I got bored today and decided to have some fun with numbers. Something (can't remember what) got me thinking about apportionment — that is, the number of seats that each state gets in Congress, as determined every 10 years just after the Census is taken. I decided to mess around with the numbers, and I even did some projections as to how the results might change the electoral college numbers (assuming all else was equal).
By the way, this post is about to get very mathy and nerdy. If you don't like reading Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight, I suggest finding something else to read. You have been warned.
Still with me? Okay, great. Let's go:
First of all, a quick note. I used what is known as the Hamilton method (link is to a demonstration) in all of these calculations. We now use the Huntington-Hill method, which is a bit more complicated. It turns out that, at least for the current Congress, the Hamilton method yields almost the exact same apportionment as the Huntington-Hill method. Also, it's way easier to plug Hamilton into Excel, and I realized that I couldn't remember enough lower-level programming to even try to implement Huntington-Hill. There's my justification; if you don't like it, write your own H-H program. :P
Okay, so here's what I found (all relevant Census data can be found at this page):
- Using Census 2000 population data, Hamilton yields almost exactly the same apportionment as Huntington-Hill, with the exception of one California seat going to Utah. That means, for the electoral votes this year, Obama still wins, though 364-174 instead of 365-173.
- If seats were re-apportioned this year using the Census Bureau's 2007 population projections, we would see:
- Seven states (NY, PA, OH, MA, MO, LA, and IA) lose one seat each
- Five states (NV, UT, AZ, GA, and FL) gain one seat each
- Texas gains two seats
Net EV result: Obama loses 4 EVs to McCain but still wins by more than 2-to-1.
- If the DC House Voting Rights Act of 2007 were to pass, then after the next reapportionment (using 2007 population estimates):
- Texas gains 3 (!) seats
- Five states (NV, UT, AZ, GA, and FL) gain one seat each... oh, and DC gains a real seat as well
- Seven states (NY, MN, OH, MA, MO, LA, and IA) lose one seat each
Net EV result: (note that the number of EVs available is now 539) Obama loses 4 EV, and McCain gains 5; Obama still wins by more than 2-to-1
All of the above scenarios involve either reality or a legitimate legislative proposal. The next two are a bit more pie-in-the-sky, though I have seen mention of their basis elsewhere on the Internet. In order to apportion seats here, I take the smallest state and make the population per representative (nationally) be that state's population. This requirement is thus sometimes called the Wyoming Rule. Both of the following scenarios require a significant expansion of the House of Representatives beyond its current 435 members.
- If we enact the Wyoming Rule and allow DC proper House representation, we see the following changes, based again on the 2007 Census projections:
- The House gains 142 new members, growing to 577 (a 32.6% increase; I surmise that the Wikipedia page uses old Census data to compute 569)
- No states lose representatives (no Alabama Paradox here)
- Twelve states gain 1 rep (including DC's newly voting rep): AR, DC, DE, IA, ID, KS, LA, ME, MT, NH, NM, and SD
- Thirteen states gain 2 reps: AL, CO, CT, KY, MA, MN, MO, MS, NV, OK, OR, SC, and UT
- Five states gain 3 reps: IN, MD, TN, WA, and WI
- Six states gain 4 reps: AZ, MI, NC, NJ, OH, and VA
- Georgia and Pennsylvania gain 5 reps
- Illinois gains 6 reps
- New York gains 8 reps
- Florida gains 10 reps
- Texas gains 14 reps
- California gains 17 reps
Net EV result: As there are now 679 EV available, both Obama and McCain gain a nice chunk of EVs... yet the new ratio, 459 to 220, only differs from the actual 365-173 by a few tenths of a percent. Very interesting, as that's closer than the other, more plausible scenarios from before. I have no idea why this happens.
- If we enact the Wyoming Rule, allow DC proper representation, and Puerto Rico joins the Union as a full state (this is really pie-in-the-sky):
- The House gains 150 members, growing to 585 (a 34.5% increase)
- All of the above changes occur, in addition to Puerto Rico getting 8 representatives
I did not calculate EVs for this scenario, as Puerto Rico does not currently vote for the President. Any attempt at such a calculation would therefore be meaningless.
Finally, here's the really implausible scenario: What if we double the size of the House to 870? For this one I assumed also that DC gets proper representation and Puerto Rico becomes a state. If either of those don't happen, then things change. At any rate, the numbers are - understandably - ridiculous:
- California gains 51 reps
- Texas gains 36
- Florida gains 27
- New York gains 26
- Illinois gains 18
- Pennsylvania gains 16
- Ohio gains 15
- Georgia and Michigan gain 14
- North Carolina gains 13
- New Jersey gains 12
- Puerto Rico gets, and Virgina gains, 11
- Arizona gains 10
- Indiana and Washington gain 9
- MA, MD, MO, TN, and WI each gain 8
- CO, MN, and SC each gain 7
- AL, KY, and OR each gain 6
- CT, LA, OK, and UT each gain 5
- AR, KS, MS, and NV each gain 4
- IA and NM each gain 3
- HI, ID, ME, MT, NE, NH and WV each gain 2 (plus DC gets 2)
- AK, DE, ND, RI, SD, and VT each gain 1 rep
Wyoming is still left with only 1 representative -- even when doubling the size of the House.