If one looks at a map of the United States with the numbers of House members each state has, one might look at California's 53 members and compare it to the several states that have just one apiece and think, "Wow, how is that fair?" And they would be absolutely right in wondering that.
Yes, that's right. House apportionment is grossly unfair to the more populous states among our Union. In fact, instead of those 53 members, California should have 69.
The root cause of this misapportionment is the cap on the number of representatives, which has been set at 435 since 1911. Since then, the ratio of representatives to people has increased dramatically. As of 2008 Census estimates, there is approximately one representative for every 698,988 people. This may sound fair, right? Not quite.
The Constitution guarantees that every state has at least one representative, regardless of the size of their populations. Wyoming, the least populous of the fifty states, currently sits at 532,668 people, well below the average nationwide ratio. The populations of Vermont, North Dakota, and Alaska also sit below the nationwide ratio.
What does this have to do with big states? With the cap set at 435 representatives, and small states guaranteed representation (as they should be, mind you, I don't think their members should be taken away), then, by necessity, the big states have to give up some of the representation they should rightfully possess. In reality, the majority of states give up some degree of representation, but the amount surrendered rises proportionally with population.
As Wyoming, and all small states, are fully deserving of their single representatives in the House, I submit a plan whereby the cap on the number of representatives is raised, and the House is reapportioned, with the member-to-citizen ratio being as close as possible to the population of the least populous state. If Wyoming suddenly gained a reason for people to live there and passed Vermont for 49th on the population list, then Vermont's population would be the new basis for apportionment.
The new apportionment is best done by taking the populations of the other 49 states and dividing each of them by that of Wyoming. At the risk of deluging my fellow Kossacks with statistics and numbers, here's how the ratios break down:
WYOMING RATIOS
Wyo. 1.000; D.C. 1.111; Ver. 1.166; N.D. 1.204; Alas. 1.288; S.D. 1.510; Del. 1.639; Mon. 1.816; R.I. 1.973; Haw. 2.418; N.H. 2.470; Me. 2.471; Ida. 2.861; Neb. 3.348; W.V. 3.406; N.M. 3.725; Nev. 4.881; Utah 5.137; Kan. 5.261; Ark. 5.361; Miss. 5.517; Iowa 5.637; Conn. 6.573; Okla. 6.838; Ore. 7.115; Ken. 8.015; La. 8.281; S.C. 8.410; Ala. 8.752; Colo. 9.273; Minn. 9.801; Wisc. 10.566; Md. 10.576; Mo. 11.098; Tenn. 11.667; Ind. 11.971; Mass. 12.199; Ariz. 12.203; Wash. 12.295; Va. 14.585; N.J. 16.300; N.C. 17.314; Ga. 18.183; Mich. 18.780; Ohio 21.563; Penna. 23.370; Ill. 24.221; Fla. 34.409; N.Y. 36.590; Tex. 45.670; Calif. 69.005
Compare this to how the House is currently apportioned among the states, according to the 2000 Census, and therefore not accounting for population shifts that have occurred since:
CURRENT HOUSE APPORTIONMENT
Wyo. 1; D.C. (1); Ver. 1; N.D. 1; Alas. 1; S.D. 1; Del. 1; Mon. 1; R.I. 2; Haw. 2; N.H. 2; Me. 2; Ida. 2; Neb. 3; W.V. 3; N.M. 3; Nev. 3; Utah 3; Kan. 4; Ark. 4; Miss. 4; Iowa 5; Conn. 5; Okla. 5; Ore. 5; Ken. 6; La. 7; S.C. 6; Ala. 7; Colo. 7; Minn. 8; Wisc. 8; Md. 8; Mo. 9; Tenn. 9; Ind. 9; Mass. 10; Ariz. 8; Wash. 9; Va. 11; N.J. 13; N.C. 13; Ga. 13; Mich. 15; Ohio 18; Penna. 19; Ill. 19; Fla. 25; N.Y. 29; Tex. 32; Calif. 53
As you can see, under the current system, the smaller states are much more fairly represented than are the large states. Hell, California should have 16 more members by itself! So, the 435-member cap needs to be lifted. I propose a new cap of 555.
Why 555? The whole-number total of all the WY ratios in the first table is 547. First, we give the District of Columbia one voting member, to which it would be entitled. The other seven seats are given to the states that come closest to the next whole number. For example, Rhode Island's WY ratio is 1.973 (or very close to double Wyoming's population), the closest any state comes to the next whole number. So it gets a second seat. The other six states that would qualify are Indiana (11.971); Nevada (4.881); Idaho (2.861); Oklahoma (6.838); Montana (1.816); and Minnesota (9.801).
With 555 representatives, the member-to-citizen ratio would fall to 1 per 547,855 people, or only about 12,000 more than the population of Wyoming, well within the accepted margin of difference currently used to apportion House seats.
I know what you're thinking: this is all a big exercise in futility because it requires amending the Constitution. Well, apart from giving the District a voting representative, that is not the case. Under Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, the only constitutional requirement in this regard is that the ratio not go smaller than one member per 30,000 people, which hasn't been an issue since the 18th century. This means that, strictly constitutionally speaking, the membership of the House is capped at approximately 10,135.
One look at the tables would show that this would not be a naked power grab by one power or another. This would simply remedy a problem that has been around since 1911, when the House membership was first capped at 435. It's clearly time for an update.