Skip to main content

apportionment was done by active voters rather than the population? Active voters is a hard to define subject so I looked at presidential voting as a "proxy" for this since its where everyone votes (and unlike HOR elections no president has run unopposed for 200 years). What I do is look at the presidential election before reapportionment (ending in either 8 or 0) and use that as a baseline and determine what percent of the electorate a state was and apportion accordingly. Moreover, I want to see how it historically has been. This diary goes as far back as 1880 (first election where all the states have election data). This uses the Huntington-Hill Method.

48th-52nd congress (1883-1893, based off 1880 election) 325 seats
Alabama 5
Arkansas 4
California 6
Colorado 2
Connecticut 5
Delaware 1
Florida 2
Georgia 6
Illinois 22
Indiana 17
Iowa 11
Kansas 7
Kentucky 9
Louisiana 4
Maine 5
Maryland 6
Massachusetts 10
Michigan 12
Minnesota 5
Mississippi 4
Missouri 14
Nebraska 3
Nevada 1
New Hampshire 3
New Jersey 9
New York 39
North Carolina 8
Ohio 26
Oregon 1
Pennsylvania 31
Rhode Island 1
South Carolina 6
Tennessee 9
Texas 9
Vermont 2
Virginia 7
West Virginia 4
Wisconsin 9

Most Overrepresented: Georgia (Census = 10, Voting = 6)
Most Underrepresented: Illinois (Census = 14, Voting = 22)

Comments: not much to see here and about what I expected. New York and Pennsylvania reign supreme. Chicago I don't recall was that big of a city yet Illinois also has 22 seats.

53rd-57th congress (1893-1903, based of 1888 election) 356 seats
Alabama 5
Arkansas 5
California 8
Colorado 3
Connecticut 5
Delaware 1
Florida 2
Georgia 4
Illinois 23
Indiana 17
Iowa 13
Kansas 10
Kentucky 11
Louisiana 4
Maine 4
Maryland 7
Massachusetts 11
Michigan 15
Minnesota 8
Mississippi 4
Missouri 16
Nebraska 6
Nevada 1
New Hampshire 3
New Jersey 9
New York 41
North Carolina 9
Ohio 26
Oregon 2
Pennsylvania 31
Rhode Island 1
South Carolina 3
Tennessee 9
Texas 11
Vermont 2
Virginia 10
West Virginia 5
Wisconsin 11

Most Overrepresented: Georgia (Census: 11 Voting: 4)
Most Underrepresented: New York (Census:34 Voting: 41)

1880-1888 changes
Nebraska +3
Kansas +3
Minnesota +3
Michigan +3
Virginia +3
California +2
Missouri +2
New York +2
Wisconsin +2
Texas +2
Kentucky +2
Iowa +2
Arkansas +1
Oregon +1
Massachusetts +1
Maryland +1
North Carolina +1
West Virginia +1
Illinois +1
Colorado +1
Maine -1
Georgia -2
South Carolina -3

Comments: the same number of states exist here as it does in the 1880s districts. The Jim Crow laws haven't quite taken effect as many southern states gain seats. South Carolina and Georgia, however, lose a combined five seats, even as the country expands the house by 31.

58th-62nd congresses (1903-1913) based off of 1900 election 386 seats
Alabama 4
Arkansas 3
California 8
Colorado 6
Connecticut 5
Delaware 1
Florida 1
Georgia 3
Idaho 2
Illinois 31
Indiana 18
Iowa 15
Kansas 10
Kentucky 13
Louisiana 2
Maine 3
Maryland 7
Massachusetts 11
Michigan 15
Minnesota 9
Mississippi 2
Missouri 19
Montana 2
Nebraska 7
Nevada 1
New Hampshire 2
New Jersey 11
New York 43
North Carolina 8
North Dakota 2
Ohio 29
Oregon 2
Pennsylvania 32
Rhode Island 2
South Carolina 1
South Dakota 3
Tennessee 7
Texas 12
Utah 3
Vermont 2
Virginia 7
Washington 3
West Virginia 6
Wisconsin 12
Wyoming 1

Most Overrepresented: Georgia (Census: 11 Voting: 3)
Most Underrepresented: Ohio (Census: 21 Voting: 29)

1888-1900 changes
Illinois +8
Colorado +3
Missouri +3
Ohio    +3
Utah    +3
South Dakota +3
Washington +3
Idaho +2
Iowa    +2
Kentucky +2
Montana +2
New Jersey +2
New York +2
North Dakota +2
Indiana +1
Minnesota +1
Nebraska +1
Pennsylvania +1
Rhode Island +1
Texas +1
West Virginia +1
Wisconsin    +1
Wyoming     +1
North Carolina    -1
New Hampshire    -1
Maine -1
Florida -1
Georgia -1
Alabama -1
Arkansas -2
Louisiana -2
Mississippi    -2
South Carolina -2
Tennessee -2
Virginia -3

Comments: This is where things get interesting. Not only are seven states added in the northwest, but thirty more seats are added. The 1890s is when Jim Crow really goes into effect as almost all the southern states lose seats despite thirty seats added. The 1890s also seem like when Chicago really took off as Illinois gains eight seats. Also interesting how for much of its history, Nevada was a waste of a state as in 1900, it only had enough for 0.28 districts.

63rd-72nd congresses (1913-1933) based off of 1908 election 435 seats
Alabama 3
Arkansas 4
California 11
Colorado 8
Connecticut 6
Delaware 1
Florida 1
Georgia 4
Idaho 3
Illinois 34
Indiana 21
Iowa 14
Kansas 11
Kentucky 14
Louisiana 2
Maine 3
Maryland 7
Massachusetts 13
Michigan 16
Minnesota 10
Mississippi 2
Missouri 21
Montana 2
Nebraska 8
Nevada 1
New Hampshire 3
New Jersey 14
New York 48
North Carolina 7
North Dakota 3
Ohio 33
Oklahoma 7
Oregon 3
Pennsylvania 37
Rhode Island 2
South Carolina 2
South Dakota 3
Tennessee 8
Texas 9
Utah 3
Vermont 2
Virginia 4
Washington 5
West Virginia 8
Wisconsin 13
Wyoming 1

Most Overrepresented: Texas (Census 18, Voting 9)
Most Underrepresented: Ohio (Census 22 Voting 33)

1900-1908 change
Oklahoma    +8
New York      +5
Pennsylvania +5
Ohio    +4
California +3
Illinois +3
Indiana +3
New Jersey +3
Colorado +2
Massachusetts +2
Missouri +2
Washington +2
West Virginia +2
Arkansas +1
Connecticut +1
Georgia +1
Kansas +1
Kentucky +1
Michigan +1
Minnesota    +1
Nebraska +1
New Hampshire    +1
North Dakota +1
Oregon +1
South Carolina +1
Tennessee    +1
Wisconsin +1
Alabama -1
Iowa    -1
North Carolina -1
Texas -3
Virginia -3

Comments: This is the same states as in the 1900s except for Oklahoma, which has to be the most already-populated state to be admitted (with seven districts). Things were already heading south for Iowa as the state loses population during the 1900s and loses a seat, even as the country adds 49 seats. This is the first (and possibly only) time where Texas loses seats, let alone three. Virginia loses three seats again which is odd since the Byrds (who rigged the ballots) hadn't come to power yet. What's more is that there was no reapportionment in 1921 and the only time that has happened (I thought they were mandated to do such?). The reason may have had to do with xenophobia with Sacco & Vanzetti, the Palmer Raids and the Wall Street Bombing and such. Also, Arizona and New Mexico are admitted after the 1908 elections but aren't apportioned for twenty years (though I suspect they would both be given one at-large seat each for the interim). Also, LOL at Florida only having one seat.

73rd-77th congresses (1933-1943)
Alabama 3
Arizona 1
Arkansas 2
California 21
Colorado 5
Connecticut 7
Delaware 1
Florida 3
Georgia 3
Idaho 2
Illinois 37
Indiana 17
Iowa 12
Kansas 8
Kentucky 11
Louisiana 3
Maine 3
Maryland 6
Massachusetts 19
Michigan 16
Minnesota 11
Mississippi 2
Missouri 18
Montana 2
Nebraska 6
Nevada 1
New Hampshire 2
New Jersey 18
New Mexico 1
New York 52
North Carolina 7
North Dakota 3
Ohio 30
Oklahoma 7
Oregon 4
Pennsylvania 37
Rhode Island 3
South Carolina 1
South Dakota 3
Tennessee 4
Texas 8
Utah 2
Vermont 2
Virginia 4
Washington 6
West Virginia 8
Wisconsin 12
Wyoming 1

Most Overrepresented: Texas (Census: 21 Voting: 8)
Most Underrepresented: Illinois (Census: 27 Voting: 37)

Comments: Wow talk about changes over a twenty year period (transfer of 37 seats total). Still, its not fair to compare this to other decades since its twenty years (I'm sure the changes from 1950 to 1970 are even bigger). Few things that stick out - the growth of California really accelerates this period with Hollywood getting started and what not (oil too). The "great wave" of immigrants finally start voting, especially with one of their own on the ballot in 1928. Massachusetts goes from an overrepresented rotten-borough in 1908 (13 vs 16) to a high-turnout state during this time (19 vs 15). NY, IL and NJ also gain 3-4 seats. The states that really hurt are in the midwest and Rockies where there probably weren't as many immigrants (Indiana and Colorado). Another noteworthy thing is Michigan staying the same. Michigan's population netted them four seats between 1910 and 1930 yet while they were three seats over in 1910, they were one seat under in 1930. Plus, Detroit had a lot of immigrants (though the fact that Wayne County went 62% for Hoover in 1928 implies they weren't voting). Also Tennessee's house delegation is halved (remember disenfranchisement wasn't just to blacks but to poor whites also). Ohio surprises me also as the state gained two from 1910 to 1930 population-wise yet loses three here.

1908 to 1928 changes
California +10
Massachusetts +6
New Jersey +4
New York +4
Illinois +3
Florida +2
Arizona +1
Connecticut +1
Louisiana +1
Minnesota +1
New Mexico +1
Oregon +1
Rhode Island +1
Washington +1
Georgia -1
Idaho -1
Maryland -1
New Hampshire -1
South Carolina -1
Texas -1
Utah -1
Wisconsin -1
Arkansas -2
Iowa -2
Nebraska -2
Colorado -3
Kansas -3
Kentucky -3
Missouri -3
Ohio -3
Indiana -4
Tennessee -4

78th to 82nd congresses (1943-1953)
Alabama 3
Arizona 1
Arkansas 2
California 28
Colorado 5
Connecticut 7
Delaware 1
Florida 4
Georgia 3
Idaho 2
Illinois 37
Indiana 15
Iowa 11
Kansas 7
Kentucky 8
Louisiana 3
Maine 3
Maryland 6
Massachusetts 18
Michigan 18
Minnesota 11
Mississippi 1
Missouri 16
Montana 2
Nebraska 5
Nevada 1
New Hampshire 2
New Jersey 17
New Mexico 2
New York 55
North Carolina 7
North Dakota 2
Ohio 29
Oklahoma 7
Oregon 4
Pennsylvania 36
Rhode Island 3
South Carolina 1
South Dakota 3
Tennessee 5
Texas 10
Utah 2
Vermont 1
Virginia 3
Washington 7
West Virginia 8
Wisconsin 12
Wyoming 1

Most Overrepresented: Texas (Census: 21 Voting: 10)
Most Underrepresented: New York (Census 45 Voting 55) Illinois (Census 27 Voting 37)

1928 to 1940 change
+7    California
+3    New York
+2    Texas
+2    Michigan
+1    Florida
+1    New Mexico
-1     Iowa
-1    Kansas
-1     Massachusetts
-1     Mississippi
-1     Nebraska
-1     New Jersey
-1     North Dakota
-1     Ohio
-1     Pennsylvania
-2    Indiana
-2    Missouri
-3    Kentucky

Comments: Apparently the voting population shifted a lot more than the actual population did during the 1930s (the 1930s apportionment was the least shifted apportionment of all time i think). First off, its interesting how New York, with mediocre population growth in the 30s, still gains three seats. Its possibly a result of even more immigrants finally voting (and future rotten boroughs would be delayed until the 1970s as there was minimal immigration in the 30s).

83rd to 87th congresses (1953-1963)
Alabama 2
Arizona 2
Arkansas 2
California 36
Colorado 5
Connecticut 8
Delaware 1
Florida 5
Georgia 4
Idaho 2
Illinois 36
Indiana 15
Iowa 9
Kansas 7
Kentucky 7
Louisiana 4
Maine 2
Maryland 5
Massachusetts 19
Michigan 19
Minnesota 11
Mississippi 2
Missouri 14
Montana 2
Nebraska 4
Nevada 1
New Hampshire 2
New Jersey 17
New Mexico 2
New York 55
North Carolina 7
North Dakota 2
Ohio 26
Oklahoma 6
Oregon 5
Pennsylvania 33
Rhode Island 3
South Carolina 1
South Dakota 2
Tennessee 5
Texas 11
Utah 2
Vermont 1
Virginia 4
Washington 8
West Virginia 7
Wisconsin 11
Wyoming 1

Most Overrepresented: Texas (Census: 22 Voting: 11)
Most Underrepresented: New York (Census: 43 Voting: 55)

1940 to 1948 change
California +8
Arizona +1
Connecticut +1
Florida +1
Georgia +1
Louisiana +1
Massachusetts +1
Michigan +1
Mississippi +1
Oregon +1
Texas +1
Virginia +1
Washington +1
Alabama -1
Illinois -1
Kentucky -1
Maine -1
Maryland -1
Nebraska -1
Oklahoma -1
South Dakota -1
West Virginia -1
Wisconsin -1
Iowa -2
Missouri -2
Ohio -3
Pennsylvania -3

Comments:  It seems as if the 1940s trends are mostly continuations of things occurring in the 1930s. One noteworthy fact is that there were 2000 less people who voted in 1948 than in 1940. Also, while Maryland population-wise gained a seat in the 40s, they actually lose a seat here. Did Maryland have Jim-Crow laws then?

88th to 92nd congresses (1963-1973)
Alabama 3
Alaska 1
Arizona 2
Arkansas 3
California 41
Colorado 5
Connecticut 8
Delaware 1
Florida 10
Georgia 5
Hawaii 1
Idaho 2
Illinois 30
Indiana 13
Iowa 8
Kansas 6
Kentucky 7
Louisiana 5
Maine 3
Maryland 7
Massachusetts 15
Michigan 21
Minnesota 10
Mississippi 2
Missouri 12
Montana 2
Nebraska 4
Nevada 1
New Hampshire 2
New Jersey 17
New Mexico 2
New York 46
North Carolina 9
North Dakota 2
Ohio 26
Oklahoma 6
Oregon 5
Pennsylvania 32
Rhode Island 2
South Carolina 2
South Dakota 2
Tennessee 7
Texas 14
Utah 2
Vermont 1
Virginia 5
Washington 8
West Virginia 5
Wisconsin 11
Wyoming 1

Most Overrepresented: Texas (Census: 23 Voting: 14)
Most Underrepresented: Illinois (Census: 24 Voting: 30)

1948 to 1960 changes:
California +5
Florida +5
Texas +3
Maryland +2
Michigan +2
North Carolina +2
Tennessee +2
Alabama +1
Alaska +1
Arkansas +1
Georgia +1
Hawaii +1
Louisiana +1
Maine +1
South Carolina +1
Virginia +1
Iowa -1
Kansas -1
Minnesota -1
Pennsylvania -1
Rhode Island -1
Indiana -2
Missouri -2
West Virginia -2
Massachusetts -4
Illinois -6
New York -9

Comments: New York, Illinois and Massachusetts really get hammered here (though all still have more seats than the population suggests). Florida really takes off here and its clear that the Jim crow laws were weakening even in the 50s. Its odd how Maine for the early to mid 20th century had low turnout and now has high turnout. The census says the state should go from 3 to 2, but voting says it should go from 2 to 3.  Of a single decade in the 435 era, this has the most transfer of seats (30). Even without Alaska and Hawaii there would be a whole lotta shiftin goin on.

93rd to 97th congresses (1973 to 1983)
Alabama 6
Alaska 1
Arizona 3
Arkansas 4
California 43
Colorado 5
Connecticut 7
Delaware 1
Florida 13
Georgia 7
Hawaii 1
Idaho 2
Illinois 28
Indiana 13
Iowa 7
Kansas 5
Kentucky 6
Louisiana 7
Maine 2
Maryland 7
Massachusetts 14
Michigan 20
Minnesota 9
Mississippi 4
Missouri 11
Montana 2
Nebraska 3
Nevada 1
New Hampshire 2
New Jersey 17
New Mexico 2
New York 40
North Carolina 9
North Dakota 2
Ohio 24
Oklahoma 6
Oregon 5
Pennsylvania 28
Rhode Island 2
South Carolina 4
South Dakota 2
Tennessee 7
Texas 18
Utah 3
Vermont 1
Virginia 8
Washington 8
West Virginia 4
Wisconsin 10
Wyoming 1

Most Overrepresented: Texas (Census: 24 Voting: 18)
Most Underrepresented: Illinois (Census: 24 Voting: 28)

1960 to 1968 changes:
Texas +4
Virginia +3
Florida +3
Alabama +3
California +2
Georgia +2
Louisiana +2
Mississippi +2
South Carolina +2
Arizona +1
Arkansas +1
Utah +1
Connecticut -1
Iowa -1
Kansas -1
Kentucky -1
Maine -1
Massachusetts -1
Michigan -1
Minnesota -1
Missouri -1
Nebraska -1
West Virginia -1
Wisconsin -1
Illinois -2
Ohio -2
Pennsylvania -4
New York -6

Comments: Its obvious that southern blacks were finally voting by 1968 and states like New York or Pennsylvania lose out as a result (and their numbers as a result are closer to what their population would predict). Moreover, California is no longer overrepresented and as a result, the state gained "only" two seats during the 60s. It is, however, the first time that California is at the top.

98th through 102nd congresses (1983-1993)
Alabama 7
Alaska 1
Arizona 4
Arkansas 4
California 43
Colorado 6
Connecticut 7
Delaware 1
Florida 19
Georgia 8
Hawaii 2
Idaho 2
Illinois 24
Indiana 11
Iowa 7
Kansas 5
Kentucky 7
Louisiana 8
Maine 3
Maryland 8
Massachusetts 13
Michigan 20
Minnesota 10
Mississippi 4
Missouri 11
Montana 2
Nebraska 3
Nevada 1
New Hampshire 2
New Jersey 15
New Mexico 2
New York 31
North Carolina 9
North Dakota 1
Ohio 22
Oklahoma 6
Oregon 6
Pennsylvania 23
Rhode Island 2
South Carolina 4
South Dakota 2
Tennessee 8
Texas 23
Utah 3
Vermont 1
Virginia 9
Washington 9
West Virginia 4
Wisconsin 11
Wyoming 1

Most Overrepresented: Texas (Census: 27 Voting: 23)
Most Underrepresented: Wisconsin (Census: 9 Voting: 11) Missouri (Census: 9 Voting: 11) Minnesota (Census: 8 Voting: 10) Michigan (Census: 18 Voting: 20) Massachusetts (Census: 11 Voting: 13) Illinois (Census: 22 Voting: 24)

1968 to 1980 changes:
Florida +6
Texas +5
Alabama +1
Arizona +1
Colorado +1
Georgia +1
Hawaii +1
Kentucky +1
Louisiana +1
Maine +1
Maryland +1
Minnesota +1
Oregon +1
Tennessee +1
Virginia +1
Washington +1
Wisconsin +1
Massachusetts -1
North Dakota -1
Indiana -2
New Jersey -2
Ohio -2
Illinois -4
Pennsylvania -5
New York -9

Comments: This was the free-fall era for many of the big cities. Whether it be deindustrialization, high crime rates or whatever most of the old cities bled population. In fact I counted in the 1982 almanac of american politics that thirty or so congressional districts lost ten percent or more of their population from 1970 to 1980 and all were urban/suburban. Its not surprising that the "biggest losers" were Pennsylvania Illinois and New York, all states with big cities. The 1950 to 1980 era of New York saw the state lose 24 seats. Turnout also cratered as the state went from being twelve seats underrepresented in the 1950s to three seats overrepresented in the 1980s. Still the 80s saw the least amount of over/under representation as Texas was off "only" by four and six states were off "only" by two. Also interesting how for the first time since the 1880s, California doesn't gain a seat and how the first time in the state's history the state has more districts population-wise than voting would suggest.

103rd through 107th congresses (1993 to 2003)
Alabama 6
Alaska 1
Arizona 6
Arkansas 4
California 49
Colorado 6
Connecticut 7
Delaware 1
Florida 20
Georgia 9
Hawaii 2
Idaho 2
Illinois 22
Indiana 10
Iowa 6
Kansas 5
Kentucky 6
Louisiana 8
Maine 3
Maryland 8
Massachusetts 12
Michigan 17
Minnesota 10
Mississippi 4
Missouri 10
Montana 2
Nebraska 3
Nevada 2
New Hampshire 2
New Jersey 15
New Mexico 2
New York 31
North Carolina 10
North Dakota 1
Ohio 21
Oklahoma 5
Oregon 6
Pennsylvania 22
Rhode Island 2
South Carolina 5
South Dakota 1
Tennessee 8
Texas 26
Utah 3
Vermont 1
Virginia 10
Washington 9
West Virginia 3
Wisconsin 10
Wyoming 1

Most Overrepresented State: Texas (Census: 30 Voting: 26)
Most Underrepresented State: Illinois (Census: 20 Voting: 24) Ohio (Census: 19 Voting: 21) New Jersey (Census: 13 Voting: 15) Minnesota (Census: 8 Voting: 10)

1980 to 1988 changes:
California +6
Texas +3
Arizona +2
Florida +1
Georgia +1
Nevada +1
North Carolina +1
South Carolina +1
Virginia +1
Alabama -1
Indiana -1
Iowa -1
Kentucky -1
Massachusetts -1
Missouri -1
Ohio -1
Oklahoma -1
Pennsylvania -1
South Dakota -1
Wisconsin -1
West Virginia -1
Illinois -2
Michigan -3

Comments: The only thing that sticks out is California gaining six seats. Its the last time the state gained seats and a temporary reprisal of the types of numbers the state put up from 1910 to 1960. The rest of the -/+ numbers are what one would expect. This is also when many of us started following politics and is still somewhat fresh in our minds. Its also when the VRA takes hold. I would add that New York finally catches a break after losing 24 seats in three decades. This would be an interesting task when it comes to drawing Hispanic vra seats because Hispanics tend not to vote that much. In California, its possible that the 31st (Becerra) and 33rd (Allard) are amalgamated. I also suspect the short-fused Bob Dornan to stay in office until about 2006 as his district would likely expand to take in more republican areas, likely from the 39th, which likely would have been torn up as Torres and Cox would have taken in the rest of the 1990s 39th. Since Dannemeyer was running for the senate, Dornan wouldn't have to worry about a primary either. George Brown's future is also dependent on whether the district shifts west or south.

If it shifts south and takes in the dem areas of Riverside he represented in the 70s and 80s, he probably is ok while if it shifts west into the Upland area, he would have lost in 94 or 96. I also suspect the 1990s AZ 2 to have looked similar but would be expanded in size and would take in the most D (or least R) areas from Rhodes, Stump, Kyl and Kolbe. This would have made a difference in 1992 when Rhodes wouldn't have lost to Sam Coppersmith. Rhodes, who died in 2011, might have stayed in office for awhile longer and could have delayed Flake (or Salmon) from getting into office. Texas is also interesting as Ronald Coleman's 16th district would have had to expand eastward to take in the ultraconservative oil areas of Midland and Odessa. It's possible that a 90% Hispanic district may have had to have been drawn from the areas along the Rio Grande in El Paso, all the way down to Brownsville with a finger along I-35 into the most heavily Hispanic areas of San Antonio. Its also unclear whether there were enough Hispanics in Houston area to warrant a district for them in 1990. Its possible that a coalition type of seat would have been drawn to take in all of the 1980s 18th and the most dem areas of the 1980s 25th and 8th districts.

108th through 112th congresses (2003 to 2013)
Alabama 7
Alaska 1
Arizona 6
Arkansas 4
California 45
Colorado 7
Connecticut 6
Delaware 1
Florida 25
Georgia 11
Hawaii 2
Idaho 2
Illinois 20
Indiana 9
Iowa 6
Kansas 4
Kentucky 6
Louisiana 7
Maine 3
Maryland 8
Massachusetts 11
Michigan 18
Minnesota 10
Mississippi 4
Missouri 10
Montana 2
Nebraska 3
Nevada 3
New Hampshire 2
New Jersey 13
New Mexico 3
New York 28
North Carolina 12
North Dakota 1
Ohio 19
Oklahoma 5
Oregon 6
Pennsylvania 20
Rhode Island 2
South Carolina 6
South Dakota 1
Tennessee 9
Texas 27
Utah 3
Vermont 1
Virginia 11
Washington 10
West Virginia 3
Wisconsin 11
Wyoming 1

Most Overrepresented: California (Census: 53 Voting: 45)
Most Underrepresented: Michigan (Census: 15 Voting: 18) Wisconsin (Census: 8 Voting: 11)

1988 through 2000 change
Florida +5
Georgia +2
North Carolina +2
Alabama +1
Colorado +1
Michigan +1
Nevada +1
New Mexico +1
South Carolina +1
Tennessee +1
Texas +1
Virginia +1
Washington +1
Wisconsin +1
Connecticut -1
Indiana -1
Kansas -1
Louisiana -1
Massachusetts -1
Illinois -2
New Jersey -2
Ohio -2
Pennsylvania -2
New York -3
California -4

Comments: Its interesting how in the course of a decade, California goes from "biggest winner" to "biggest loser". Also noteworthy is MI and WI gaining a district and Arizona not gaining any. As far as redistricting goes, the Inland Empire probably gets a VRA seat by this point taking in MoVal, parts of Riverside, Colton, San Berdoo, Fontana, and Ontario. By 2000 there is probably enough for a VRA seat in the SJV and I would expect the 2000s 18th and 20th to be merged (and facing a landslide primary loss to Dooley, Condit probably retires).

In Texas, its also interesting how the hammermander of 03 would have worked as they could only gerrymander 27 instead of 32. For one thing, even the white rural areas of Texas don't have high turnout so there districts would have expanded and many of them may have already lost by 03 or never been elected to begin with. Second, its possible that a 23-4 could have been drawn with one houston sink one I-30 sink, one "brownsville to El paso" sink and if he's feeling charitable one taking in the remaining dem areas of San Antonio and snaking up I-35 to the most dem areas of Austin.

113th-117th Congresses (2013-2023)
Alabama 7
Alaska 1
Arizona 8
Arkansas 4
California 45
Colorado 8
Connecticut 5
Delaware 1
Florida 28
Georgia 13
Hawaii 2
Idaho 2
Illinois 18
Indiana 9
Iowa 5
Kansas 4
Kentucky 6
Louisiana 7
Maine 2
Maryland 9
Massachusetts 10
Michigan 17
Minnesota 10
Mississippi 4
Missouri 10
Montana 2
Nebraska 3
Nevada 3
New Hampshire 2
New Jersey 13
New Mexico 3
New York 25
North Carolina 14
North Dakota 1
Ohio 19
Oklahoma 5
Oregon 6
Pennsylvania 20
Rhode Island 2
South Carolina 6
South Dakota 1
Tennessee 9
Texas 27
Utah 3
Vermont 1
Virginia 12
Washington 10
West Virginia 2
Wisconsin 10
Wyoming 1

Most Overrepresented: Texas (Census: 36 Voting: 27)
Most Underrepresented: Michigan (Census: 14 Voting: 17) Ohio (Census: 16 Voting: 19)

2000 to 2008 change:
Florida +3
Arizona +2
Georgia +2
North Carolina +2
Colorado +1
Maryland +1
Virginia +1
Connecticut -1
Iowa -1
Maine -1
Massachusetts -1
Michigan -1
West Virginia -1
Wisconsin -1
Illinois -2
New York -3

Comments: The 2000s sees the smallest number of seats shifted around in the 435 era (twelve). Most of the hispanic growth is in areas already hispanic so its hard to see a new VRA seat being drawn. I think the 2010 apportionment would help the democrats as it would have been harder for Rs to gerrymander WI, PA, MI, and OH.

Likewise I think the dems gain a seat in VA and NC (Wolf, Connelly and Moran districts contract inward and a new GOP district drawn in the shenandoahs from parts of the 10th, 7th and maybe even the 1st. I also think in NC that the 12th shifts entirely into Mecklenburg and the Triad parts of the district and the dem areas of the 5th and 6th form a new seat. All of this of course is offset by dems potentially losing seats in the border states, but I still think it would be a net + for dems.

Conclusion:
If you made it this far, then I commend you for reading all of it. Always good to know people are interested in any information I dig up. As a history guy, I find this stuff interesting as one can follow history and look at it behind the numbers. Oftentimes that explains why a state gained or lost y amount of seats in x years. Its also interesting how the apportioned areas evolve. The worst offenders were in the south pre-civil rights and starting in the late 20th century, the southwest border states. Texas has always been one of the worst offenders as the state is both a southern and southwestern state (with the 97th meridian being sort of a demarcating point). The most underrepresented states have tended to be in the great lakes area. To paraphrase Pat Moynihan, the closer you get to Canada, it seems people tend to vote more.

It's also interesting to look at what party it historically has helped or hurt (if at all). Obviously civil rights would have been easier to attain and its possible that if states were apportioned by voting, the southern states might have granted black suffrage as early as the twenties or thirties. Even if they didn't, there would have been less Judge Smiths and William Colmers fucking things up on the Rules committee and with reduced southern clout, Taft-Hartley may have been repealed in 1965 as well as a lot of things that were defeated in the otherwise liberal 89th congress.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lefty Coaster, Emerson, BMScott, Odysseus

    more anti-conservative than liberal

    by bonzo925 on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 10:53:08 AM PDT

  •  Sit on tush (0+ / 0-)

    Sit on your tush in the election right after the census, nit pick the President and tell yourself you are principled. This Is what you get.

  •  i favor lifting the cap (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    James Allen, octaviuz

    in the house. the current cap was passed as an anti-immigrant measure. before it was passed, the house grew in size after every census. 435 seats was the number congress reached in 1910, it never took the 1920 census into account, otherwise the house would have gone to 483 an increase of 48 seats. if the cap had never been put into place, the house would likely have 1300 or so members today. hard to imasgine a house of that size being less productive than the current congress.

  •  I’m feeling too lazy to do the calculations (0+ / 0-)

    myself to check: did you use the actual apportionment methods that were in effect at the time for each set of data?  The Hamilton method was used from 1852 until it was replaced by the Webster method in 1901, which in turn was replaced by the Huntington-Hill method in 1941.

    •  Not sure how to do the other methods (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BMScott

      but I doubt an alternative method would merit radically different results from HH.

      more anti-conservative than liberal

      by bonzo925 on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 01:33:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You’re probably right, and almost certainly (0+ / 0-)

        right in the case of the Webster method.

        You can find decent (if rather concise) descriptions of the other methods here, among other places.  

        Hamilton is easy, since there’s no trial and error.  First give each state the integer part of its exact share of the seats.  If r seats remain, award them to the r states whose exact shares had the largest fractional parts.

        Webster is just like HH, except that the cutoff for rounding up isn’t the geometric mean of the upper and lower quotas, but simply their midpoint; the two methods usually give the same result.

  •  Would be nice to have a different format. (0+ / 0-)

    Your state data is crying for a straightforward table structure.

    Still, thanks for doing this.

    -7.75 -4.67

    "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

    There are no Christians in foxholes.

    by Odysseus on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 02:04:36 PM PDT

  •  why would one want to do this? (0+ / 0-)

    The first man who, having enclosed a piece of land, took it into his head to say, "This is mine," and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society. - Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality Among Men

    by James Allen on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 02:28:22 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site