Forum: Author Hangout

However the primary emphasis behind the effort is separate state governments would allow citizens of the respective state's interests to be better represented.

Actually as an interested Californian, the primary emphasis on all the proposed divided Californias is that the State is by far a Democratic stronghold. All proposed divisions have been pushed by libertarian or republican individuals who are unhappy with the States politics. So they have championed various measures to divide the State. Does not anyone remember the "State of Jefferson" movement a few years back to seperate most of the Northern California (rural) counties and the southern (rural) counties of Oregon into one new state? All these counties complain about how high their taxes are and they are providing benefits to illegals and the big cities. Yet, when looking at the distribution of tax dollars per capita they are the highest beneficiaries. Just another strategy of the Republican Party that cries it is "taxed too high" and "welfare is greater in cities" when the facts dispute that on per capita basis the rural communities receive a disapportably higher tax revenue than their residents provide.

California wants to become 3 states to get 3 times as many Senate seats.

This before or after it slides into the Pacific?

This before or after it slides into the Pacific?

California isn't going to slide into the Pacific. This comment is mostly made in regards to the San Andreas fault and the earthquakes it generates.

The problem is two fold.

1. Less than 10% of California is west of the fault line.

2. The San Andreas fault is a side-slip fault, not a subduction or spreading fault. The area west of the fault is moving North west, not west. It won't slide into the Pacific, eventually (millions of years from now) it will be part of Alaska.

ANd I think the implications of that are that the old state, undivided, would continue as was.

I read a news story the other day, based on a Census Bureau study, that predicted within a couple of decades, 70 percent of the American population will live in just 15 states.
The story didn't say so, but, if you think about it, what that means is that 30 percent of the U.S population would have 70 percent of the U.S. Senators. If the present tendency of Democrats to be limited to the big cities and Republicans to control the rural areas, things bode well for the GOP in future decades. they don't have to manipulate anything for that to happen.

At that point the US HAS to implement a population-based voting system.

At that point the US HAS to implement a population-based voting system.

Can't happen without a constitutional amendment, which has to be approved by 2/3rds (34 out of 50) of the states (not 2/3rds of the people.).

At the point that 15 states have 70% of the population, good luck finding 19 of the 35 with just 30% of the population willing to ratify that amendment.

Voter identification with proof of citizenship will have to happen before that even gets a decent discussion, and we all know how likely voter ID is to happen.

Maybe in another 40 years. Honestly I think technology is going to (inadvertently) lead to that outcome. 20 years is possible, don't know about probable however.

But yeah, I don't see the small population states giving up their power in the senate(or EC).

Other nations have universal Voter registries for decades.
Everyone who has a legal status as a citizen has the right to vote he/she just has to turn up at the booth with their national ID card. You also get a reminder/invitation a month or two before the vote.

Other nations have universal Voter registries for decades.
Everyone who has a legal status as a citizen has the right to vote he/she just has to turn up at the booth with their national ID card. You also get a reminder/invitation a month or two before the vote.

It's quite common. Here we get a voter pass about a month before elections. We go to the voting booth, hand over the pass and show an id that compares to the id on the voter pass. The only thing they can register is the fact that you voted, not what you voted because that comes after. After handing over the voter pass and the verification you get a blank voting form, you enter a shielded booth, mark your vote, fold the form closed, and dump it in a closed bin.
Of course only registered citizens get a voting pass.
It's how every election should have the voting regulated.

Other nations have universal Voter registries for decades.

Everyone who has a legal status as a citizen has the right to vote he/she just has to turn up at the booth with their national ID card. You also get a reminder/invitation a month or two before the vote.

I know that. The politics of it in the U.S. However makes it something that is likely to remain unsolved for at least "another generation"(roughly 20 years) as we basically have to wait for most of the Baby Boomers to die off, and even then that may not be enough..

More likely in my view is that technology(in particular currency) is going to reach a point where people are going to have a "Unique ID" which is easily accessible as a matter of simply living. That identifier, whatever form it takes(some form of RFID seems likely) is going to become a defacto "ID Card" and will become the Voter ID solution.

More likely in my view is that technology(in particular currency) is going to reach a point where people are going to have a "Unique ID" which is easily accessible as a matter of simply living.

I get a cold shiver down the spine just thinking about that. It's the three-letter-agencies wet dream.

I get a cold shiver down the spine just thinking about that. It's the three-letter-agencies wet dream.

THAT also is a large part of why it will be a generational transition. The technophobes have to cease being a significant portion of the population, which means the Baby Boomers are "out" and even GenX is questionable(hence 40 years), but once it is "The Millennial Generation" turning 60(to 70)....

The technophobes have to cease being a significant portion of the population,

It has nothing to do with technophobes. It's about common sense and a natural need for people to have a minimum amount of privacy.

All this talk about IDs and having recognition software for all the people in the US and all I hear is some Nazi saying
"SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS!".

Kinda crazy if you ask me that the party which is supposedly so fond of individual freedoms wants to suddenly remove them. Why do I have to show you my papers? I just want to live free but you keep placing your personal needs above mine.

Kinda crazy if you ask me that the party which is supposedly so fond of individual freedoms wants to suddenly remove them. Why do I have to show you my papers? I just want to live free but you keep placing your personal needs above mine.

You're right. It's all those people calling for "safety" and "protection" that caused the "need" for ID's. Okay, if you want to vote I can understand that need but not in every day life.

ETA: When enforcement begins, a compliant ID is necessary to enter any federal facility that requires ID including TSA checkpoints, federal prisons, military bases, and other secure facilities.

So does that mean I won't be able to use my passport as a travel document?

So does that mean I won't be able to use my passport as a travel document?

Nope. If you have a non-compliant drivers license like California issues, then you will need to show a passport or other valid form of identification.

BTW, California will only issue a REAL ID compliant drivers license only to those who want one and can provide valid documentation as determined by the Feds. So if you cannot prove citizenship, your options for traveling and entering federal buildings will be extremely limited.

ETA: it can also be used to get through the TSA checkpoint.

Indeed, if you don't mind packing it around, a passport can be used in lieu of Real ID, as you have to prove citizenship/legal status in order to obtain it.

When enforcement begins, a compliant ID is necessary to enter any federal facility that requires ID including TSA checkpoints, federal prisons, military bases, and other secure facilities.

you have to show ID anyway to get into any of those places or fly. to fly you have to show ID and a plane ticket(for that day). so it's a law that is already in existence.

EDIT:

well looking at the DHS web site I see TN is compliant. so I never had problems before.

Freedom/security can't have both, have to sacrifice something for the other.

In 2020, your standard drivers license and some of the other standard forms of ID will not be acceptable for the cited purpose

Aren't most states making their drivers' licenses compliant by the deadline. I know some states are switching this year and next.

How about the places where they're issuing valid driver's licenses to non-citizens in the USA unlawfully?

I believe states can issue drivers' licenses to anybody they like. If the state licenses comply with the federal ID law, the licenses can be used for federal ID purposes. But if they don't comply with the federal ID law, those licenses cannot be used for federal ID purposes. As I understand it, the federal law does not restrict the states' abilities to issue a license to drive a car, but only the ability to use those licenses for federal ID purposes.

Since he never killed anyone in THIS country, he didn't violate OUR laws.

This is an often stated but untrue assertion.

There are three jurisdiction principles. Territorial Jurisdiction, Personal Jurisdiction, and Subject Matter Jurisdiction. The third principle is significant in this case.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction means as a US citizen you are at all times, regardless of your location at the time of the act, subject to US law. Thus for a US citizen, a murder committed even though in a foreign country is always also a crime which can be prosecuted in the USA.

12 states that issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens are doing so unconstitutionally

It is just as easy to argue that any states that do NOT recognize driver's licenses issued by other states, even if issued to an illegal alien, are the ones that are in violation. In most of the states that i am familiar with, a 16-year-old can get a full driver's license without restrictions. But in New York State, it's 17. I believe the rule is that New York State MUST allow those kids who are only 16 and have a valid license to drive on New York highways, although they would be ineligible go get a New York license.

I suspect that section of the US Constitution applies only to privileges assigned to a person under the constitution of the state and not other legislated privileges.

It does, but that section also has nothing to do with recognizing acts of other states.

The section StarFleet Carl wanted is Article IV, section 1, also known as the full faith and credit clause.

Also, if the stated article was true for all legislated licenses then all states would be required to recognize concealed carry weapons licenses of all of the other states, but they don't.

And the federal courts have largely refused to enforce the full faith and credit clause in the case of CCW permits because "guns are special".

But ... Article IV, Section 2, paragraph 1 comes into play.

Not in the way you are suggesting. If the Constitution actually requires states to recognize the drivers licenses issued by other states, that would be Article IV section 1:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Anyone talking about when or if 70 percent of the people would be in 30 percent of the states is basically too late. We're about 65/30 right now.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population

Anyone talking about when or if 70 percent of the people would be in 30 percent of the states is basically too late. We're about 65/30 right now.

Oh, its more "fun" than that.

https://medium.com/@heatherarthur/electoral-college-worst-case-scenario-cd6f93a76c35

In order to maximize the losing candidate's popular vote, I filled up the electoral votes of the winning candidate with these low vote-to-elector states like Wyoming.

I also took advantage of the winner-take-all nature of the College. If the winning candidate won a state, it would win by only 1 or 2 votes. But if the losing candidate won a state, it would get every vote in that state.

Result
The result is one candidate winning the popular vote 78.7% to 21.3%, but losing the Electoral College 267 to 271.

Of course, they also assumed a one-way race, so WTA applied in a 3-way race(or more way race) could drive that differential down even further.

I always thought of Calif to be liberal.

The large population centers like the Bay Area and Los Angeles are definitely blue. The farming parts are mostly red. My personal opinion is that if California splits into 3 parts, it would most likely be two blue and one red. Good possibility of three blue. The one part I am unsure of is the San Diego area. Would it be blue or red? LA and San Jose would push one state blue. San Francisco and Oakland would push Northern California blue. I have not studied the partisanship of the different cities, so it just an opinion.

We get a lot of Californians in my retirement community in Arizona. Some still have homes in Calif and are part-time here. What amazes me is how many are very right-wing. I always thought of Calif to be liberal. Californians moving here jack up the home prices.

Current thought, as far as I can tell, has conservative Californians leaving for both Las Vegas and Texas. I don't know how true it is. I'm not sure how thoroughly that migration has been studied.

I don't think California would ever agree to split anyhow and that is one necessary condition. It would end up expanding conservative's power as the two red states along would end up having a huge effect on everything from Supreme Court confirmations to Presidential elections due to it's effect on the Electoral College. I don't see Pelosi et al and her ilk ever permitting that to happen.

And California isn't the only state that looks to split. I live in Michigan and there appears to be a movement in the Upper Peninsula to form a state named Superior. Been going on for 20 years or so. Not very strongly though.

live in Michigan and there appears to be a movement in the Upper Peninsula to form a state named Superior. Been going on for 20 years or so. Not very strongly though.

Pretty sure the main landers would vote to get rid of the yoopers in a heartbeat!

Pretty sure the main landers would vote to get rid of the yoopers in a heartbeat!

Actually, most people I talk to don't care. Pretty much why the initiative hasn't gone anywhere. Only the yoopers are for it.

I want to leave this place really bad

And no longer live in paradise?

And no longer live in paradise?

Okay, so extremely high taxes. Highest gas prices of all 50 states. Can no longer buy ammo from the Internet. Soon going to need a special license just to buy it from a store. Temperatures over 100 for the last 20 some days. Fires up and down the state. Where in that list do you find paradise? As stated earlier, if not for family and the fact that the wife is still working, I would be out of here. Where? Not sure. Maybe the lower parts of Utah. Maybe Arizona. Maybe Texas. Definitely not anywhere they get heavy snow.

I forgot that what I think of as joking doesn't come across that way in writing. And I don't know how to use those little icon thingies that show we were joking. My apologies for causing you to take me seriously.

And I apologize to you for coming back so strongly. We really need a sarcasm tag. I forget what emoji that is. All I remember is :) :O and :P

Where in that list do you find paradise?

You are more likely to find a pair of dice in Las Vegas, Nevada.

We (the invading hordes) asked some of them, and signed treaties with them. Of course we unilaterally broke most of those same treaties, then came up with the pejorative nickname "Indian giver," essentially blaming the Indians for what we did to them. Of course, it would be politically incorrect to point out on this site that white men aren't always honorable.

Conservatives are not the only ones wanting to redefine the US map. Quite a few people on the Liberal/Progressive (and even some moderates) side of the political spectrum would love to see all three of the western coast states secede and form a new independent country with real, fair majority democracy instead of the current sham. Admittedly, nowhere near enough to make it happen.

Oregon and Washington also both have large cadres of people who'd like to split their respective states right around the Cascades.

the range of the ratio of population per member of the house ... the worse case ... is less than 1:2.

I do not see an inherent problem in that. At present 428 out of 435 members of the House represent electorates with as near as practical the same number of residents, while 7 members represent electorates (states) which may have fewer. What's the problem? Electoral systems with single-member electorates cannot ensure that a plurality of votes will produce a majority in the parliament. To be "fair", they need only ensure that will probably be so.

15.000 was exaggerated but Wyoming, the least populated state (half a million people) has the same deciding power as California with 40 Million.

Sounds fair to me. If it is good enough for Wyoming, then it should be good enough for California.

I is a Red in the State of Blue.

15.000 was exaggerated but Wyoming, the least populated state (half a million people) has the same deciding power as California with 40 Million.

The same deciding power for what? Same deciding power implies equal weight. Is that what you mean?

And the numbers of Representatives from each state CAN change if the population of the nation shifts.

Or by resolution passed by the House of Representatives, or by admitting a new state into the Union and seating the representative before the next reallocation of seats in the House.

Nothing in the Constitution madates 435 representatives, that's just a number the House decided upon about 100 years ago and hasn't changed since. It could have 50 seats just as easily as it could have 50,000 seats in it(although they'd need a new chamber to meet in under that scenario).

The only number they absolutely cannot go below is 50 seats, as each state is entitled to at least one seat.

The only number they absolutely cannot go below is 50 seats, as each state is entitled to at least one seat.

Something that can only happen if there is equal population in all 50 states. I'd just love to see 6,440,000 end up moving to Rhode Island (necessary for that to happen). :)

Something that can only happen if there is equal population in all 50 states. I'd just love to see 6,440,000 end up moving to Rhode Island (necessary for that to happen). :)

Really? Where does it say anything about it being equally representative? If that was true, I don't think they'd be able to keep it locked in at 435 Representatives. They'd either need to increase or decrease the number of seats "to keep it equal" and just how "equal" does "equal" need to be, as exact population matches(or exactly proportional) are hard to make happen across 50 political entities.

As I recall it just implied that any amount of seats allocated beyond the stipulated minimum of 1 per state must be allocated equally. If they never go beyond 1 per state then they have faithfully apportioned the remaining 0 available seats.

Really? Where does it say anything about it being equally representative?

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/articles/article-i

US Constitution, Article 1 Section 2 Paragraph 3.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Note: "three fifths of all other Persons." was effectively eliminated by the 13th Amendment and Indians are now taxed.

After a certain point, Congress got the power to fix the size of the House of Representatives, so the population numbers for each district float, but all House of Representatives districts are around the same population, except for the House districts for states that only get one representative which is only 7 out of the 50 states.

There will be some variance in the size of Representative districts between states, but excluding the states that only get one Representative, the variance should be fairly small.

Adjusting things so only 1 state (out of the existing 50) gets only one Representative (and thus equalizing the size of all house districts nationally) would require increasing the size of the House of Representatives from the current 435 to 555

Adjusting things so only 1 state (out of the existing 50) gets only one Representative (and thus equalizing the size of all house districts nationally) would require increasing the size of the House of Representatives from the current 435 to 555

And you make my point for me. Representation as it stands is not being done equally. What they ARE doing is apportioning the 385 House seats not specifically assigned based upon population. Ergo, compliance is achieved if they apportion 0 instead of 385, or 505 instead of 385. So a House size of 50 is technically legal for them to pursue, but it would never happen, as it defeats the purpose of there being a House of Representatives.

What they ARE doing is apportioning the 385 House seats not specifically assigned based upon population.

No, they are apportioned between the states based on population.

The variance comes from the fact that if you divide the US population by the total number of House seats to get a national House district size, the populations of the states are not even multiples of that, they are up to half a house seat over or under.

But then that half a House seat in population gets divided across the House seats the state does have, so the house districts are equal population (to within +/- 0.05% based on most recent census) within each state.

The variance comes from the fact that if you divide the US population by the total number of House seats to get a national House district size, the populations of the states are not even multiples of that, they are up to half a house seat over or under.

And?

Regardless of how many house seats you add or subtract, at least until you make the House "nearly" the same size as the population itself. The variance will always be between "half a House seat over or under." OK, there are certain combinations of numbers where those numbers break down, in particular as it pertains to Wyoming. So for example 51 House seats for 50 states won't fly for multiple reasons.

But it still doesn't explain your basis for claiming a Constitutional restriction on the House deciding to reduce their number to 50. As again, their only requirements were
1) Minimum of 1 seat per state.
2) The specifics of enumeration to determine populations represented.
3) That the (additional) representation "be apportioned 'proportionally'"

They don't define the term, or any other kind of indicator as to what they considered a reasonable ratio. Although IIRC, there was an attempt at an amendment that would have set the District size at something like 30,000 people, so if we're going to go with intent. ;)

But it still doesn't explain your basis for claiming a Constitutional restriction on the House deciding to reduce their number to 50. As again, their only requirements were

1. I haven't claimed such a restriction, though that would very likely violate Article 1 section 2 which requires that House seats be apportioned between the states based on population. And your 3) is just wrong. All of the seats, must be apportioned based on population

2. The House does not get to decide it's size on it's own. The size of the House is set by statute, which must pass both the House and the Senate and be signed by the President.

They don't define the term, or any other kind of indicator as to what they considered a reasonable ratio.

I don't get why you think there must be one fixed ratio that qualifies as "reasonable" regardless of total population.

Although IIRC, there was an attempt at an amendment that would have set the District size at something like 30,000 people, so if we're going to go with intent. ;)

1. It didn't pass congress and wasn't ratified, so there is zero intent indicated there.
2. If there was such an attempt, it would have to have been in the 19th century. 30k would be absurd with the current total US population as that would push the size of the House to nearly 12K

1. It didn't pass congress and wasn't ratified, so there is zero intent indicated there.
2. If there was such an attempt, it would have to have been in the 19th century. 30k would be absurd with the current total US population as that would push the size of the House to nearly 12K

The amendment in question did pass congress - although it never got the adoption from the required number of states although at one point it needed only one state to be ratified. It was one of twelve amendments approved by congress and sent to the states in 1790 (eighteenth century). Ten of those became known as the Bill of Rights and the other one was ratified in 1992 as the twenty-seventh amendment.

The 30,000 per district would only apply when the population was under 3,000,000. The amendment proposal included text to gradually increase the district size to 50,000.

Really? Where does it say anything about it being equally representative? If that was true, I don't think they'd be able to keep it locked in at 435 Representatives.

The quote you included referred to the idea of a fixed number of 50 Congressional Representatives. Constitutionally, that can only happen if population was equal in all 50 states as they must be apportioned based on population. Given that current U.S. population is app. 322 million, simple math gives that number.

Attempted humor loses something when it has to be explained.

A minimum of 1 seat per state in the House. Any additional seats are to be apportioned based on population.

If there are only 50 seats, there would be no additional seats to apportion.

This.

A minimum of 1 seat per state in the House. Any additional seats are to be apportioned based on population.

No, that's not how it works. All the seats are to be apportioned based on population.

No, that's not how it works. All the seats are to be apportioned based on population.

That's right. Any plain reading of the relevant Section makes that clear. Apportionment first, minimum of one/state second. Although I'm sure some progressive Federal judge being a true believer in the "living Constitution" can find the other way. :)

No, that's not how it works. All the seats are to be apportioned based on population.

I did a quick "define apportion" search on Google:

ap·por·tion

verb

past tense: apportioned; past participle: apportioned

divide and allocate.

"voting power will be apportioned according to contribution"

Congress is REQUIRED to give every state one seat. Then, by statute, the House and Senate determine how many seats are to be assigned to the House.

From there, the House is then obligated to apportion any seats beyond the the 1 seat minimum to the various states based upon population, as stipulated in the Constitution.

But as Congress(House+Senate) decides how many seats there are to be, it remains possible for them to "divide by zero" so long as a majority of the members of both the House and the Senate agree with doing so.

It would be amusing to see how SCotUS would rule if such an absurd scenario did happen, but I find it unlikely. Although you never can know for sure.

According to the Constitution, each state is entitled to a minimum of 1 representative regardless of its population. You can word that any way you wish.

The remaining 385 seats are apportioned based on population.

REP, that's not how it's done. Below is. Bold face was added by me. Italics are in the original.

From The Congressional Research Service "The House of Representatives Apportionment Formula: An Analysis of Proposals for Change and Their Impact on States" 2010

Summary

In preparation for the reallocation of Representatives among the states based on the 2010 Census,
it may prove helpful to examine the current House of Representatives apportionment formula. In
addition, some members of the statistical community have, in the recent past, urged Congress to
consider changing the current apportionment formula. Consequently, an examination of other
methods that could be used to apportion the seats in the House of Representatives may contribute
to a deeper understanding of the apportionment process.

Seats in the House of Representatives are allocated by a formula known as "the Hill," or equal
proportions, method. If Congress decided to change it, there are at least five alternatives to
consider. Four of these are based on rounding fractions and one, on ranking fractions. The current
apportionment system (codified in 2 U.S.C. 2a) is one of the rounding methods.

The Hamilton-Vinton method is based on ranking fractions. First, the population of 50 states is
divided by 435 (the House size) in order to find the national "ideal size" district. Next, this
number is divided into each state's population. Each state is then awarded the whole number in its
quotient (but at least one). If fewer than 435 seats have been assigned by this process, the
fractional remainders of the 50 states are rank-ordered from largest to smallest, and seats are
assigned in this manner until 435 are allocated.

The rounding methods, including the Hill method currently in use, allocate seats among the states
differently, but operationally the methods only differ by where rounding occurs in seat
assignments. Three of these methods—Adams, Webster, and Jefferson—have fixed rounding
points. Two others—Dean and Hill—use varying rounding points that rise as the number of seats
assigned to a state grows larger. The methods can be defined in the same way (after substituting
the appropriate rounding principle in parentheses). The rounding point for Adams is (up for all
fractions); for Dean (at the harmonic mean); for Hill (at the geometric mean); for Webster (at the
arithmetic mean, which is 0.5 for successive numbers); and for Jefferson (down for all fractions).
Substitute these phrases in the general definition below for the rounding methods:

Find a number so that when it is divided into each state's population and resulting quotients
are rounded (substitute appropriate phrase), the total number of seats will sum to 435. (In
all cases where a state would be entitled to less than one seat, it receives one anyway
because of the constitutional requirement.)

This method was specified in the latest enabling legislation, i.e. The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. And Congress can change that any time it wants. Is it likely to? Your guess is as good as mine. But I doubt it.

@Jim S
... And Congress can change that any time it wants. Is it likely to? Your guess is as good as mine. But I doubt it.

I like the last sentence.

What did you think that sentence means?
(a) He doubts that Congress would do 'that'
(b) He doubts your guess is as good as his

And which meaning do you think he intended?

And which meaning do you think he intended?

a.

a.

I assumed you meant that and I'm sure most others would do so too. I would say the literal meaning of what you wrote is (b), with 'it' referring to the closest thing it could refer to, the statement 'your guess is as mine'. It would have been a clever joke if you'd noticed that, managing to insult someone with them unlikely to realise it.

I assumed you meant that and I'm sure most others would do so too. I would say the literal meaning of what you wrote is (b), with 'it' referring to the closest thing it could refer to, the statement 'your guess is as mine'. It would have been a clever joke if you'd noticed that, managing to insult someone with them unlikely to realise it.

You're right. The original was confusing. I could have stated it better.

The original was confusing.

I'm a pedantic editor and I notice such things. I wouldn't have picked on this one if the implications of the alternative meaning had not amused me. :-)

The article is about the mechanics of apportioning the seats. It still works out that every state gets a minimum of 1 seat and the rest of the seats are apportioned according to population.

Perhaps it is just the way I perceive it.

Maybe. But I'm sure you know the devil is in the details. I downloaded population by state from the Census Bureau and calculated both the stated method and your 385 apportionment. My gut told me that they really would produce significantly different results. And my gut was right.

While my assignment method in the 3rd step might not be exactly as stated, it wouldn't have any effect on the major shifts. Texas loses 4. California loses 5. 19 small states each pick up 1 while 9 large states lose.

So there are real impacts depending on interpretation.

You missed one fact. I didn't define the means of apportioning those 385 seats, just that they were apportioned.

Well, of course they're apportioned. What point are you trying to make? Mine is that using current apportionment methods matters when starting numbers are changed around as in your contention, i.e. everyone gets 1 and 385 get apportioned, instead of all 435 being apportioned.

Any other discussion leads into assessing the "fairness" of different apportionment methods, doesn't it?

Assigning 1 to each state is part of the apportionment, which is what the Constitution says is to happen.

Assigning one to each, or making sure each state has at least one. There is a difference, you know.

REP, in this discussion you insisted that first all states get 1, then the rest is apportioned.

If however all are apportioned – with most methods that would result in fractions of a seat – and then all states with only a fraction of a seat get one full seat, so reducing the fractions of other states, this gives different numbers of seats to some states than your method.

The methods discussed for apportionment of all seats try to avoid fractions at all or are different in how the fractions are rounded. It's tricky, because all standard methods for rounding (e.g. 4/5) could result in more or less seats than the given 435.

HM.

I specified NO Method for apportioning all 435 seats.

You specified a method for apportioning the first 50 seats that has zero relationship with reality.

I specified NO Method for apportioning all 435 seats. If you think I have, explain it to me.

This quote confuses me based on some of your previous posts re: apportionment. To wit (bold added):

REP 8/5/2018, 6:27:16 PM

According to the Constitution, each state is entitled to a minimum of 1 representative regardless of its population. You can word that any way you wish.

The remaining 385 seats are apportioned based on population.

REP 8/5/2018, 12:31:29 PM

A minimum of 1 seat per state in the House. Any additional seats are to be apportioned based on population.

If there are only 50 seats, there would be no additional seats to apportion.

REP 8/6/2018, 7:16:25 PM

You missed one fact. I didn't define the means of apportioning those 385 seats, just that they were apportioned.

If you stated that every state gets at least 1 Representative so, in effect, only 385 are actually apportioned, might have removed the confusion, as this now appears to me to be what you were saying . At least to me. If stated that way, I'd agree with you. Even though that's not the way the Constitution says it's to be done nor the way it is actually done in practice.

I suppose one could argue that the Constitution absolutely requires an unequal number of Representatives/state when it specifies that Representatives will be apportioned by population of each state. Seeing as that the only way each state gets the same number of representatives is if each state has the same population. Theoretically possible and practically impossible. Think Rhode Island and Pennsylvania at the time of the Constitution's ratification.

Couple that with the fact that apportionment methodology matters as differing methods return different results. Which I reported in one of my posts. And I'll venture a guess that the delegates back in 1787 spent far more time on this topic than we have so far as they recognized that whichever method was chosen would have far reaching implications.

I just plugged the last census data and seat allocations for the House into a spreadsheet.

The minimum requirement of one seat per state was not needed; the population of the smallest state was enough to entitle it to one seat anyway.

In my calculation, I divided the total population from all 50 states by 435 giving the amount for one quota. Dividing each states' population by the quota amount gave each some number of filled quotas plus a left-over fraction. The total number of filled quotas was 413. I added one to the 22 states with the highest left-over fractions. The result exactly matched the current allocations to every state in the House.

In practice, because there are no very small states, the allocation of seats is, as near as practical, directly proportional to their populations.

I used 2017 Census estimates by state for the exercise and the same methodology as you. Three states required the 1 minimum as they came up to less than 1 -- Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming. I removed D.C. and Puerto Rico's populations from the total prior to calculating the initial ratio (as they have no Representatives in the 435 voting) but arithmetically that should work to raise the initial ratio for those same states in step 2. And have minimal effect regardless. North Dakota may be affected if that isn't done as it is right on the cusp but I'm not going to bother to find out.

In any case, I did this exercise to check my gut feeling that assigning 1 to each state and allocating 385 versus allocating all 435 produces a different distribution rather than trying to match the current distribution as you did. Even so the 435 allocation method matches pretty closely given the 7 years of population shifts, e.g. California at 55. And we already know there will be some changes in the official distributions anyway as that has already been analyzed by more official sources than me.

In any case, the two methods produce different results. Bigly, in my opinion.

ETA: Need to correct. California at 53, not 55. Was thinking electoral votes.

I used 2017 Census estimates by state

Seats are reallocated based on the results of 10-yearly censuses. The latest was in 2010.

The smallest state, Wyoming, earned its seat on the basis of its population. It had 80% of the quota amount. Rhode Island did well this time. It got two seats with a population below one-and-a-half quotas.

The smallest state, Wyoming, earned its seat on the basis of its population. It had 80% of the quota amount.

I'm confused. Those sentences appear contradictory at first glance. Rereading still leaves me confused.

@Ross at Play
The smallest state, Wyoming, earned its seat on the basis of its population. It had 80% of the quota amount.

I'm confused. Those sentences appear contradictory at first glance. Rereading still leaves me confused.

A quota is 1/435 of the total population of all 50 states. Every state will have some number of complete quotas plus a remainder. The total of all complete quotas is less than 435. The difference is made up by allocating one extra seat to the states with the highest remainders.

Minnesota got 8 seats with 7.487 quotas,
Rhode Island got 2 seats with 1.486 quotas,
but North Carolina got only 13 seats from 13.461 quotas.

Wyoming, Vermont, and North Dakota would still have received one seat each; with 0.786, 0.883, and 0.949 quotas respectively; even if there was no provision that every state must receive at least one seat.

The data I used was:
US Census 2010
US Congressional Apportionment

I didn't understand your use of the term quota, but that is the same methodology that I followed. Just different year for population.

I didn't understand your use of the term quota, but that is the same methodology that I followed. Just different year for population.

Understood. The term quota is what Australians use for elections to our Senate in which every state elects 6 senators on a proportional basis.

Couple that with the fact that apportionment methodology matters as differing methods return different results. Which I reported in one of my posts. And I'll venture a guess that the delegates back in 1787 spent far more time on this topic than we have so far as they recognized that whichever method was chosen would have far reaching implications.

All they agreed to was that the house would have proportional representation. The "how" was left for congress to work out, and the specifics changed a few times up through the early 1800's and has been mostly stable since then, with the last statutory adjustment being in the 1920's when they locked in the House at 435 seats.

If Haiti were to join the USA

Surely you're thinking of Puerto Rico. Its citizens are already American citizens and it has one non-voting member of the House. If it became a state it would probably get 4 seats.

If Haiti became a state, and it's not on any path towards that, it would get more than a dozen seats.

If Haiti were to join the USA, I wonder whether that 435 would be kept constant and the quotas of the original 50 states reduced, or whether the 435 would be increased.

It didn't change when Alaska and Hawaii joined, it is unlikely to change in the future. (Ok, it did change briefly, but only until the next chamber-wide apportionment brought it back down to 435)

do you know which states lost seats to accommodate Alaska and Hawaii?

It's not that simple. California gained 8 seats in the same reallocation when Hawaii (2 seats) and Alaska (1 seat) were included for the first time.
Chart US House Seats by State

50 seats

Although they do not get to vote on the record, there are "representatives" from several territories who can speak and sit in the House, for example Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. So 50 seats are not enough for all the representatives, even if each state only had one.