|
|
Post by american2006 on Sept 25, 2020 17:57:19 GMT
When the Constitution was first written, there was to be one representative per 30,000 people. In 1929, the House was capped at its current size, 435 members, only expanding once to accommodate the 1959 statehood of Alaska and Hawaii. If this law were repealed, here is an idea of what the House delegations would look like:
California~1,317
Texas~967
Florida~716
New York~648
Illinois~422
Pennsylvania~426
Ohio~390
Georgia~354
North Carolina~350
Michigan~333
New Jersey~296
Virginia~285
Washington~254
Arizona~243
Massachusetts~232
Tennessee~228
Indiana~224
Missouri~205
Maryland~202
Wisconsin~194
Colorado~192
Minnesota~188
South Carolina~172
Alabama~163
Louisiana~155
Kentucky~149
Oregon~141
Oklahoma~132
Connecticut~119
Utah~107
Iowa~105
Nevada~103
Arkansas~101
Mississippi~99
Kansas~97
New Mexico~70
Nebraska~65
West Virginia~60
Idaho~60
Hawaii~47
New Hampshire~45
Maine~45
Montana~36
Rhode Island~35
Delaware~32
South Dakota~29
North Dakota~25
Alaska~24
Vermont~21
Wyoming~19
DC would have 24, but is not allowed representation in Congress.
I plan on making this a project to re-analysis pst elections, but I’m still making the 2012-2016-2020 map:
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964 
Likes: 49,365
|
Post by lordroel on Sept 25, 2020 18:03:19 GMT
When the Constitution was first written, there was to be one representative per 30,000 people. In 1929, the House was capped at its current size, 435 members, only expanding once to accommodate the 1959 statehood of Alaska and Hawaii. If this law were repealed, here is an idea of what the House delegations would look like: California~1,317 Texas~967 Florida~716 New York~648 Illinois~422 Pennsylvania~426 Ohio~390 Georgia~354 North Carolina~350 Michigan~333 New Jersey~296 Virginia~285 Washington~254 Arizona~243 Massachusetts~232 Tennessee~228 Indiana~224 Missouri~205 Maryland~202 Wisconsin~194 Colorado~192 Minnesota~188 South Carolina~172 Alabama~163 Louisiana~155 Kentucky~149 Oregon~141 Oklahoma~132 Connecticut~119 Utah~107 Iowa~105 Nevada~103 Arkansas~101 Mississippi~99 Kansas~97 New Mexico~70 Nebraska~65 West Virginia~60 Idaho~60 Hawaii~47 New Hampshire~45 Maine~45 Montana~36 Rhode Island~35 Delaware~32 South Dakota~29 North Dakota~25 Alaska~24 Vermont~21 Wyoming~19 DC would have 24, but is not allowed representation in Congress. I plan on making this a project to re-analysis pst elections, but I’m still making the 2012-2016-2020 map: So is this going to be a TL and what is the difference between OTL and this. |
|
|
|
Post by american2006 on Sept 25, 2020 19:08:44 GMT
When the Constitution was first written, there was to be one representative per 30,000 people. In 1929, the House was capped at its current size, 435 members, only expanding once to accommodate the 1959 statehood of Alaska and Hawaii. If this law were repealed, here is an idea of what the House delegations would look like: California~1,317 Texas~967 Florida~716 New York~648 Illinois~422 Pennsylvania~426 Ohio~390 Georgia~354 North Carolina~350 Michigan~333 New Jersey~296 Virginia~285 Washington~254 Arizona~243 Massachusetts~232 Tennessee~228 Indiana~224 Missouri~205 Maryland~202 Wisconsin~194 Colorado~192 Minnesota~188 South Carolina~172 Alabama~163 Louisiana~155 Kentucky~149 Oregon~141 Oklahoma~132 Connecticut~119 Utah~107 Iowa~105 Nevada~103 Arkansas~101 Mississippi~99 Kansas~97 New Mexico~70 Nebraska~65 West Virginia~60 Idaho~60 Hawaii~47 New Hampshire~45 Maine~45 Montana~36 Rhode Island~35 Delaware~32 South Dakota~29 North Dakota~25 Alaska~24 Vermont~21 Wyoming~19 DC would have 24, but is not allowed representation in Congress. I plan on making this a project to re-analysis pst elections, but I’m still making the 2012-2016-2020 map: So is this going to be a TL and what is the difference between OTL and this. I planned on making it a project, but I could make it a TL. I don’t know if I want to commit to a TL with The Course of a Nation and Essays from the Deep future still in the works. Maybe though. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Sept 26, 2020 10:43:18 GMT
Well I think that's somewhere about 10,000 members of Congress, possibly more. Can't see how that would be practical as you would need a huge House simply to seat them and debates with so many people would be a serious problem.
Is that 30k people per representative counting all people, including children, teenagers, prisoners, etc or just valid voters? I was initially thinking the latter but that number would fit in more with the former.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by american2006 on Sept 26, 2020 12:24:57 GMT
Well I think that's somewhere about 10,000 members of Congress, possibly more. Can't see how that would be practical as you would need a huge House simply to seat them and debates with so many people would be a serious problem.
Is that 30k people per representative counting all people, including children, teenagers, prisoners, etc or just valid voters? I was initially thinking the latter but that number would fit in more with the former.
Steve
Yes, it is over 10,000 members, and I see the impracticality. The 30k counts everyone, because I can't find the voting population as easy (I'm lazy) |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,365
|
Post by lordroel on Sept 26, 2020 12:42:42 GMT
Well I think that's somewhere about 10,000 members of Congress, possibly more. Can't see how that would be practical as you would need a huge House simply to seat them and debates with so many people would be a serious problem. Is that 30k people per representative counting all people, including children, teenagers, prisoners, etc or just valid voters? I was initially thinking the latter but that number would fit in more with the former. Steve
Yes, it is over 10,000 members, and I see the impracticality. The 30k counts everyone, because I can't find the voting population as easy (I'm lazy) How the heck will they work in Washington. |
|
|
|
Post by american2006 on Sept 26, 2020 13:06:05 GMT
Yes, it is over 10,000 members, and I see the impracticality. The 30k counts everyone, because I can't find the voting population as easy (I'm lazy) How the heck will they work in Washington. Well, I guess a separate building would be built, similar to a convention hall. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,365
|
Post by lordroel on Sept 26, 2020 13:08:01 GMT
How the heck will they work in Washington. Well, I guess a separate building would be built, similar to a convention hall. For that many people who all need office and staff, it will end up looking like this but much larger as this only has 1,100 rooms.  |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Sept 26, 2020 13:34:44 GMT
Yes, it is over 10,000 members, and I see the impracticality. The 30k counts everyone, because I can't find the voting population as easy (I'm lazy) How the heck will they work in Washington.
They wouldn't.  That's far too large for a real debating body.
According to the 1930 US Census their population then was 123,202,660, which at 30k per representative would give a little over 4,000 in the lower house. The estimate for 2020 is 330,047,526 which again divided by 30k is about 11,000. Since there wasn't anything like 4,000 members in 1929 I assume something is wrong. Could the actual figure be 300,000 people per representative? That would give a reasonable figure for 1929/30?
Ah looking further, see United_States_congressional_apportionment_Reapportionment it says that the initial allocation in 1790 was 30k per seat. However see the table on the right a bit of a way down and it has obviously changed over time as by 1923 - going by figures on the 1920 Census - it was already nearly a quarter million people per seat. I think there was probably a change in 1929 to keep the total number of seats fixed, so they no longer increased when new states were added, but that the 30k ratio was the initial one and it always changed with time. There was a temporary increase it was mentioned when Hawaii and Alaska became states but that was reduced at the next reallocation.
Looking a bit further down it says that there had been increases in the number of members up til 1911 - albeit not one new one for every 30k population. However, probably for political reasons this didn't occur in 1921 and in 1929 there was a bill fixing the maximum number of seats to 435. The section in full is:
As such american2006, was right that before 1921 the size of the House was increased after every Census but that failure to do this led to the 1929 bill which froze the number at 435. However the ratio of people to seats was already 243,728 per seat in 1923 [not sure why it gives this date rather than 1921?] and the 30,000 people per seat was only a value in 1790. The number of seats and number of people per seat both rose before 1929 but after that date it was only the latter.
Hope that clears things up. If the 1929 bill hadn't been passed then or later then the number of members of Congress would presumably have increased somewhat and they would have had to find a new location for the government but it wouldn't have approached 11,000 members. Keeping say 250k people per member, which was about the figure at the time, you would now have about 1,000 members which I think would be too large to be practical but wouldn't approach 11,000.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by american2006 on Sept 26, 2020 13:46:48 GMT
Results, 2016
Winner Takes All
Donald J. Trump-6334
Hillary R. Clinton-4751
Proportional
Donald J. Trump (R-NY)/Mike Pence (R-IN) - 5,090*
Hillary R. Clinton (D-NY)/Tim Kaine (D-VA) - 5,055
Gary Johnson (L-NM)/Bill Weld (R-MA) - 363
Jill Stein (G-MA)/Ajamu Baraka (G-DC) - 118**
Evan McMullin (I-UT)/Mindy Finn (I-TX) -63
90 Electoral Votes went to various others
*-Plurality, not majority, received. The GOP would win the majority of House delegations, Trump and Pence would still become President and Vice President, respectively.
**-This number likely would of been higher, but unlike Trump, Clinton, and Johnson, Stein only had ballot access in 42 states and the District of Colombia. McMullin only had ballot access in 11 states, primarily in the West.
|
|
|
|
Post by american2006 on Sept 26, 2020 13:52:16 GMT
How the heck will they work in Washington.
They wouldn't. That's far too large for a real debating body.
According to the 1930 US Census their population then was 123,202,660, which at 30k per representative would give a little over 4,000 in the lower house. The estimate for 2020 is 330,047,526 which again divided by 30k is about 11,000. Since there wasn't anything like 4,000 members in 1929 I assume something is wrong. Could the actual figure be 300,000 people per representative? That would give a reasonable figure for 1929/30?
Ah looking further, see United_States_congressional_apportionment_Reapportionment it says that the initial allocation in 1790 was 30k per seat. However see the table on the right a bit of a way down and it has obviously changed over time as by 1923 - going by figures on the 1920 Census - it was already nearly a quarter million people per seat. I think there was probably a change in 1929 to keep the total number of seats fixed, so they no longer increased when new states were added, but that the 30k ratio was the initial one and it always changed with time. There was a temporary increase it was mentioned when Hawaii and Alaska became states but that was reduced at the next reallocation.
Looking a bit further down it says that there had been increases in the number of members up til 1911 - albeit not one new one for every 30k population. However, probably for political reasons this didn't occur in 1921 and in 1929 there was a bill fixing the maximum number of seats to 435. The section in full is:
As such american2006 , was right that before 1921 the size of the House was increased after every Census but that failure to do this led to the 1929 bill which froze the number at 435. However the ratio of people to seats was already 243,728 per seat in 1923 [not sure why it gives this date rather than 1921?] and the 30,000 people per seat was only a value in 1790. The number of seats and number of people per seat both rose before 1929 but after that date it was only the latter.
Hope that clears things up. If the 1929 bill hadn't been passed then or later then the number of members of Congress would presumably have increased somewhat and they would have had to find a new location for the government but it wouldn't have approached 11,000 members. Keeping say 250k people per member, which was about the figure at the time, you would now have about 1,000 members which I think would be too large to be practical but wouldn't approach 11,000.
Steve
I see what your saying and understand it completely. And 10-11 K members is not remotely appropriate to a debating body. However, this project is mainly to see what it would look like had it happened. Of course, the 1929 bill capping the House would have taken form in some form or another, and likely Congress in 1929 wasn't the first to figure out such, as you pointed out. However, for the sake of seeing what would happen, in regards to debating, I'd think you'd see something like, for an example, Chair of the California Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, etc., who would do the main debate while the House itself would vote. The Speaker of the House would become a very prominent position. |
|
|
|
Post by american2006 on Sept 27, 2020 17:47:24 GMT
Results, 2012
Winner Takes All
Barack H. Obama (D-IL)/Joseph R. Biden (D-DE) - 6,928
W. Mitt Romney (R-MA)/Paul D. Ryan (R-WI) - 4,157
Proportional
Barack H. Obama (D-IL)/Joseph R. Biden (D-DE) - 5,660
W. Mitt Romney (R-MA)/Paul D. Ryan (R-WI) - 5,449
Gary E. Johnson (L-NM)/James P. Gray (L-CA) - 111
Jill E. Stein (G-MA)/Cheri L. Honkala (G-MN) - 41
Others - 32
Barack Obama would win this election in the WTA by almost 2,000 electoral votes. However, He barely (by less the 1%) got the majority in the Proportional vote. Had it gone to the House (which it very nearly did in this scenario), Governor W. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts would win the election-barely. The power of the 3rd Parties.
|
|
|
|
Post by american2006 on Sept 29, 2020 2:03:38 GMT
Results, 2008
Winner Takes All
Barack H. Obama (D-IL)/Joseph R. Biden (D-DE) - 6602
John S. McCain III (R-AZ)/Sarah L. Palin (R-AK) - 2852
Proportional
Barack H. Obama (D-IL)/Joseph R. Biden (D-DE) - 4,792
John S. McCain III (R-AZ)/Sarah L. Palin (R-AK) - 4,325
Ralph Nader (I-CN)/Matthew E. Gonzalez (I-CA) - 53
Robert L. Barr Jr. (L-GA)/Wayne A. Root (L-NV) - 38
Charles O. Baldwin (C-FL)/Darrell L. Castle (C-TN) - 11
Cynthia A. McKinney (G-GA)/Rosa Clemente (G-NC) - 12
In this result, despite Barack Obama's landslide WTA victory, he would come really close to losing the Proportional in 2008. It would all come down to who would control the HoR state delegations in early '09. The GOP tends to hold this advantage close, and McCain would win in the scenario of a House vote.
This election was out of 11,277 Possible Electoral Votes
|
|
|
|
Post by american2006 on Oct 7, 2020 0:34:38 GMT
Just as a note, I've changed the title of this to reflect a wider range of projects. For examples, the first of these: USA/Canada as one country election2016 Donald Trump v. Hillary Clinton 290-269 Same as OTL 2016, but Alberta and Saskatchewan are red and every other Canadian province/territory is blue. British Colombia and Manitoba could be considered a swing state, by the way. The numbers for this are from the 2015 Canadian Federal Election with the New Democrat, Liberal, Bloc Quebecois and Green seats becoming the Democrats in the US (Based on ideology) and Conservatives becoming Republicans. 2012 Barack Obama v. Mitt Romney 306-253 I'm seeing a trend now. Canada goes blue, America goes red. Odd. Either way, this is before IA, WI, MI, OH, PN, and FL flipped back red, but 2012 saw most of Canada (all except Quebec, Newfoundland & Labrador, and Nunavut). I guess PN, OH, MI, IA, WI, and FL really tipped the scales. That's all I can do without redistricting, but I hope this interested someone. Btw, lordroel can you please move this thread to alternate politics and governance? Thanks in advance! I rounded to the nearest whole number. These are the electoral votes by states/territory/province. DC, Puerto Rico, and other US possessions are not included. California 43.9174024 Texas 31.71273794 Florida 24.1888278 New York 23.69232081 Ontario 17.05741322 Illinois 16.44227347 Pennsylvania 16.38164735 Ohio 15.13881196 Georgia 13.67751349 North Carolina 13.49772569 Michigan 13.37124707 New Jersey 12.3635992 Virginia 11.76256442 Quebec 11.53402591 Washington 10.49464236 Arizona 10.13715733 Massachusetts 10.10161788 Indiana 9.918694252 Tennessee 9.898833972 Missouri 9.359470589 Maryland 9.277938915 Wisconsin 9.032298614 Minnesota 8.737530254 Colorado 8.703558723 South Carolina 8.117680474 Alabama 8.079005193 Louisiana 7.882492952 British Columbia 7.858509051 Kentucky 7.625354595 Alberta 7.25132804 Oregon 7.211424557 Oklahoma 7.088081768 Connecticut 6.75254757 Iowa 6.26544808 Utah 6.131652512 Mississippi 6.127471401 Arkansas 6.112837511 Kansas 6.042803893 Nevada 6.021898335 New Mexico 5.179404369 Nebraska 4.98184685 West Virginia 4.927492401 Idaho 4.729934882 Hawaii 4.495792639 New Hampshire 4.390219573 Maine 4.389174295 Manitoba 4.33624665 Saskatchewan 4.148083044 Rhode Island 4.103813436 Montana 4.077681489 Delaware 3.988832869 Nova Scotia 3.965416554 South Dakota 3.897371055 North Dakota 3.791275351 New Brunswick 3.780928145 Alaska 3.771833183 Vermont 3.65288056 Wyoming 3.612010196 Newfoundland and Labrador 3.543247636 Prince Edward Island 3.149377525 Northwest Territories 3.043677981 Nunavut 3.037571468 Yukon 3.037498298 |
|
That's far too large for a real debating body.