Apportionment for the House of Representatives is theoretically supposed to be equal, but is it equal? Even reasonably so? Not really. According to this article House representation varied from 530,000 people in Rhode Island to over one million in Montana (rounded numbers, of course). Is there anything wrong with this? Districts are evenly distributed within each state, right?
Well, there’s the problem. Constitution and laws aside*, we’re measuring per state, and the House is supposed to represent the people. Using the numbers above it is clear people in Montana are getting screwed compared to Rhode Islanders. In Congress we have the Senate for state representation. Here’s what we need to do…
- Eliminate everything state-related regarding the House. No state lines would be factored in at all.
- Take 308.7 million people (per 2010 census) and divide by 435 (number of House seats). This would give each Representative 709,655 people to represent. That’s equal representation.
- If some districts overlap states lines, so be it. States should not be factored in in any way whatsoever.
There are other issues regarding the House, i.e. gerrymandering, possibly increasing the number of seats… I mean, isn’t 700,000+ people to represent a bit unwieldy?… but those are different topics for a different post. I think this idea would lessen the state competition, though, and in the long run that would be a huge improvement.
*-It is understood a Constitutional Amendment may be required. So be it.