if you want to remove an article from website contact us from top.

    in the united states house of representatives there are a fixed number of 435 seats divided among the states based upon each state’s relative population size. changes in the number of representatives, as shown on the map, affect politics at which of the following scales?

    James

    Guys, does anyone know the answer?

    get in the united states house of representatives there are a fixed number of 435 seats divided among the states based upon each state’s relative population size. changes in the number of representatives, as shown on the map, affect politics at which of the following scales? from EN Bilgi.

    Proportional Representation

    “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative…”— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 2, clause 3“Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.”— U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV, section 2The Constitution provides for proportional representation in the U.S. House of Representatives and the seats in the House are apportioned based on state population according to the constitutionally mandated Census. Representation based on population in the House was one of the most important components of the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787.OriginsThe American Revolution was, in part, a contest about the very definition of representation. In England, the House of Commons represented every British subject regardless of whether the subject could actually vote for its membership. In this sense, most people living in areas under British rule—including North America—were only “virtually represented” in Parliament. American colonists, who were used to controlling their local affairs in the directly-elected colonial legislatures, lacked a voice in Parliament and resented the British policies imposed on them. Thus, they rallied behind the now familiar motto: “No taxation without representation!” After the war, the founders struggled to design a system of government to better represent the inhabitants of the new country than did the British model which once governed them. The Articles of Confederation created the first national congress to represent the interests of the states: each state would appoint between two and seven delegates to the congress, and each state delegation would have one vote.Constitutional FramingThe Constitutional Convention addressed multiple concerns in the process of designing the new Congress. The first was the relationship of the least populous states to the most populous. The battle between big and small states colored most of the Convention and nearly ended hopes of creating a national government. Pennsylvania Delegate Benjamin Franklin summed up the disagreement: “If a proportional representation takes place, the small States contend that their liberties will be in danger. If an equality of votes is to be put in its place, the large States say their money will be in danger. When a broad table is to be made, and the edges of planks do not fit the artist takes a little from both, and makes a good joint.” The “good joint” that emerged from weeks of stalemate was called the “Great Compromise” and created a bicameral legislature with a House, where membership was determined by state population, and a Senate, where each state had two seats regardless of population. The compromise enabled the Convention, teetering on the brink of dissolution, to continue.The Convention determined that a Census of the population conducted every 10 years would enable the House to adjust the distribution of its Membership on a regular basis. The method, however, proved controversial. Southern delegates argued that their slaves counted in the population, yielding them more Representatives. Northern delegates countered that slaves were property and should not be counted at all. The result was the notorious “Three-Fifths Compromise,” where slaves were counted as three-fifths of a free person. Having originated in tax policy, this rule was defended during the Convention as a necessary compromise given the “peculiar” state of slaves as both property and “moral” individuals subject to criminal law. Virginia’s James Madison wrote in Federalist 54 that the reasoning appeared “to be a little strained in some points” but “fully reconciles me to the scale of representation, which the Convention have established.”Representation was also linked to taxation. Before federal income taxes or tariffs, the states contributed to the national government with local taxes, often flat poll taxes on each citizen. Since constitutional framers had to provide for the funding of the new government, they debated the proper relationship between representation and taxation. Several delegates argued that geographic size or useable farmland were better measures of state wealth than mere population. Delegates, however, settled on proportional contributions based on population and, by extension, the number of Members in the House of Representatives. Large states, with more human capital, should contribute more revenue to the national government and also have more seats in the legislature as a result. This fulfilled the promise of the American Revolution: taxation with representation.14th AmendmentThe 14th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified after the Civil War, began to remedy the “original sin” of the Constitution, and ordered the Census to fully count every individual regardless of skin color. While it was a step in the right direction, it did little to ease the country’s racial tensions. Moreover, instead of directly providing for the enfranchisement of African Americans, the amendment stipulated that only males over the age of 21 could not be discriminated against when voting unless they had participated in rebellion against the Union or “other crime.” Women were not enfranchised until 1920, when the 19th Amendment stipulated that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged . . . on account of sex.” In 1971, the 26th Amendment enfranchised those 18 years of age and older. The latter amendments, however, did not alter congressional apportionment. Current PracticeCongress has capped the number of Representatives at 435 since the Apportionment Act of 1911 except for a temporary increase to 437 during the admission of Hawaii and Alaska as states in 1959. As a result, over the last century, congressional districts have more than tripled in size—from an average of roughly 212,000 inhabitants after the 1910 Census to about 710,000 inhabitants following the 2010 Census. Each state’s congressional delegation changes as a result of population shifts, with states either gaining or losing seats based on population. While the number of House Members for each state is determined according to a statistical formula in federal law, each state is then responsible for designing the shape of its districts so long as it accords with various provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which seeks to protect racial minorities’ voting and representation rights. For Further ReadingU.S. Census Bureau. U.S. Department of Commerce. “About Congressional Apportionment.” http://www.census.gov/population/apportionment/about/.Eagles, Charles W. Democracy Delayed: Congressional Reapportionment and Urban–Rural Conflict in the 1920s. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 2010.Farrand, Max, ed. The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. Rev. ed. 4 vols. (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1937).Madison, James, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay. The Federalist Papers. (New York: Penguin Books, 1987).Reid, John Phillip. The Concept of Representation in the Age of the American Revolution. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989).Rossiter, Clinton. 1787: The Grand Convention. (New York: Macmillan, 1966)(. Tate, Katherine. Black Faces in the Mirror: African Americans and Their Representatives in the U.S. Congress. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003).

    “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative…”
    — U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 2, clause 3

    “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.”
    — U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV, section 2

    The Constitution provides for proportional representation in the U.S. House of Representatives and the seats in the House are apportioned based on state population according to the constitutionally mandated Census. Representation based on population in the House was one of the most important components of the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787.

    Origins

    The American Revolution was, in part, a contest about the very definition of representation. In England, the House of Commons represented every British subject regardless of whether the subject could actually vote for its membership. In this sense, most people living in areas under British rule—including North America—were only “virtually represented” in Parliament. American colonists, who were used to controlling their local affairs in the directly-elected colonial legislatures, lacked a voice in Parliament and resented the British policies imposed on them. Thus, they rallied behind the now familiar motto: “No taxation without representation!”

    After the war, the founders struggled to design a system of government to better represent the inhabitants of the new country than did the British model which once governed them. The Articles of Confederation created the first national congress to represent the interests of the states: each state would appoint between two and seven delegates to the congress, and each state delegation would have one vote.

    Constitutional Framing

    14th Amendment to the Constitution

    14th Amendment

    The 14th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified after the Civil War, began to remedy the “original sin” of the Constitution, and ordered the Census to fully count every individual regardless of skin color. While it was a step in the right direction, it did little to ease the country’s racial tensions. Moreover, instead of directly providing for the enfranchisement of African Americans, the amendment stipulated that only males over the age of 21 could not be discriminated against when voting unless they had participated in rebellion against the Union or “other crime.” Women were not enfranchised until 1920, when the 19th Amendment stipulated that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged . . . on account of sex.” In 1971, the 26th Amendment enfranchised those 18 years of age and older. The latter amendments, however, did not alter congressional apportionment.

    Current Practice

    Congress has capped the number of Representatives at 435 since the Apportionment Act of 1911 except for a temporary increase to 437 during the admission of Hawaii and Alaska as states in 1959. As a result, over the last century, congressional districts have more than tripled in size—from an average of roughly 212,000 inhabitants after the 1910 Census to about 710,000 inhabitants following the 2010 Census. Each state’s congressional delegation changes as a result of population shifts, with states either gaining or losing seats based on population. While the number of House Members for each state is determined according to a statistical formula in federal law, each state is then responsible for designing the shape of its districts so long as it accords with various provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which seeks to protect racial minorities’ voting and representation rights.

    For Further Reading

    U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. Department of Commerce. “About Congressional Apportionment.” http://www.census.gov/population/apportionment/about/.

    Eagles, Charles W. Democracy Delayed: Congressional Reapportionment and Urban–Rural Conflict in the 1920s. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 2010.

    Farrand, Max, ed. The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. Rev. ed. 4 vols. (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1937).

    Madison, James, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay. The Federalist Papers. (New York: Penguin Books, 1987).

    Reid, John Phillip. The Concept of Representation in the Age of the American Revolution. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989).

    Rossiter, Clinton. 1787: The Grand Convention. (New York: Macmillan, 1966)(.

    Tate, Katherine. Black Faces in the Mirror: African Americans and Their Representatives in the U.S. Congress. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003).

    Proportional Representation

    Source : history.house.gov

    2020 Census: Apportionment of the U.S. House of Representatives

    2020 Census: Apportionment of the U.S. House of Representatives

    Apportionment is the process of dividing the 435 memberships, or seats, in the U.S. House of Representatives among the 50 states. At the conclusion of each decennial census, the results are used to calculate the number of House memberships to which each state is entitled. This map shows the changes to the number of Congressional seats for each state between apportionment based on the 2010 Census and apportionment based on the 2020 Census.

    Download or Print

    Related Maps

    Visualization | April 27, 2021

    2020 Census: 2020 Resident Population

    Visualization | April 27, 2021

    2020 Census: Percent Change in Resident Population: 2010 to 2020

    Related Information

    Table | April 26, 2021

    2020 Census Apportionment Results

    Congressional seats were apportioned among the 50 states based on the 2020 Census population counts. Apportionment results from 1790 to 2020 are also shown.

    Visualization | April 26, 2021

    Historical Apportionment Data Map (Interactive)

    This interactive tool enables users to view more than 10 decades of apportionment and population data.

    Table | April 26, 2021

    Historical Apportionment Data (1910-2020)

    Historical apportionment data for the nation and states.

    Congressional Apportionment

    Information about congressional apportionment for the current and past Decennial Censuses.

    Decennial Census of Population and Housing

    The U.S. census counts every resident in the United States. It is mandated by Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution and takes place every 10 years.

    Source and References

    2020 Decennial Census

    2020 Census: Apportionment of the U.S. House of Representatives

    Source : www.census.gov

    US population is growing, but House of Representatives is stuck at 435

    The U.S. House of Representatives has one member for every 747,000 or so Americans – by far the highest population-to-representatives ratio of any developed democracy.

    The U.S. House of Representatives has one voting member for every 747,000 or so Americans. That’s by far the highest population-to-representative ratio among a peer group of industrialized democracies, and the highest it’s been in U.S. history. And with the size of the House capped by law and the country’s population continually growing, the representation ratio likely will only get bigger.

    In the century-plus since the number of House seats first reached its current total of 435 (excluding nonvoting delegates), the representation ratio has more than tripled – from one representative for every 209,447 people in 1910 to one for every 747,184 as of last year.

    That ratio, mind you, is for the nation as a whole. The ratios for individual states vary considerably, mainly because of the House’s fixed size and the Constitution’s requirement that each state, no matter its population, have at least one representative. Currently, Montana’s 1,050,493 people have just one House member; Rhode Island has slightly more people (1,059,639), but that’s enough to give it two representatives – one for every 529,820 Rhode Islanders.

    The U.S. findings in this post are based on Pew Research Center analyses of House membership changes since 1789 and historical population data (actual when available, estimated when not). They exclude territories, the District of Columbia and other U.S. possessions that don’t have voting representation in the House. The analysis was complicated somewhat by the fact that new states often were admitted after a decennial census but before the apportionment law based on that census took effect (usually about three years afterward). In such cases, the new states were analyzed as if they had been states at the time of the census.

    How the House reached 435

    The first Congress (1789-91) had 65 House members, the number provided for in the Constitution until the first census could be held. Based on an estimated population for the 13 states of 3.7 million, there was one representative for every 57,169 people. (At the time, Kentucky was part of Virginia, Maine was part of Massachusetts, and Tennessee was part of North Carolina. Vermont governed itself as an independent republic, despite territorial claims by New York.)

    By the time the first apportionment bill took effect in March 1793, Vermont and Kentucky already had joined the Union; the 15 states had a total population of 3.89 million. Since the apportionment law provided for 105 House members, there was one representative for every 37,081 people. (According to the Constitution at the time, only three-fifths of the nation’s 694,280 slaves were counted for apportionment purposes; using that method, the ratio was approximately one representative for every 34,436.)

    For more than a century thereafter, as the U.S. population grew and new states were admitted, the House’s membership grew too (except for two short-lived contractions in the mid-1800s). The expansion generally was managed in such a way that, even as the representation ratio steadily rose, states seldom lost seats from one apportionment to the next.

    That process ran aground in the 1920s. The 1920 census revealed a “major and continuing shift” of the U.S. population from rural to urban areas; when the time came to reapportion the House, as a Census Bureau summary puts it, rural representatives “worked to derail the process, fearful of losing political power to the cities.” In fact, the House wasn’t reapportioned until after the 1930 census; the 1929 law authorizing that census also capped the size of the House at 435. And there it has remained, except for a brief period from 1959 to 1963 when the chamber temporarily added two members to represent the newly admitted states of Alaska and Hawaii.

    There have been occasional proposals to add more seats to the House to reflect population growth. One is the so-called “Wyoming Rule,” which would make the population of the smallest state (currently Wyoming) the basis for the representation ratio. Depending on which variant of that rule were adopted, the House would have had 545 to 547 members following the 2010 census.

    However, a recent Pew Research Center survey found limited public support for adding new House seats. Only 28% of Americans said the House should be expanded, versus 51% who said it should remain at 435 members. When historical context was added to the question, support for expansion rose a bit, to 34%, with the additional support coming mainly from Democrats.

    How the U.S. compares globally

    The House’s hefty representation ratio makes the United States an outlier among its peers. Our research finds that the U.S. ratio is the highest among the 35 nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, most of them highly developed, democratic states.

    We took the most recent population estimate for each OECD nation and divided it by the current number of seats in the lower chamber of each national legislature (or, in the case of unicameral bodies, the single chamber). After the U.S., the two countries with the highest representation ratios are Japan (one lawmaker for every 272,108 Japanese) and Mexico (one for every 247,965 Mexicans). Iceland had the lowest ratio: one member of the Althing for every 5,500 or so Icelanders.

    While much of the cross-national disparity in representation ratios can be explained by the big population of the U.S. (with more than 325 million people it’s the largest country in the OECD), that’s not the only reason. Eight OECD countries have larger lower chambers than the U.S. House, with Germany’s Bundestag topping the league table with 709 members. The British House of Commons has 650 MPs (Members of Parliament); Italy’s Chamber of Deputies has 630 lawmakers.

    Even if Congress decided to expand the size of the House, the large U.S. population puts some practical limits on how much the representation ratio could be lowered. If the House were to grow as large as the Bundestag, for instance, the ratio would fall only to one representative per 458,428 people. In order to reduce the ratio to where it was after the 1930 census, the House would need to have 1,156 members. (That would still be smaller than China’s National People’s Congress, the largest national legislature in the world with 2,980 members.)

    US population is growing, but House of Representatives is stuck at 435

    Source : www.pewresearch.org

    Do you want to see answer or more ?
    James 1 year ago
    4

    Guys, does anyone know the answer?

    Click For Answer