

Also it provides that the extra Utah representative would be elected at large.  During the Constitution subcommittee hearing, one of the legal experts also questioned that aspect of the bill (the main focus of course was whether or not it was constitutional to grant representatives to DC).  Governor Huntsman was one of the witnesses, and he said that he would prefer having 4 districts, that the important thing was to get 4 representatives.  Del. Norton, mentioned she had heard that there was going to be an amendment removing the at large representative, and she seemed almost frantic to head it off.

It is curious that Utah had the special redistricting session in December 4-district map passed by Utah legislature .  Was there some sort of deal supposed to come off where there would have been a floor amendment to remove the at large provision?  Considering how frantic Norton was about the amendment, they simply didn't have the votes.  Republicans concerned about the Constitution, and Democrats concerned that they would lose their Utah representative.

It doesn't matter whether there would be 435 or 437 representatives as far as having an odd number of electors.   There would be either 434+100 or 436+100 state-based electors, and the 3 DC electors for a total of 537 or 539 electors.

You may be right about the permanent increase, that everyone perceived that it would make a difference.  The two extra representatives would tend to be neutral as far partisan balance.  And even though two states would get an extra representative, al the others would have a smaller proportion of the body.

By my projections, if the number would revert to 435, Florida would lose its 28th representative (gain 2 rather than 3).  If the 437 were permanent, Florida would keep the 28th representative, and Minnesota would not lose its 8th.