The absolute difference between these numbers is. Major fractions minimizes absolute differences, so in , if this method had been required by law, North Carolina and Rhode Island would have received 14 and 1 seats respectively because the absolute difference 0. Equal proportions minimizes differences on a proportional basis, so it assigned 13 seats to North Carolina and 2 to Rhode Island because the proportional difference between a 13 and 2 allocation The proportional difference versus absolute difference argument could also be cast in terms of the goal of "one person, one vote," as noted above.
The courts' use of absolute difference measures in state redistricting cases may not necessarily be appropriate when applied to the apportionment of seats among states. The courts already recognize that the rules governing redistricting in state legislatures differ from those in congressional districting. If the "one person, one vote" standard were ever to be applied to apportionment of seats among states—a process that differs significantly from redistricting within states—proportional difference measures might be accepted as most appropriate.
If the choice between methods were judged to be a tossup with regard to which mathematical process is fairest, are there other representational goals that equal proportions meets that are, perhaps, appropriate to consider? One such goal might be the desirability of avoiding large districts, if possible. After the apportionment of , five of the seven states with only one Representative Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming have relatively large land areas.
Arguably, an apportionment method that would potentially reduce the number of very large with respect to area size districts would serve to increase representation in those states. Very large districts limit the opportunities of constituents to see their Representatives, may require more district based offices, and may require toll calls for telephone contact with the Representatives' district offices.
Switching from equal proportions to major fractions may increase the number of states represented by only one member of Congress, although it is impossible to predict this outcome with any certainty using Census Bureau projections for The table that follows contains the priority listing used in apportionment following the Census. Table A-1 shows where each state ranked in the priority of seat assignments. The priority values listed beyond seat number show which states would have gained additional representations if the House size had been increased.
Table A A similar, previous CRS report was authored by [author name scrubbed], who retired in While the current report is modified by the current author, Mr. Huckabee's contribution, in a large part, remains. Of course, any errors that may appear are due solely to the current author. In part, this debate over the apportionment of power in the early years of this country came from the year experience with the unicameral congress provided for under the Articles of Confederation, which assigned one vote to each state delegation in Congress.
For a thorough discussion, see Charles A. A major controversy occurred even over the fixed, short-term apportionment of seats among the delegates at the Constitutional Convention.
See Kromkowski, pp. Thomas Jefferson recommended discarding the fractions. Daniel Webster and others argued that Jefferson's method was unconstitutional because it discriminated against small states. Webster argued that an additional Representative should be awarded to a state if the fractional entitlement was 0. Congress subsequently used a "fixed ratio" method proposed by Rep.
Samuel Vinton following the census of through , but this method led to the paradox that Alabama lost a seat even though the size of the House was increased in Subsequently, mathematician W.
Willcox proposed the "major fractions" method, which was used following the census of This method, too, had its critics; and in Harvard mathematician E. Huntington proposed the "equal proportions" method and developed formulas and computational tables for all of the other known, mathematically valid apportionment methods.
A committee of the National Academy of Sciences conducted an analysis of each of those methods—smallest divisors, harmonic mean, equal proportions, major fractions, and greatest divisors—and recommended that Congress adopt Huntington's equal proportions method.
For a review of this history, see U. Also, see Michel L. Article I, Section 2 defines both the maximum and minimum size of the House, but the actual House size is set by law. Thus, the House after could be as small as 50 and as large as 10, Representatives. The actual language in of Article 1, section 2 pertaining to this minimum size reads as follows: "The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at least one Representative.
Interestingly, while the Constitution requires a census every ten years, it does not require that an apportionment of seats to the House of Representatives must occur. This became a statutory requirement with the passage of the Apportionment Act of The apportionment population is the resident population of the 50 states.
It excludes the population of the District of Columbia and U. The geometric mean of 1 and 2 is the square root of 2, which is 1. The geometric mean of 2 and 3 is the square root of 6, which is 2. Geometric means are computed for determining the rounding points for the size of any state's delegation size.
Equal proportions rounds at the geometric mean which varies rather than the arithmetic mean which is always halfway between any pair of numbers. Thus, a state which would be entitled to The rationale for choosing the geometric mean rather than the arithmetic mean as the rounding point is discussed below in the section analyzing the equal proportions and major fractions formulas. Any number in this range divided into each state's population and rounded at the geometric mean will produce a seat House, with the provision that each state receives at least one seat.
Report , Washington: GPO, , p. The limit on the size of the House is a statutory requirement. The House size was first fixed at by the Apportionment Act of 37 Stat. The Apportionment Act of 46 Stat. This requirement to "automatically reapportion" every 10 years was needed because the Constitution, ironically, while requiring a census every 10 years makes no such requirement for apportionments.
Thus, the fact that no apportionment was carried out after the census in no way violated the Constitution or any statutory requirement at the time. By authority of section 9 of PL 72 Stat. Fair Representation , pp. An earlier major work in this field was written by Laurence F. Daniel Webster proposed this method to overcome the large-state bias in Jefferson's discarded fractions method. Webster's method was used three times, in the reapportionments following the , , and Censuses.
Changing to the Hamilton-Vinton method would have kept Indiana from losing a seat. Hearings were held, but no further action was taken on the measure. Since that time no other bill has been introduced to change the formula. The Hamilton-Vinton method used after the censuses is subject to the "Alabama paradox" and various other population paradoxes.
The Alabama paradox was so named in when it was discovered that Alabama would have lost a seat in the House if the size of the House had been increased from to Another paradox, known as the population paradox, has been variously described, but in its modern form with a fixed size House it works in this way: two states may gain population from one census to the next.
State "A," which is gaining population at a rate faster than state "B," may lose a seat to state "B. Hamilton-Vinton is subject to them, whereas equal proportions and major fractions are not. The absolute value of a number is its magnitude without regard to its sign. For example, the absolute value of -8 is 8. The absolute value of the expression is 2. The absolute value of the expression is also 2. Major fractions best conforms to the spirit of these decisions if the population discrepancy is measured on an absolute basis, as the courts have done in the recent past.
The Supreme Court has never applied its "one person, one vote" rule to apportioning seats of the House of Representatives among states as opposed to redistricting within states. Thus, no established rule of law is being violated.
Arguably, no apportionment method can meet the "one person, one vote" standard required by the Supreme Court for districts within states unless the size of the House is increased significantly thereby making districts less populous. Nevada had two seats with a population of , Montana was assigned two seats with a population of , South Dakota's single seat was required by the Constitution with a population of , The vast majority of the districts based on the census of them fell within the range of , to , House of Representatives Using the Estimated Citizen Population: , by [author name scrubbed].
Young and M. Contract No. CRS , Sept. This document is available to Members of Congress and congressional staff from the author of this report. Comparing equal proportions and major fractions using the state populations from the 19 actual censuses taken since , reveals that the small states would have been favored 3.
Major fractions would have also favored small states, in these cases, but only. See Fair Representation , p. Representatives per million is computed by dividing the number of Representatives assigned to the state by the state's population which gives the number of Representatives per person and then multiplying the resulting dividend by 1,, Montana argued in Federal court in and that the equal proportions formula violated the Constitution because it "does not achieve the greatest possible equality in number of individuals per Representative" Department of Commerce v.
Montana U. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Stevens however, noted that absolute and relative differences in district sizes are identical when considering deviations in district populations within states, but they are different when comparing district populations among states. Justice Stevens noted, however, "although common sense" supports a test requiring a "good faith effort to achieve precise mathematical equality within each State The total area of the U.
Department of Commerce, U. If the major fractions method had been used to apportion the House in , the number of states with a single Representative would have increased by one, from seven to eight, with the addition of Rhode Island. Topic Areas About Donate. The U. House of Representatives Apportionment Formula in Theory and Practice August 4, — August 2, R On December 21, , the number of seats allocated to each state for the House of Representatives was announced.
Approved by the 39th Congress — as H. The Constitutional Convention addressed multiple concerns in the process of designing the new Congress. The first was the relationship of the least populous states to the most populous. The battle between big and small states colored most of the Convention and nearly ended hopes of creating a national government.
If an equality of votes is to be put in its place, the large States say their money will be in danger. When a broad table is to be made, and the edges of planks do not fit the artist takes a little from both, and makes a good joint.
The compromise enabled the Convention, teetering on the brink of dissolution, to continue. The Convention determined that a Census of the population conducted every 10 years would enable the House to adjust the distribution of its Membership on a regular basis.
The method, however, proved controversial. Southern delegates argued that their slaves counted in the population, yielding them more Representatives. Northern delegates countered that slaves were property and should not be counted at all. Before federal income taxes or tariffs, the states contributed to the national government with local taxes, often flat poll taxes on each citizen. Since constitutional framers had to provide for the funding of the new government, they debated the proper relationship between representation and taxation.
Several delegates argued that geographic size or useable farmland were better measures of state wealth than mere population.
Delegates, however, settled on proportional contributions based on population and, by extension, the number of Members in the House of Representatives. Large states, with more human capital, should contribute more revenue to the national government and also have more seats in the legislature as a result.
This fulfilled the promise of the American Revolution: taxation with representation. The latter amendments, however, did not alter congressional apportionment. Since debate in the Senate is not concluded until 60 senators vote for a cloture motion to approve a bill for consideration, the majority must also coordinate with the minority part to set the rules for debate on legislation.
Under this system, legislation can be debated for one or two weeks on the Senate floor alone. Why does Congress use the committee system?
Congress deals with a broad variety of different policy issues and it is more efficient to have work done at the committee level than on the House or Senate floor. In addition, this system allows members to gain expertise in specific issue areas they are interested in.
Throughout history, committees have been created to address particular issues before Congress. The House has 23 committees while the Senate has a total of 20 committees. How does a bill become a law?
Passing legislation into law is a complicated and lengthy process between the House and Senate before the bill is presented before the President to be signed into law. For a thorough explanation of the legislation process, please see the How a Bill Becomes a Law section on the House website. Do Members of Congress pay into the social security system?
Since January 1, , all Members of Congress participate in the Social Security system and are required to pay Social Security taxes. What kind of retirement plan do Members of Congress have? What kind of health care do Members of Congress receive? Skip to main content.
0コメント