The 435 limit on members of the House is an arbitrary restriction added in the early 1900s. Before that the House grew along with the population.
The total number of electoral votes is the number of House members plus the number of Senators plus 3 for DC. But if you divide the US population by 435 that's one seat per 756,000 people. The smallest states have populations lower than that, and therefore are over-represented.
But the bigger problem is the 2 electors that every single state gets because of the Senate. Wyoming has 0.176% of the US population but gets 0.5576% of the electors. Removing the Senate as a factor in determining the number of electors would drop them to 0.2283%.
well the house is proportional--there are no shenanigans there right
The 435 limit on members of the House is an arbitrary restriction added in the early 1900s. Before that the House grew along with the population.
The total number of electoral votes is the number of House members plus the number of Senators plus 3 for DC. But if you divide the US population by 435 that's one seat per 756,000 people. The smallest states have populations lower than that, and therefore are over-represented.
But the bigger problem is the 2 electors that every single state gets because of the Senate. Wyoming has 0.176% of the US population but gets 0.5576% of the electors. Removing the Senate as a factor in determining the number of electors would drop them to 0.2283%.
OK sorry, i misunderstood. this isn't the house -- this only looks at the EC
It’s not.