What would the ideal population be for congressional districts?

[DPKdebator]

Currently the average population for a congressional district is 761,179 per the 2020 census. It has been almost a century since the House has been expanded and so has the average seat population. What do you think the ideal size for a congressional district is?

[wnwnwn]

Either 500K or the Wyoming Rule (Wyoming population accoding to the last Census is 576,851).

[Storr]

In my opinion, it should be 100,000. I don't care that the House would have 3,400 members. If it's truly the "people's house", the population per district should be small enough where Congressional staffs don't have to be sized in the dozens in order to serve constituents.

[Thank you for being a friend...]

Around 500,000, even half a million is a lot of people to represent in the lower house, but the country's so big.  When it goes into the 700,000s I think it's getting too high.

I would expand the House to probably 501 seats if I could make a decision about it.  501 seats would have more than 600,000 people in each district though.  (Total population of USA = 331.9 m in 2021)

I think DC needs a fully voting seat, and I'd give one each to the territories too.  The rest would be allocated based on population, and who lost out on seats in the 2020 census.

It'll probably stay at 435 for a very very long time though.

[bagelman]

Quarter million would be a major improvement.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

In my opinion, it should be 100,000. I don't care that the House would have 3,400 members. If it's truly the "people's house", the population per district should be small enough where Congressional staffs don't have to be sized in the dozens in order to serve constituents.

What congressional staffs are that large? When I worked in Clyburn’s district office there were, at most, ten people who actually worked in the district. His DC staff was larger sure but they weren’t the ones who usually worked on constituent service as much, more legislative and media types.

[gerritcole]

Cube root rule is like 693 seats which is high 400K population per district

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

Cube root rule is like 693 seats which is high 400K population per district

I’ve actually been working on a cube root map (plus PR and Guam) atm

[Progressive Pessimist]

The Wyoming rule.

[gerritcole]

Cube root rule is like 693 seats which is high 400K population per district

I’ve actually been working on a cube root map (plus PR and Guam) atm

I’d love to see the map!

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Cube root rule is like 693 seats which is high 400K population per district

I’ve actually been working on a cube root map (plus PR and Guam) atm

Would love to see what you come up with!

[patzer]

The Wyoming rule.

That's one of the worst possible rules. A small change in the population of Wyoming would imply a large change to the number of representatives nationally. What happens if there's a natural disaster forcing half of Wyoming's population to leave the state just before a census, only for them to return in time for the next census?

[Torie]

In my opinion, it should be 100,000. I don't care that the House would have 3,400 members. If it's truly the "people's house", the population per district should be small enough where Congressional staffs don't have to be sized in the dozens in order to serve constituents.

That is akin to the size of the state of reresentatives in New Hampshire some 400 members 0r some crazy thing.

[Frodo]

One representative for every 30,000 constituents maximum or 50,000 constituents minimum per the Founders' Rule:

[Cokeland Saxton]

Wyoming rule

[ProgressiveModerate]

Wyoming rule isn’t a good idea because of how much population fluctuations in the smallest state change the national picture. You could have sudden large increases or decreases in the house size between decades.

CRR is clearly the way to go.

[Antonio the Sixth]

As small as practicable, which is to say probably in the 300-400k range. I'd be open to a 2000 or 3000-member House of Representatives, but it would only make sense under a radical restructuring of the US system of government.

[Atlas Force]

Cube root rule

[muon2]

I went through an analysis of the size of the US House if the standard practice before 1920 had been followed for the last century. It's on another board, and the analysis for this decade is here. You can follow the whole thread, or take the bottom line that the House would have 1193 members with an average population of 278K.

[Torie]

I don't understand how you come up with 1193 representatives. It is not like a fixed number like the speed of light. What is the algorithm that you use?

[MarkD]

About 500,000 would be my preference.

[politicallefty]

Ideally, I'd say a quarter million. However, as noted above, a significantly larger House would require a larger restructuring of the government.

Without a major restructuring, I've long been a proponent of the cube root rule.

Wyoming rule isn’t a good idea because of how much population fluctuations in the smallest state change the national picture. You could have sudden large increases or decreases in the house size between decades.

CRR is clearly the way to go.

Indeed. This is why the Wyoming Rule is a bad idea (or during some of that time period, the Nevada Rule). Imagine if we granted Guam statehood and therefore had the Guam Rule (the House would be over 1900 Members).

[muon2]

I don't understand how you come up with 1193 representatives. It is not like a fixed number like the speed of light. What is the algorithm that you use?

Go back to the beginning of the thread I linked and you can follow the algorithm in detail. I start with the consensus practice that no state ever lost a seat. I then tweaked it to account for the radical shifts that happened with the great migration and great depression by allowing losses for some states that lost population in a way consistent with the political sensibilities of the era.

[VPH]

350,000. Frankly, the ideal size is even lower than that, but I struggle to imagine the logistics of anything lower.

[Mr.Phips]

1 person.