Mickey cries for help

[Mickey]

Let me demonstrate just how much I need serious professional help:

 

The way congressional apportionment works, ie, the way they determine how many representatives each state gets and then how the states carve themselves up into districts, is not exactly the most fascinating issue. Because I am suffering from some as yet un-named psychosis, I found this interesting enough to take a look at the numbers just to see how it works.

 

What they do is take the the 435 seats and divide that into the population based on the census. That tells you how many people you have to have to equal one representative. The magic number from the 2000 census is 646,952. Divide each states population by that and the result is the number of representatives they get in the House. Every time a state gains or loses a seat or more, it has to then re-draw their congressional districts.

 

Ideally, each district would have the same number of people in it otherwise the influence of residents of one district is diluted and of others, exagerated. If Rhode Island had 2 Districts and one had two million people in it and the other had two, then those two million would be getting screwed while the two jokers in the other district are kingmakers. Obviously though, it just isn't possible to have perfectly even districts though that should be the goal.

 

Just to see how that might work out, I took a look at Arkansas and Conn. since they don't have a lot of districts which made it easier to do the math. What I wanted to see was the deviation in population between districts. At some point, if the deviation is too large, I would suspect that maybe whe state politicos that drew the map weren't really interested in equal apportionment but instead were seeking to dilute the strength of their opponents. This is different than gerrymandering which is to draw the map to make it easier for your people to win the district. The point would instead be to lump all the voters from the other party as much as you can into as few districts as you can. They would win those districts but, for example, would win only one or two rather than three or four.

 

In Arkansas the average deviation from the ideal was 31,467. In Conn. the average deviation was only 3,995. The ideal would be perfectly equal so that if you have 1,000,000 people and you have 4 districts, you draw them up so that there are 250,000 voters in each district. Conn. did a much better job with its 6 districts than Arkansas did with its 4. In Arkansas, more people had the influence of their vote diluted or exagerated than in Conn.

 

This has nothing to do with right vs. left and I am not implying that anyone is getting screwed here. I just thought it was interesting to see how state politicos could, for whatever purposes, draw up unbalanced districts. You would have to look at each state and compare the number to see what would be the normal variation and what might be so unbalanced compared to other states that it invites more scrutiny to see if there is any mischief afoot. I think it would be interesting to see which states have the least and most balanced districts in terms of simple numbers. Fortunately, my psychosis is not that advanced yet so I am still able to resist the temptation to figure that out for all 50 states.

 

Please send your donations to "The Mickey Fund", together, we can help me find a cure.

[erynthered]

Let me demonstrate just how much I need serious professional help:

 

The way congressional apportionment works, ie, the way they determine how many representatives each state gets and then how the states carve themselves up into districts, is not exactly the most fascinating issue.  Because I am suffering from some as yet un-named psychosis, I found this interesting enough to take a look at the numbers just to see how it works.

 

What they do is take the the 435 seats and divide that into the population based on the census.  That tells you how many people you have to have to equal one representative.  The magic number from the 2000 census is 646,952.  Divide each states population by that and the result is the number of representatives they get in the House.  Every time a state gains or loses a seat or more, it has to then re-draw their congressional districts.

 

Ideally, each district would have the same number of people in it otherwise the influence of residents of one district is diluted and of others, exagerated.  If Rhode Island had 2 Districts and one had two million people in it and the other had two, then those two million would be getting screwed while the two jokers in the other district are kingmakers.  Obviously though, it just isn't possible to have perfectly even districts though that should be the goal.

 

Just to see how that might work out, I took a look at Arkansas and Conn. since they don't have a lot of districts which made it easier to do the math.  What I wanted to see was the deviation in population between districts.  At some point, if the deviation is too large, I would suspect that maybe whe state politicos that drew the map weren't really interested in equal apportionment but instead were seeking to dilute the strength of their opponents.  This is different than gerrymandering which is to draw the map to make it easier for your people to win the district.  The point would instead be to lump all the voters from the other party as much as you can into as few districts as you can.  They would win those districts but, for example, would win only one or two rather than three or four.

 

In Arkansas the average deviation from the ideal was 31,467.  In Conn. the average deviation was only 3,995.  The ideal would be perfectly equal so that if you have 1,000,000 people and you have 4 districts, you draw them up so that there are 250,000 voters in each district.  Conn. did a much better job with its 6 districts than Arkansas did with its 4.  In Arkansas, more people had the influence of their vote diluted or exagerated than in Conn.

 

This has nothing to do with right vs. left and I am not implying that anyone is getting screwed here.  I just thought it was interesting to see how state politicos could, for whatever purposes, draw up unbalanced districts.  You would have to look at each state and compare the number to see what would be the normal variation and what might be so unbalanced compared to other states that it invites more scrutiny to see if there is any mischief afoot.  I think it would be interesting to see which states have the least and most balanced districts in terms of simple numbers.  Fortunately, my psychosis is not that advanced yet so I am still able to resist the temptation to figure that out for all 50 states.

 

Please send your donations to "The Mickey Fund", together, we can help me find a cure.

123247[/snapback]

 

 

 

You need another hobby Mick, try bowling!

[BillsNYC]

Is there a version with cliff notes?

[KD in CA]

Gerrymandering = RJ

 

In CT, we have a rectangular shaped state, broken into five little rectangular districts. It's not perfect, but it's pretty good.

 

Many state have these absurdly shaped districts, designed simply to guarantee one side or the other holds power, or that some specific ethnic group is assured the seat. So much for the 'We're all Americans' concept.

[Terry Tate]

In 1790, there were 3,929,214 people counted in the census. There were 65 reps to congress, or about 1 rep for every 60,449 people. The last census counted 281,421,906 people, for which 435 reps would be about 1 rep for every 646,946 people.

 

I think we should increase the size of Congress to the same representative levels, or about 4,655 representatives.

 

You'd have a much better chance of actually knowing your rep personally. All the reps would have much less power and influence. Building a consensus to get a bill passed into law would be incredibly difficult without overwhelming support.

[Alaska Darin]

In 1790, there were 3,929,214 people counted in the census. There were 65 reps to congress, or about 1 rep for every 60,449 people. The last census counted 281,421,906 people, for which 435 reps would be about 1 rep for every 646,946 people.

 

I think we should increase the size of Congress to the same representative levels, or about 4,655 representatives.

 

You'd have a much better chance of actually knowing your rep personally. All the reps would have much less power and influence. Building a consensus to get a bill passed into law would be incredibly difficult without overwhelming support.

123408[/snapback]

I can only imagine the expense of their benefit package then. Whew!

[Mickey]

In 1790, there were 3,929,214 people counted in the census. There were 65 reps to congress, or about 1 rep for every 60,449 people. The last census counted 281,421,906 people, for which 435 reps would be about 1 rep for every 646,946 people.

 

I think we should increase the size of Congress to the same representative levels, or about 4,655 representatives.

 

You'd have a much better chance of actually knowing your rep personally. All the reps would have much less power and influence. Building a consensus to get a bill passed into law would be incredibly difficult without overwhelming support.

123408[/snapback]

Yikes, think of the cash that would take. Don't they make 200k per? That is around 850,000,000 for salaries alone not including staff, benefits, pensions and so on and on and on.

[Terry Tate]

Yikes, think of the cash that would take.  Don't they make 200k per?  That is around 850,000,000 for salaries alone not including staff, benefits, pensions and so on and on and on.

123456[/snapback]

 

I'm thinking of the overall cost savings in that it would be near impossible to get pork-barrell spending items approved.

[VABills]

And in VA, my distrinct goes from about 30 miles south of DC and cuts a jagged stretch close to the potomac all the way to Norfolk/VA Beach area. Quite interesting, since it covers the ship building to rural VA, and everything in between.

[Kelly the Dog]

Silly, Mickey. Just call Tom Delay. Say you're a good republican and toss him a few bones and presto! - he and his boys will divide up the districts any way you want. How hard was that?

[/dev/null]

The magic number from the 2000 census is 646,952.

123247[/snapback]

 

my district is pretty close then, according to outgoing Representative Ed Shrock ( R ) - VA 2

 

Second District Total - 635,000 (approximately)

 

Accomack County - 38,700

Northampton County - 12,900

City of Hampton (pt) - 55,000 (approximately)

City of Norfolk (pt) - 101,600 (approximately)

City of Virginia Beach - 426,800

[Mickey]

my district is pretty close then, according to outgoing Representative Ed Shrock ( R ) - VA 2

 

Second District Total - 635,000 (approximately)

 

Accomack County - 38,700

Northampton County - 12,900

City of Hampton (pt) - 55,000 (approximately)

City of Norfolk (pt) - 101,600 (approximately)

City of Virginia Beach - 426,800

123620[/snapback]

There are 11 Congressional districts in Va. The smallest (in terms of people over 18 and therefore eligible to vote) is the Second with about 370K and the largest is the Tenth with about 570K. Va, according to the 2000 census, has 7,100,702 people. If you divide that by 646,952, you get about 10.9 which rounds to 11 so Va gets 11 seats. How they set up those 11 Districts is Virginia's decision within constitutional limits. There have been plenty of redistricting cases before the federal courts, it is a whole specialty pretty much.

[Rich in Ohio]

Is there a version with cliff notes? 

123260[/snapback]

 

Man who has that much time to read mickeys rants. Has he ever heard of readers digest versions....geeez

[Mickey]

Man who has that much time to read mickeys rants. Has he ever heard of readers digest versions....geeez

123679[/snapback]

Pearls before swine, my friend, pearls before swine.