Apportionment

 

You're The Man 

If you've got the master plan
I got the vote for you, hey, hey
Got the vote for you, 'cause you're the man. 

You don’t have a vote in Congress, your representative in Congress is your vote. 

The 4 million persons in the Census of 1790 were used to apportion, by state, the seats in the United States House of Representatives.  In 1790 there were 67 seats.  Even though the population of the United States in 2020 has just been released as 331 million persons, an increase of over 8200%, this does not mean that the number of seats in the House has also increased by 8200% to 5,544.  A  Congressional law fixed number of seats at 435 and an automatic process for apportioning those 435 seats,  but that number is NOT in the Constitution.  The Constitution only requires that each state has at least one representative. 

The apportionment was based not on voters but residents (including women and children who could not vote at that time).  The issue of including enslaved persons was contentious and the subject of much debate.  Should enslaved persons, be counted towards the apportionment, even though they also could not vote.  This was not a trivial issue.  The Constitution contains many provisions that prevented the tyranny of the majority; through checks, balances, super majorities, and compromises.  In 1790, the enslaved population represented 0% of the population in Massachusetts, but 38% of the population in Virginia.  Apportioning House seats based on including, or excluding, the enslaved population would create vastly different apportionments.  A 3/5 rule was a compromise such that “slave” states did not immediately receive the majority of House seats.  Unsurprisingly the apportionment of seats remained a contentious issue before, and after, the Civil War that abolished slavery, but the number of House seats was not capped at 435 until 1913, no apportionment was made after the 1920 census, and the formula used was codified and made automatic in 1941.

The current automatic process is not the only way to apportion House seats.  One proposal, the Wyoming rule, would apportion House seats based on the ratio of a state's population to the least populous state, currently Wyoming.  This would meet the requirement that each state have at least one representative, but this would give California, the most populous state, 69 seats rather than its current 53 seats. This would also increase the current size of the House from 435 seats to 573 seats. While this number might not be practical if all representatives were required to be physically present in the House Chamber, but given today’s remote meeting technology, this may not be a burden.

If the population increased by 8200% from 1790, increasing the number of seats in the House of Representatives by 855% does not sound so radical.  Not all voters can expect to vote in the House, but if the number of seats was increased from 435 to 573, the residents might expect that their vote could be reflected in “the man.”