After the 2010 census was released I wondered, what were the changes that would occur if the WY rule was implemented. The WY rule proposed that congressional apportionment would be decided by the state’s population divided by the pop per rep of the least populous state (Wyoming). I calculated the numbers and here they are
Arizona – 11
Alaska – 1
Alabama – 8
Arkansas- 5
California – 66
Connecticut- 6
Colorado- 8
Delaware – 1
Florida – 33
Georgia – 17
Hawaii – 1
Idaho- 2
Iowa – 5
Illinois – 22
Indiana – 11
Kansas – 5
Kentucky – 7
Louisiana – 8
Maine – 2
Massachusetts – 11
Maryland – 10
Michigan – 17
Mississippi – 5
Minnesota – 9
Missouri – 10
Montana – 1
Nebraska – 3
Nevada – 4
North Dakota – 1
North Carolina – 16
New Hampshire – 2
New Mexico – 3
New Jersey – 15
New York – 34
Ohio – 20
Oklahoma – 6
Oregon – 6
Pennsylvania – 22
Rhode Island – 2
South Carolina – 8
South Dakota – 1
Tennessee – 11
Texas – 44
Utah – 4
Vermont – 1
Virginia – 14
Washington – 11
West Virginia – 3
Wyoming – 1
Wisconsin – 10
The Changes
No Changes
AK,DE,HI,ID,ME,MT,NE,NV,NH,NM,ND,RI,SD,UT,VT,WV,WY
Gaining 1
AL,AR,CO,CT,IA,KS,KY,MN,MS,OK,OR,SC,WA
Gaining 2
AZ,IN,LA,MD,MA,MO,TN,WI
Gaining 3
GA,MI,NJ,NC,VA
Gaining 4
IL,OH,PA
Gaining 6
FL
Gaining 7
NY
Gaining 8
TX
Gaining 13
CA
House changes size +90 to 525 Representatives
Electoral Threshold changes to 319 EVs
Have fun
Loading ...
how would hawaii have 1 now
As I understand it, the Wyoming Rule includes rounding up or down. It seems that you’ve uniformly rounded down. A number of states must therefore be shortchanged.
Start with the US population: 308745538
Divide by population of Wyoming: 568300
This gives 543 total seats.
Then use the apportionment algorithm to calculate where those seats go:
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/…
Modify the script to calculate 543 seats. Make sure you increase the maximum seats above 60, and change the “just for fun” ten extra seats part. Then run the script (using perl):
Alabama – 8 seats
Alaska – 1 seats
Arizona – 11 seats
Arkansas – 5 seats
California – 66 seats
Colorado – 9 seats
Connecticut – 6 seats
Delaware – 2 seats
Florida – 33 seats
Georgia – 17 seats
Hawaii – 2 seats
Idaho – 3 seats
Illinois – 23 seats
Indiana – 11 seats
Iowa – 5 seats
Kansas – 5 seats
Kentucky – 8 seats
Louisiana – 8 seats
Maine – 2 seats
Maryland – 10 seats
Massachusetts – 12 seats
Michigan – 17 seats
Minnesota – 9 seats
Mississippi – 5 seats
Missouri – 11 seats
Montana – 2 seats
Nebraska – 3 seats
Nevada – 5 seats
New Hampshire – 2 seats
New Jersey – 16 seats
New Mexico – 4 seats
New York – 34 seats
North Carolina – 17 seats
North Dakota – 1 seats
Ohio – 20 seats
Oklahoma – 7 seats
Oregon – 7 seats
Pennsylvania – 22 seats
Rhode Island – 2 seats
South Carolina – 8 seats
South Dakota – 2 seats
Tennessee – 11 seats
Texas – 45 seats
Utah – 5 seats
Vermont – 1 seats
Virginia – 14 seats
Washington – 12 seats
West Virginia – 3 seats
Wisconsin – 10 seats
Wyoming – 1 seats
but it’s really not that big a deal. I don’t see a need for Wyoming rule.
you always look to see whose ox is going to be gored. There are winners and losers. If we set a 1 million person minimum for house seats and guaranteed every state one member. We would see a decrease in members and the small states would benefit. By decreasing the average population for a house seat the large states benefit.
The calculation for the population in the house is a matter of politics and not constitutional. Yet it seems frozen in stone and unless we see some sort of compromise like a two member minimum I don’t see any changes.
Heres another quick reason why.
Bush 270 Gore 268
Bush 210 Gore 226
That’s the count of ECV’s without 100 votes for US senators plus the DC bonus of 2. That’s if I counted right but there is small state bonus in the electoral college for the GOP as they win more states. Not every election but most elections. Its not just the composition of US house but electoral college.