Personally, I'm not a fan of the Wyoming Rule. If I were going to change the constitution to regulate the size of the House, it would be as such:
"The size of the House of Representatives shall be increased every census forthwith such that every state or entity shall be entitled to, at least, the number of seats which it currently holds unless that state or entity has had a population loss. The total number of seats shall be determined by increasing the size of the House of Representatives according to an apportionment method chosen by the House until the above criteria is satisfied."
Basically, the premise is that no state should lose representation unless they have actually lost population (similar to what was done in the late 1800s and early 1900s, except for the population loss addendum). With the Huntington-Hill method, all you have to do is keep apportioning seats until every state has at least the same amount of seats as they currently do. The states which didn't keep up to the national average of growth still lose relative representation.
If I were going to change the constitution regulating which entities were entitled to apportionment in the House, it would be as such:
"Voting representation in the House of Representatives shall be guaranteed to territories and other non-state entities under United States jurisdiction that are determined appropriate by the congress. Those territories and other non-state entities which are given voting representation shall be entitled to as many votes in the electoral college, except for the District of Columbia, for which the 23rd amendment still applies. The congress shall have the authority to apply and enforce this article with the advice and consent of the governments concerned."
I.E. giving a voice to Puerto Rico, D.C., Virgin Islands, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and American Somoa.
I've included 3 map variations below as if these amendments were present during the 2010 census:
1. Map showing how the House would change under the first alteration. I include a short analysis about which states narrowly missed out.
2. Map showing how the House would change under the second alteration, assuming that congress takes up legislation for all appropriate entities and that those entities all consent.
3. Map showing how the House would change under both alterations. The second option would necessarily hurt certain states (as the House would still be set at 435 members), so - in all likelihood - the changes would have to come as a pair in order for ratification to be palatable to three-fourths of the states.
This diary has been posted to DK Elections, an official Daily Kos sub-site. Please read the DKE Mission Statement. Our focus is on electoral politics rather than policy or preference. Welcome aboard!
House of Representatives, No-Loss Rule:
Under this scenario, the House of Representatives would increase to 464 seats (I'm a sucker for pretty numbers, so going from one pretty number to another makes me feel good inside). Ohio had the last seat to be filled with a Huntington-Hill score of 659,488 for it's 18th district. California missed out on a 57th by just over 100 people. Delaware also missed out, but by just over 3,000 people. Of the 29 new seats, the biggest winners were Texas (+6), Florida (+4), California (+3), Georgia (+2), and Arizona (+2). States that gained a seat which I really wasn't expecting to were Wisconsin, Tennessee, Indiana and Maryland. Montana gained back its 2nd. Add two to each state for Electoral College numbers.
House of Representatives, Territorial Enfranchisement:
Under this scenario, the House stays at 435 seats. Big losers? Pennsylvania (-2), California (-2), Georgia (+0), Washington (+0), South Carolina (+0), and Texas (+2). Gainers? Puerto Rico and D.C. The big argument against such an idea is that it would give very small entities outsized power (ranging from 65,628 in American Somoa to 178,430 in Guam). However, they wouldn't be getting any Senators under this scenario. Guam would be given 1 Representative per 178,430. Wyoming is given 1 (congressperson plus two senators) per 187,875 (practically the same). For the smaller territories the argument I'd give is that 1 among 435 is not going to change the outcome of legislation except in very rare circumstances - and it is those very rare circumstances which will most affect the territories! Add two to each state for Electoral College numbers.
House of Representatives, No-Loss Rule & Territorial Enfranchisement:
Under the final scenario, I have combined the two changes. The number of seats changes to 475 (Thank God! Another nice number). I'd imagine that this would give Democrats more VRA seats in the south, more Democratic seats in California, and 10 more seats from the territories and D.C. Add two to each state, but not territories, for Electoral College numbers.
In my next diary I will calculate the number of seats for each state as if both amendments (though the second one poses unique challenges with regard to the Phillippines, which I will ignore because under no circumstances would the U.S. congress - which at the time was vehemently racist by today's standards - ever have given that 'territory' representation) were present since congress began using the Huntington-Hill method of apportionment (1940 Census). There will be other goodies in that diary as well.