One thing the new Dem House should do - MAKE THE HOUSE BIGGER!

As part of the new Census figures, the Election Data Services did their annual update of projections for what the 2020 reapportionment will look like. And as I mentioned earlier, Wisconsin’s small bump up in growth has taken them off of the bubble for possibly losing 1 of their 8 House seats. Minnesota is definitely on that bubble, by the way.

In addition to trending the population totals for 2020, EDS also included a second scenario.

On November 11, 2018 the editorial writers at the New York Times suggested an increase in the size of the US House of Representatives to 593 members in order to bring down the size of each district. Election Data Services, Inc.’s apportionment calculator allows us to change the number of seats to be assigned, as well as allowing the District of Columbia to gain a Representative. Changing the number of seats in the House and running the apportionment program allows us to see how many seats would go to each state under that scenario. As expected, most states would see an increase in their representation in a 593-member House of Representatives. California would gain 19 seats, Florida an additional 13 seats, and Texas an additional 17 seats. All other states are single-digit seat increases and no state would lose any representatives from their current allocation. Only the states of Alaska, Maine, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming would stay with the number of representatives they currently have in 2018. A table of these results are included in this packet.

Now this is what I’m talking about! This "Wyoming plan" (so called because Wyoming is the state with the smallest population), is a more even House of Representatives that is in line with population trends. Under it, Wisconsin would get 2 more House members, running our total to 10.

To back up a bit, there is no Constitutional requirement for how large or small the House of Reprsentatives should be, and it could be changed at any time. That being said, the House has been set at its current 435 member amount since 1911 (outside of the years when new states came in, where they would add 1 member for those states until the new Census came around). In that time, the US population has grown from just more than 92 million in 1910 to an estimated 333 million by 2020, and the country has added 4 states over those 100+ years.

In addition, the method of determining how many Reps come from each state has been in place since 1941. If you want to dig deeply into how they assign seats, feel free to click here, but it basically looks at the population-per-district of every state, and splits the difference between the final 2 seats. For example, 8-member Wisconsin had 5.673 million people in their 2010 Census. If you divide that amount between 7 and 8, then the average of those 2 numbers came out to just under 761,500. That’s above the 710,000 average that Minnesota had to grab the final seat in 2010, but the average in Wisconsin between 8 and 9 was just over 671,500, so we couldn’t get another seat.

In this case, the Wyoming Plan gives an edge to larger states, as the difference in people-per-district is less with states with more people and seats, so they “pick up” more seats as the House gets bigger. This is how Illinois can add more people than any other Midwestern state despite their declining population in the 2010s.

Interestingly, the “next seat up” under the Wyoming Plan is Wisconsin, meaning that if population growth increases enough in the rest of the country to make the House 594 seats instead of 593, Wisconsin would get that seat and have 11 people in the House, and not 10. But even if Wisconsin were to remain at 10 seats after 2020 under this plan, it would cause a notable difference in how our Congressional map might look. Here is an example

And compare it to what we have today.

"But Jake, even if the House approved of the Wyoming Plan, it still has to go through the Senate." I actually think the merits of the Wyoming Plan could get through the Republican-controlled Senate as well, even with smaller states getting less of a boost. There are two reasons - 1. It doesn’t change the amount of seats in that chamber (we deal with that later). 2. This plan also adds more seats and Electoral Votes in states Donald Trump won in 2016 (71) than in states won by Hillary Clinton (67).

Now, do I think Mitch McConnell would approve of anything that might bring fairness and integrity to a system that he is able to take advantage of in its currently rigged state? Not really, but a guy can dream.

I know that there is a lot the new Dem-run House has to clean up from the mess that Paul Ryan has handed them. This includes ending the government shutdown, and finally holding this outlaw and compromised Administration to account. But something else they should do is pass the Wyoming plan to be in effect after the 2020 Census, along with provisions to expand voting rights and end gerrymandering (which they have already said they would do).

Bringing up the Wyoming Plan could be part of that reform initiative, and will make the average citizen start asking why we accept the same method of apportionment that we've had for more than 100 years. Many people think that the House is set up at 435 people "because that's the way it is", and what the new Dem House could do is make people realize that it doesn't have to be that way.

And that's how you start a movement that leads to changes which improve a US political system that has become perverted well beyond how we want it to operate.