No One Loses at 454 Seats

Today the U.S. Census Bureau announced the official population totals for each state to be used in apportioning seats in the House of Representatives. Here is the data the bureau released.

Everybody is talking about winners and losers. At the Bureau’s press conference, almost every question from journalists had something to do with why a state had lost a seat or whether a state was close to gaining a seat. This is how it usually goes, because the current system sets apportionment up as a zero sum game. There are only 435 seats and they are apportioned automatically. If one state gains, another must lose. Check out my report “House Arrest” for more on how the House came to be fixed at 435 seats and for an explanation of the surprising role of an automated algorithmic system in sustaining the cap on the House’s size.

Before the automated system first took hold in 1929, it wasn’t a zero-sum game. On the contrary, the folks doing the census would usually complete their count of Americans (which would show a growing population) and then Congress would increase the size of the House. A “Count and Increase” tradition governed Congressional apportionment.

The Census Bureau understood this and it released data in a format that suited Congress’s proclivities, like this:

table showing all of the states in the US and then listing whether each gained or lost a seat for a House of 440 seats or 441 seats or 442 seats or 443 seats or 444 seats

So, for instance, the bureau’s chief statistician sent a series of 49 tables to Congress in late 1920. Each table represented a different sized House, ranging from 435 seats to 483.

image of a report title that reads Apportionment of Each Number of Representatives from 435 Up to 483 Inclusive by the Method of Major Fractions

Those numbers were no accident. The Census Bureau believed it was highly unlikley that Congress could consider shrinking the House and so it started its calculations at 435. It ended them at 483 for an equally simple reason: that was the number where no state would lose a seat. And, indeed, it looked for a while like Congress would in fact settle on 483 seats. In the history of apportionment, Congress tended to settle on a House size that protected the seats of sitting members of Congress.

So I decided to pretend I was an early twentieth century Census Bureau employee preparing a new data transmission for Congress, in the spirit of Count and Increase. (I already had my spreadsheets set up to do the necessary calculations from back when I reconstructed the prominent apportionment methods for this prior post.)

Here goes:

House Size: 435 seats Seats gained: 7 / Seats lost: 7

Gainers: Colorado, Florida, Montana, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas (gains 2)

Losers: California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia

House Size: 436 seats Seats gained: 7 / Seats lost: 6

Gainers: Colorado, Florida, Montana, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas (gains 2)

Losers: California, Illinois, Michigan, ~~New York~~, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia

House Size: 437 seats Seats gained: 7 / Seats lost: 5

Gainers: Colorado, Florida, Montana, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas (gains 2)

Losers: California, Illinois, Michigan, ~~Ohio~~, Pennsylvania, West Virginia

House Size: 438 seats Seats gained: 8 / Seats lost: 5

Gainers: Colorado, Florida, Montana, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas (gains 3)

Losers: California, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, West Virginia

House Size: 439 seats Seats gained: 9 / Seats lost: 5

Gainers: Colorado, Florida (gains 2), Montana, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas (gains 3)

Losers: California, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, West Virginia

House Size: 440 seats Seats gained: 10 / Seats lost: 5

Gainers: Arizona, Colorado, Florida (gains 2), Montana, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas (gains 3)

Losers: California, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, West Virginia

House Size: 441 seats Seats gained: 10 / Seats lost: 4

Gainers: Arizona, Colorado, Florida (gains 2), Montana, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas (gains 3)

Losers: ~~California~~, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, West Virginia

House Size: 442 seats Seats gained: 11 / Seats lost: 4

Gainers: Arizona, Colorado, Florida (gains 2), Montana, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas (gains 3), Virginia

Losers: Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, West Virginia

House Size: 443 seats Seats gained: 12 / Seats lost: 4

Gainers: Arizona, Colorado, Florida (gains 2), Idaho, Montana, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas (gains 3), Virginia

Losers: Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, West Virginia

House Size: 444 seats Seats gained: 12 / Seats lost: 3

Gainers: Arizona, Colorado, Florida (gains 2), Idaho, Montana, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas (gains 3), Virginia

Losers: Illinois, ~~Michigan~~, Pennsylvania, West Virginia

House Size: 445 seats Seats gained: 13 / Seats lost: 3

Gainers: Arizona, Colorado, Florida (gains 2), Idaho, Montana, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas (gains 3), Virginia

Losers: Illinois, Pennsylvania, West Virginia

House Size: 446 seats Seats gained: 13 / Seats lost: 2

Gainers: Arizona, Colorado, Florida (gains 2), Idaho, Montana, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas (gains 3), Virginia

Losers: Illinois, ~~Pennsylvania~~, West Virginia

House Size: 447 seats Seats gained: 14 / Seats lost: 2

Gainers: Arizona, Colorado, Florida (gains 2), Idaho, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas (gains 3), Virginia