There have been discussions lately lamenting the imbalance in Congressional representation among the states which has the effect of skewing the will of the voters in a conservative direction. The House is artificially capped at 435 while requiring at least one representative per state and the Senate is of course designed on the principle of equal representation. I believe this can be ameliorated by adopting the Wyoming Rule for the House and increasing the Senate to three per state. (Don’t even think about tying the Senate to population as Senate equality is explicitly excluded from the constitutional amendment process.) Therefore I propose the following amendment to the US Constitution:
SECTION 1: Pursuant to the decennial census next following the adoption of this article and those subsequent, the state determined to have the smallest population shall be entitled to one Representative. The population of each state shall be divided by the number of persons in the smallest state and the quotient of that equation rounded to the nearest whole number shall be the number of Representatives to which that state shall be entitled.
SECTION 2: During the federal biennial election next following the adoption of this article each state shall elect one Senator in addition to any Senator the state would have elected had this article not been adopted. The term of the additional Senator shall expire following the next biennial federal election for which the state would not have previously elected a Senator. Thereafter, each state shall be represented by three Senators for terms of six years, with one Senator per state being elected at each biennial federal election.
I believe the Senate piece is important because no state would have to sit out a wave year, and the House piece of course rectifies the situation of some states having much bigger districts than others even though they are supposed to be based on population. Out of curiosity I calculated how many Representatives each state would have if the above amendment applied to this decade. I just used the most recent population estimates from Wikipedia. The first number after each state is the current delegation and the second is the new delegation. I also put new electoral vote numbers next to each state and recalculated 2016 on that basis. (Spoiler alert: Trump still wins 409-307; the hard truth is we lost a few pretty good-sized states.) The bold states are Trump states and the italicized states are Clinton states.
WYOMING RULE REPRESENTATION
WY POPULATION = 579,315
Alabama – 7 to 8 (11)
Alaska – 1 to 1 (4)
Arizona – 9 to 12 (15)
Arkansas – 4 to 5 (8)
California – 53 to 68 (71)
Colorado – 7 to 10 (13)
Connecticut – 5 to 6 (9)
Delaware – 1 to 2 (5)
Florida – 27 to 37 (40)
Georgia – 14 to 18 (21)
Hawaii – 2 to 2 (5)
Idaho – 2 to 3 (6)
Illinois – 18 to 22 (25)
Indiana – 9 to 12 (15)
Iowa – 4 to 5 (8)
Kansas – 4 to 5 (8)
Kentucky – 6 to 8 (11)
Louisiana – 6 to 8 (11)
Maine – 2 to 2 (5)
Maryland – 8 to 10 (13)
Massachusetts – 9 to 12 (15)
Michigan – 14 to 17 (20)
Minnesota – 8 to 10 (13)
Mississippi – 4 to 5 (8)
Missouri – 8 to 11 (14)
Montana – 1 to 2 (5)
Nebraska – 3 to 3 (6)
Nevada – 4 to 5 (8)
New Hampshire – 2 to 2 (5)
New Jersey – 12 to 16 (19)
New Mexico – 3 to 4 (7)
New York – 27 to 34 (37)
North Carolina – 13 to 18 (21)
North Dakota – 1 to 1 (4)
Ohio – 16 to 20 (23)
Oklahoma – 5 to 7 (10)
Oregon – 5 to 7 (10)
Pennsylvania – 18 to 22 (25)
Rhode Island – 2 to 2 (5)
South Carolina – 7 to 9 (12)
South Dakota – 1 to 2 (5)
Tennessee – 9 to 12 (15)
Texas – 36 to 49 (52)
Utah – 4 to 5 (8)
Vermont – 1 to 1 (4)
Virginia – 11 to 15 (18)
Washington – 10 to 13 (16)
West Virginia – 3 to 3 (6)
Wisconsin – 8 to 10 (13)
Wyoming – 1 to 1 (4)
District of Columbia – 4EVs
TOTAL – 435 TO 562
EV TOTAL – 538 TO 716 (359 to win)
I am willing to “show my work” if anyone has any questions or disputes my math.