Here is a website that offers an online software that allows any person to examine and analyse the census data and then draw his own congressional district maps, for fun, or maybe, for real. So, the software is not a toy. It's the real McCoy. But I believe this is the first time that something this high-quality is available for anyone to use: DRA 2020 (davesredistricting.org) You can open up the main menu at the top left of the site. I played around some with it, using the 2010 data, and it is just a cool, cool, cool dream for people who like this kind of stuff. Of course, the site shows the current congressional districts in their current form. Usually, what happens after the 10-year census is published is that the states that are going to either lose or gain one or more congressional seats as of 2023 (meaning, for the 2022 mid-term elections) must redraw their district maps to accomodate the necessary changes. States that are AL (District at Large) states don't have to do anything, since there is only one district in the state, anyway. It is expected that Rhode Island is going to lose a seat, so it will become an AL state and in that case won't need to redraw anything. The state boundaries simply become the boundaries of the AL- district. States that will have no changes in their congressional delegation are not required to redraw the congressional maps, but occasionally, there is a court-challenge to a gerrymandered district here and there and in that case, we may also see a state or two that, despite no change in the number of CDs, still redraws the district maps. I would like to remind that both major political parties have been every bit as guilty of "gerrymandering" districts in order to gain a tactical advantage over the other party. I am personally 100% against gerrymandering and think that it should be outlawed. I also think that for each state, an independent commission, using a supercomputer, population data (only numbers of people, no other demographics) and geographical data should draw congressional maps where each district is drawn as logically as possible. For instance, if you have a large city that sprawls over 2 sides of a river and it is obvious that there are going to be at least 2 congressional districts that can be drawn purely based on the population of the city (and environs), then logically one district should be on one side of the river and the other on the other. Also, CDs should, when possible, stay within county boundaries so that county is not a dividing zone for 2 or more CDs. After all, the purpose is to have an equal amount of residents per Representative in Congress. When the Republic was founded, the formula that the founding fathers agreed upon was: 1 Representative for 35,000 people. Today, each Representative "represents" between 750,000-760,000 residents. Logically, the number of representatives should be greatly increased in the lower house of Congress. So, I wish you fun with the software. -Stat
I think that should be a decision that the American people should make. Were we to stay with the ratio that the founding fathers wanted, that would be 9,429 Reps. That's too many. But I could easily imagine 1,500 Reps. That would be one Rep for every 220,000 people. And that should include reps for the territories as well. Anywhere where people are under the US government and are issued US-Passports. The Senate should also, in my, be increased to 150, to allow more Senators for the mega-states and also some representation from the territories. Also, every ex-president and ex-vice President should be given the opportunity after leaving office to serve for the rest of his or her life as a form of "National" Senator. I think the logic behind this is pretty solid.
Phew... close to 10,000, can only imagine what a madhouse that would be, 1,500 would probably be a circus too, maybe a few more but I don't know how many. I can't go along with increasing the Senate, the mega-states already have a big representation in the House so's may as well tell the small state's not to bother sending any Senators at all. Ex-presidents and VPs can run for the House or Senate if they wish, as it is we have enough judges sitting on benches till they drop over dead, more than enough life appointments for me.
I know the number seems large, but when you consider how much larger the population is than at the time of the founding of the Republic.... Or better yet, compare the population alone from the year 1913, when the HOR suddenly had 435 Representatives and has remained steady at this number, excluding 1959 (436) and 1961 (437). According to the Apportionment Act of 1911, the number of Reps was capped at 435 starting in 1913. This was the population of the USA in 1913: 97,225,000 This is the population of the USA at current: 331,000,000 The population of the USA is 3.4 times larger than it was when the HOR first reached its cap of 435 reps. 435 * 3.4 = 1,481 With that math in mind, 1,500 seems to be an extremely reasonable number to me. Yes, that would mean more costs for a larger House of Representatives, but with 1,500 instead of 435, each Rep would have less individual power and would be forced to engage more in compromise. It would also improve the chances that some third-party candidates could actually win some seats in the HOR. I personally would welcome seeing some true Libertarians and some true Greens in the HOR. If there was ever a legislative body where they should be heard, then this would be the body for them. In his book "A More Perfect Constitution: 23 Proposals to Revitalize our Constitution and Make America a Fairer Country", Larry Sabato (University of Virginia), starting on p. 37, outlines his reasons for increasing the size of the House of Representatives, under the sub-title of "Building a Bigger House". On p.39, Sabato indicates that George Will's (an arch-Conservative, mind you) proposal of 1,000 Representatives would be pretty reasonable. That was back in 2006. It's been 14 years since then. I can strongly recommend his book, which takes liberal, conservative and moderate proposals and weighs a great many of them. Also, with 1,500 Representatives, no state in the Union would have only 1 Rep, meaning no more Reps-at-large for an entire state, which is surely more in line with the thinking of our founding fathers. A lot of people complain that congressional incumbents always win no matter how good or how bad, and they have a very valid point. Indeed, most of the time, at least 90% of Reps in the HOR win re-election. But they have the luxury of drawing on a huge "base" that is pretty much conditioned to to vote party-line, no matter what. With smaller districts, more fairly re-districted, without gerrymandering, then Congressmen-and-women would actually have to run on their records and fight for every vote, thus making the entire legislative more competitive. It's time to reshuffle the deck of cards as applies to the HOR, in my opinion. As for the Senate, under the current conditions, a Party can theoretically win more than 50% of Senate seats, but the states in which they could win those seats represent only 20-22% of all Americans. Surely, the founding fathers did not have that in mind at all. The idea of equal numbers of Senators for all states, no matter how large or how small, was to avoid the "tyranny of the large states". Unfortunately, in the 21st century, we are experiencing precisely the opposite: the tyranny of the small states, which is extremely uncool, to say the least. Case in point: the population of California is SIXTY (well, 50.99) times larger than the population of Wyoming. The entire population of Wyoming could fit inside Los Angeles county alone many times over. And yet, both states have 2 Senators. That is simply perverse. The entire reason why the push was so big to split the Dakota territory into 2 Dakotas was purely to end up with 4 Senators instead of 2, because one party wanted to gain an advantage in the ever increasing balance of terror between the two major parties. So, I really do think that 150 Senators is a truly good idea. the 14 or 15 largest states would get two more Senators, the next 20 or 22 largest states would get 1 more Senator and the remaining 14 of 15 states would stay with 2 Senators. Mind you, both Texas and Florida would end up with 4 Senators, alongside California and New York, etc etc. Also, the idea of floating "national" senators comprised of ex-presidents and ex-vice-presidents who would be invited to serve for the rest of their lives after their terms in office, is eminently logical. Presidents and Vice-Presidents have a unique experience that no other people in the country will ever have and they are in possession of information that most of us will never see. Their voices in the Senate after they have served would be an enormous plus. Also, ex-presidents and ex-vice-presidents receive an exhorbitant post-term salary and I feel they should do something positive and productive to earn said salary. This is also an idea proposed in Sabato's book, one of the more fascinating ideas I have read in the last many years. I am very much enjoying reading your input.
