We are all keenly aware of the undemocratic nature of the Electoral College, as well as the brutal Republican gerrymanders which keep the US House of Representatives in Republican hands despite losing the total vote count by considerable margins in every electoral cycle.
There are grand schemes to effectively abolish the Electoral College, but they aren’t likely to bear fruit any time soon since they require an interstate compact or a constitutional amendment. Attempts to fight Republican gerrymanders of Congressional Districts must be fought on a state-by-state level using both the courts and state governments. That means that Democrats have to get creative in breaking the Republican stranglehold on power by looking for the weak link in the power structure.
That link is the Permanent Reapportionment Act of 1929. Prior to this act of Congress, the number of US House members was based on population, which meant that their numbers increased as the US population grew. After the act was passed, the number of representatives was capped at 435, leading to a relative imbalance in the number of House members from rural and urban states. In turn, the cap on House members affected the Electoral College, since the number of Electoral Votes each state gets is equal to its total number of US Representatives plus its total number of Senators. Over time, this imbalance in power has gotten far worse than was even in 1929.
Prior to the Apportionment Act, no state lost representatives unless it actually lost population, but that meant that the US House had to pass a new act every decade to increase the number of seats. (Good diary which explains the process here.)
Since the law capping the number of US House seats isn't a constitutional amendment, but a federal law, it can be attacked on two levels. First, should a miracle occur and the Democrats retake the House, the Senate, and the Presidency in 2020, Democrats could repeal the law directly. If an even bigger miracle occurs and the Democrats regain veto-proof majorities in the House and Senate in 2018, they could overturn the law then. Second, it’s just possible that the law could be attacked in federal court on the principle that it violates “one man-one vote” and anti-discrimination rulings the SCOTUS has made since 1929.
The good feature of the act is that it made the provision for Representatives to be elected from “At Large" districts. Currently, this provision is only applied to members from states which just get one Representative, but the law could easily be updated to require fairer methods of drawing Congressional Districts and allocation of Electoral College votes. A revised law could possibly also be used to implement any number of voting schemes which prevent gerrymandering and uphold the principle of “one man-one vote” while still complying with the Voting Rights Act.
Additional arguments for scrapping the Reapportionment Act here.
The table below shows what the composition of the US House of Representatives would look like using two methods of reapportionment. The first method is the Hamiltonian method, based directly on the US Constitution, which provides for one Representative per 30,000 people [Edit: actually a minimum of 1 per 50,000]. The second is the Webster method which allocates house seats using the state with the smallest population as the lowest common denominator. Both of these methods come very close to allowing “one man- one vote.”
The Hamiltonian method results in 10,273 U.S. Representatives according to the 2015 census estimates. The Webster method results in 545 members. If Puerto Rico was given statehood, it would get 124 members under the Hamiltonian method, 7 under the Webster method. If D.C. were given statehood, it would get 20 members or 1 member, respectively.
Sadly, due to the “winner take all” nature of the Electoral College vote, assuming the same results for the 2016 election, Trump would win a Hamiltonian-based Electoral College by 5,853 to 4,520 (1:1.29 ratio of loser votes vs. winner votes), or a Webster-based Electoral College by 367 to 278 (1:1.32 ratio). For comparison sake, the actual vote ratio in the 2016 election was 1:1.32 with 306 to 232 electoral votes.
In a more normal election year where the Democrats win the swing states that Obama carried in 2012 (FL, MI, OH, PA, WI) presidential results would be 6,486 to 3,887 using the Hamiltonian method (1:1.67 ratio) or 394 to 251 using the Webster method (1:1.56 ratio) versus the 1:1.52 ratio of the actual 325 to 213 electoral votes.
So, while changing the size of the Electoral College doesn’t guarantee that the winner of the popular vote will win the presidency, when the map is more favorable for Democrats the relative power of small states wouldn’t be as disproportionate as it is now and would result in even larger Democratic margins of victory.
In big and medium-sized states, the vastly increased number of congressional districts would make gerrymandering harder, would reduce the negative effects of geographic concentration on Democratic votes, and would make it easier for states to comply with the VRA. Combined with electoral reforms which scrap first past the post voting, the increased number of representatives would allow Congressional delegations which more closely match the voting patterns for a given state.
State
|
Est. 2015 pop.
|
House Seats (435)
|
Est. Pop. @ House Seat (435)
|
House Seats @ 30k pop.
|
House Seats by (State pop./WY pop.)
|
California
|
37,254,503
|
53
|
702,915
|
1,242
|
66
|
Texas
|
25,146,105
|
36
|
698,503
|
838
|
45
|
Florida
|
18,804,623
|
27
|
696,468
|
627
|
33
|
New York
|
19,378,087
|
27
|
717,707
|
646
|
34
|
Illinois
|
12,831,549
|
18
|
712,864
|
428
|
23
|
Pennsylvania
|
12,702,887
|
18
|
705,716
|
423
|
23
|
Ohio
|
11,536,725
|
16
|
721,045
|
385
|
20
|
Georgia
|
9,688,681
|
14
|
692,049
|
323
|
17
|
North Carolina
|
9,535,692
|
13
|
733,515
|
318
|
17
|
Michigan
|
9,884,129
|
14
|
706,009
|
329
|
18
|
New Jersey
|
8,791,936
|
12
|
732,661
|
293
|
16
|
Virginia
|
8,001,045
|
11
|
727,368
|
267
|
14
|
Washington
|
6,724,543
|
10
|
672,454
|
224
|
12
|
Arizona
|
6,392,307
|
9
|
710,256
|
213
|
11
|
Massachusetts
|
6,547,817
|
9
|
727,535
|
218
|
12
|
Indiana
|
6,484,229
|
9
|
720,470
|
216
|
12
|
Tennessee
|
6,346,275
|
9
|
705,142
|
212
|
11
|
Missouri
|
5,988,927
|
8
|
748,616
|
200
|
11
|
Maryland
|
5,773,785
|
8
|
721,723
|
192
|
10
|
Wisconsin
|
5,687,289
|
8
|
710,911
|
190
|
10
|
Minnesota
|
5,303,925
|
8
|
662,991
|
177
|
9
|
Colorado
|
5,029,324
|
7
|
718,475
|
168
|
9
|
South Carolina
|
4,625,401
|
7
|
660,772
|
154
|
8
|
Alabama
|
4,780,127
|
7
|
682,875
|
159
|
8
|
Louisiana
|
4,533,479
|
6
|
755,580
|
151
|
8
|
Kentucky
|
4,339,349
|
6
|
723,225
|
145
|
8
|
Oregon
|
3,831,073
|
5
|
766,215
|
128
|
7
|
Oklahoma
|
3,751,616
|
5
|
750,323
|
125
|
7
|
Connecticut
|
3,574,118
|
5
|
714,824
|
119
|
6
|
Iowa
|
3,046,869
|
4
|
761,717
|
102
|
5
|
Utah
|
2,763,888
|
4
|
690,972
|
92
|
5
|
Mississippi
|
2,968,103
|
4
|
742,026
|
99
|
5
|
Arkansas
|
2,915,958
|
4
|
728,990
|
97
|
5
|
Kansas
|
2,853,132
|
4
|
713,283
|
95
|
5
|
Nevada
|
2,700,691
|
4
|
675,173
|
90
|
5
|
New Mexico
|
2,059,192
|
3
|
686,397
|
69
|
4
|
Nebraska
|
1,826,341
|
3
|
608,780
|
61
|
3
|
West Virginia
|
1,853,011
|
3
|
617,670
|
62
|
3
|
Idaho
|
1,567,652
|
2
|
783,826
|
52
|
3
|
Hawaii
|
1,360,301
|
2
|
680,151
|
45
|
2
|
New Hampshire
|
1,316,466
|
2
|
658,233
|
44
|
2
|
Maine
|
1,328,361
|
2
|
664,181
|
44
|
2
|
Rhode Island
|
1,052,931
|
2
|
526,466
|
35
|
2
|
Montana
|
989,417
|
1
|
989,417
|
33
|
2
|
Delaware
|
897,936
|
1
|
897,936
|
30
|
2
|
South Dakota
|
814,191
|
1
|
814,191
|
27
|
1
|
North Dakota
|
672,591
|
1
|
672,591
|
22
|
1
|
Alaska
|
710,249
|
1
|
710,249
|
24
|
1
|
Vermont
|
625,745
|
1
|
625,745
|
21
|
1
|
Wyoming
|
563,767
|
1
|
563,767
|
19
|
1
|
Total
|
308,156,338
|
435
|
n/a
|
10,273
|
545
|
Edit: Just after publishing this diary I realized that the minimum number of people per CD specified in the constitution was 50,000. So, if you want the number of CD based on 50,000 people per district rather than 30,000, just divide the numbers by 3/5, which would yield a total of 6,164 Representatives.