I'd never heard of that before but that makes a lot of sense. I think 600 (slightly less than the UK with 1/5 the population) would be the sweet spot.
Also, I think the most egregious under-representation, maybe in the history of republican governance, is the Los Angeles County Board of Commissioners. A five-member board governs what by itself would be the 11th largest state by population and GDP, with almost two million residents per member. It's not a pure legislature (also exercises administrative and executive functions) but that makes it worse.
Good stuff, as always. One question re: the "Delaware-Montana Disparity," if you will: the House has been basically unchanged since the entire US population was 97 million. Obviously, we don't need to triple the size of the House, but would a relatively modest increase (e.g., adding 100 seats, or even 50) reduce the disparity so much as to render it meaningless, since the increase would disproportionately affect smaller states?
Also, I love the chart showing that the resident:representative ratio is almost as high in California as it is in Congress. 13,000 might be too many, but 1% of that would be a huge improvement.
The answer, as far as I can tell, is "yes" on both fronts. It's been observed that quite a few countries' national legislatures tend to follow what's called the "cube root law" — that the legislatures tend to be end up around the size of the cube root of the country's population. So it doesn't follow the wild "13,000" math I used in my post. I don't think you can post images in the comments, but this should help visualize it:
To use your example, California has just about the same population size as Canada, which has 338 MPs in its House of Commons, compared to California's 80 in is State Assembly. Canada falls almost exactly on the "cube root" curve. Maybe 338 would be a lot for California (and obviously politically unfeasible), but if the U.S. House can deal with 435, I don't think it's too crazy to suggesting kicking up from 80 to, say, 200 to get things closer to a good equilibrium.
The "cube root law" is not a "law" at all of course, but more of a naturally-occurring balance that nations and sub-nations seem to strike between having small enough districts on the one hand, and manageable enough legislatures on the other. I think I'd advocate something like a phased-in increase over a few decades to get us up to around 600.
I'd never heard of that before but that makes a lot of sense. I think 600 (slightly less than the UK with 1/5 the population) would be the sweet spot.
Also, I think the most egregious under-representation, maybe in the history of republican governance, is the Los Angeles County Board of Commissioners. A five-member board governs what by itself would be the 11th largest state by population and GDP, with almost two million residents per member. It's not a pure legislature (also exercises administrative and executive functions) but that makes it worse.
Good stuff, as always. One question re: the "Delaware-Montana Disparity," if you will: the House has been basically unchanged since the entire US population was 97 million. Obviously, we don't need to triple the size of the House, but would a relatively modest increase (e.g., adding 100 seats, or even 50) reduce the disparity so much as to render it meaningless, since the increase would disproportionately affect smaller states?
Also, I love the chart showing that the resident:representative ratio is almost as high in California as it is in Congress. 13,000 might be too many, but 1% of that would be a huge improvement.
The answer, as far as I can tell, is "yes" on both fronts. It's been observed that quite a few countries' national legislatures tend to follow what's called the "cube root law" — that the legislatures tend to be end up around the size of the cube root of the country's population. So it doesn't follow the wild "13,000" math I used in my post. I don't think you can post images in the comments, but this should help visualize it:
https://statchatva.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Cube-Root-2.jpg
To use your example, California has just about the same population size as Canada, which has 338 MPs in its House of Commons, compared to California's 80 in is State Assembly. Canada falls almost exactly on the "cube root" curve. Maybe 338 would be a lot for California (and obviously politically unfeasible), but if the U.S. House can deal with 435, I don't think it's too crazy to suggesting kicking up from 80 to, say, 200 to get things closer to a good equilibrium.
The "cube root law" is not a "law" at all of course, but more of a naturally-occurring balance that nations and sub-nations seem to strike between having small enough districts on the one hand, and manageable enough legislatures on the other. I think I'd advocate something like a phased-in increase over a few decades to get us up to around 600.