This page is not a forum for general discussion about United States congressional apportionment. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about United States congressional apportionment at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Does anyone know if prisoners count towards the population of a state?
If so, does the original law, which included the phrase "including those bound to Service for a Term of Years", include prisoners with a life sentence as life sentences are not based on a term of years?
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, Massachusetts is the wrong color in the map at the top of this article page. Before the redistricting that arose from the 2010 census, Massachusetts had ten U.S. Representatives. With the redistricting stemming from the 2010 census, Massachusetts has lost a House seat: it now has nine seats. The map shows "9" for Massachusetts, but has the state colored orange, which represents "no change". In fact, there was a change, from 2000 to 2010, from ten to nine. Map needs correction. — President Lethe ( talk) 00:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The list states that Iowa's admission to the Union added 2 representatives and increased the total number correspondingly. However, the citation given (5 Stat. 743) states that Iowa would only get a single representative. What is the basis for this claim? — Gordon P. Hemsley→ ✉ 18:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
After the 1850 Census, there were 234 Representatives, yet the act cited for that provided that the size of the House would be 233 Representatives (in section 24). Where did the extra Representative come from? Was there a later amendment to that act? XinaNicole ( talk) 19:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
The 2010 US population was over three times the population in 1913 when the number of representatives was fixed at 435. This means a combination of more work for representatives to keep in touch with their constituents and less contact for each constituent with their representative. Community meetings and advances such as electronic communication have helped, but to maintain contact with constituents representatives have had to resort to summaries by staff. The population of the US in the 1910 census (which yielded the 435 number of representatives) was 92.4 million. The 2020 census is expected to count over 330 million US residents.
A mathematical model that is over 50 years old balances the communication between representatives with the communication between each representative and the representative's constituents (for any organization). This calculation yields an "optimal" number of representatives as the 1/3 power of the population. This formula would have yielded 452 representatives for the 1910 census, a good match. A study in the early 1970's showed a good correlation between this formula and national populations at that time. The two largest outliers were China with 3000 representatives (around 3 times larger than expected) and the US with only 435 representatives in the House (around 1/3 smaller than expected).
A French 2007 study used a somewhat different measure of representatives (including both houses of a bicameral legislature). Log-Log regression analysis yielded an exponent of approximately 0.4. The authors had expected an exponent of 1/2 based on the Penrose Model. [1] Drbits ( talk) 08:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on United States congressional apportionment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
This article and secondary sources indicate that New Mexico was granted 2 representatives upon its admission to the Union, increasing the total number of seats from 391 to 393. However, I cannot find a citation in the statutes that supports that. 37 Stat. 14 states the following:
That if the Territories of Arizona and New Mexico shall become States in the Union before the apportionment of Representatives under the next decennial census they shall have one Representative each, and if one of such Territories shall so become a State, such State shall have one Representative, which Representative or Representatives shall be in addition to the number four hundred and thirty-three, as provided in section one of this Act, and all laws and parts of laws in conflict with this section are to that extent hereby repealed.
This seems to me to be a redundant way to say "each state gets one Representative upon its respective admission to the Union", but perhaps I'm misreading it. Is there another source for New Mexico getting 2 seats? Is there a statute that encodes New Mexico's population between the 1910 census and the official 1913 apportionment? — Gordon P. Hemsley→ ✉ 20:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Were slaves counted as population? I expect that the slave states wanted the slaves to count for the apportionment. Smiley.toerist ( talk) 18:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I've just made this WP:BOLD edit to the table in this section. I'm not entirely happy with it but it seems an improvement. I'm inviting discussion here regarding that.
This grew out of a suggestion in
Talk:United States Electoral College#Indicator of highest amount of electors from each state, and I have made a suggestion there which involves this the Past apportionments article section here. If there is discussion regarding that, please discuss it there.
Wtmitchell
(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Not sure I'm doing this right so feel free to correct it. In the Apportionment Methods section it states "The revised method was necessary in the context of the cap on the number of Representatives set in the Reapportionment Act of 1929." This is not true - the prior (Webster) method would work with a fixed number of representatives. 24.8.46.212 ( talk) 03:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC) dave@twinsprings.com
In the Computing Apportionment section of the census website they explain the formula of Equal Proportions Method as
Not
how apportionment is calculated Ospination ( talk) 00:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Have there been any recent bills to repeal Permanent Apportionment and expand the House? 107.115.207.41 ( talk) 21:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
The chart at the top of the page House Seats by State 1789-2020 Census was discussed at https://junkcharts.typepad.com/junk_charts/2023/02/area-chart-is-not-the-solution.html. I'd be happy to make something similar to what is proposed as the better solution, but I need a source for the data. All I can find is https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/interactive/historical-apportionment-data-map.html, but that only goes back to 1910, not 1789. Vexations ( talk) 22:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Please read your 1st bibliography reference, Balinsky & Young !!
If we're going to indulge conjecture— Supposing that the pattern of the clause were continued, it would go
bringing today's count to 1700 exactly (because that number is between 331449281/200000 and 331449281/190000). — Tamfang ( talk) 05:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
This page is not a forum for general discussion about United States congressional apportionment. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about United States congressional apportionment at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Does anyone know if prisoners count towards the population of a state?
If so, does the original law, which included the phrase "including those bound to Service for a Term of Years", include prisoners with a life sentence as life sentences are not based on a term of years?
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, Massachusetts is the wrong color in the map at the top of this article page. Before the redistricting that arose from the 2010 census, Massachusetts had ten U.S. Representatives. With the redistricting stemming from the 2010 census, Massachusetts has lost a House seat: it now has nine seats. The map shows "9" for Massachusetts, but has the state colored orange, which represents "no change". In fact, there was a change, from 2000 to 2010, from ten to nine. Map needs correction. — President Lethe ( talk) 00:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The list states that Iowa's admission to the Union added 2 representatives and increased the total number correspondingly. However, the citation given (5 Stat. 743) states that Iowa would only get a single representative. What is the basis for this claim? — Gordon P. Hemsley→ ✉ 18:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
After the 1850 Census, there were 234 Representatives, yet the act cited for that provided that the size of the House would be 233 Representatives (in section 24). Where did the extra Representative come from? Was there a later amendment to that act? XinaNicole ( talk) 19:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
The 2010 US population was over three times the population in 1913 when the number of representatives was fixed at 435. This means a combination of more work for representatives to keep in touch with their constituents and less contact for each constituent with their representative. Community meetings and advances such as electronic communication have helped, but to maintain contact with constituents representatives have had to resort to summaries by staff. The population of the US in the 1910 census (which yielded the 435 number of representatives) was 92.4 million. The 2020 census is expected to count over 330 million US residents.
A mathematical model that is over 50 years old balances the communication between representatives with the communication between each representative and the representative's constituents (for any organization). This calculation yields an "optimal" number of representatives as the 1/3 power of the population. This formula would have yielded 452 representatives for the 1910 census, a good match. A study in the early 1970's showed a good correlation between this formula and national populations at that time. The two largest outliers were China with 3000 representatives (around 3 times larger than expected) and the US with only 435 representatives in the House (around 1/3 smaller than expected).
A French 2007 study used a somewhat different measure of representatives (including both houses of a bicameral legislature). Log-Log regression analysis yielded an exponent of approximately 0.4. The authors had expected an exponent of 1/2 based on the Penrose Model. [1] Drbits ( talk) 08:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on United States congressional apportionment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
This article and secondary sources indicate that New Mexico was granted 2 representatives upon its admission to the Union, increasing the total number of seats from 391 to 393. However, I cannot find a citation in the statutes that supports that. 37 Stat. 14 states the following:
That if the Territories of Arizona and New Mexico shall become States in the Union before the apportionment of Representatives under the next decennial census they shall have one Representative each, and if one of such Territories shall so become a State, such State shall have one Representative, which Representative or Representatives shall be in addition to the number four hundred and thirty-three, as provided in section one of this Act, and all laws and parts of laws in conflict with this section are to that extent hereby repealed.
This seems to me to be a redundant way to say "each state gets one Representative upon its respective admission to the Union", but perhaps I'm misreading it. Is there another source for New Mexico getting 2 seats? Is there a statute that encodes New Mexico's population between the 1910 census and the official 1913 apportionment? — Gordon P. Hemsley→ ✉ 20:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Were slaves counted as population? I expect that the slave states wanted the slaves to count for the apportionment. Smiley.toerist ( talk) 18:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I've just made this WP:BOLD edit to the table in this section. I'm not entirely happy with it but it seems an improvement. I'm inviting discussion here regarding that.
This grew out of a suggestion in
Talk:United States Electoral College#Indicator of highest amount of electors from each state, and I have made a suggestion there which involves this the Past apportionments article section here. If there is discussion regarding that, please discuss it there.
Wtmitchell
(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Not sure I'm doing this right so feel free to correct it. In the Apportionment Methods section it states "The revised method was necessary in the context of the cap on the number of Representatives set in the Reapportionment Act of 1929." This is not true - the prior (Webster) method would work with a fixed number of representatives. 24.8.46.212 ( talk) 03:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC) dave@twinsprings.com
In the Computing Apportionment section of the census website they explain the formula of Equal Proportions Method as
Not
how apportionment is calculated Ospination ( talk) 00:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Have there been any recent bills to repeal Permanent Apportionment and expand the House? 107.115.207.41 ( talk) 21:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
The chart at the top of the page House Seats by State 1789-2020 Census was discussed at https://junkcharts.typepad.com/junk_charts/2023/02/area-chart-is-not-the-solution.html. I'd be happy to make something similar to what is proposed as the better solution, but I need a source for the data. All I can find is https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/interactive/historical-apportionment-data-map.html, but that only goes back to 1910, not 1789. Vexations ( talk) 22:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Please read your 1st bibliography reference, Balinsky & Young !!
If we're going to indulge conjecture— Supposing that the pattern of the clause were continued, it would go
bringing today's count to 1700 exactly (because that number is between 331449281/200000 and 331449281/190000). — Tamfang ( talk) 05:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)