1921/22 Congressional Apportionment Act

[Paragon]

Howdy all.

I am currently playing with an American-focused timeline of that old hobby horse, no US entry in World War I. A major immediate effect is that nativism and the dries are much less in ascendancy, and a compromise Congressional Apportionment Act eventually passes in 1922. I wasn't really able to find a thread here where this topic was discussed in depth, so I am curious to the thoughts you all may have.

I used a Webster method in line with the 1911 Act, with the following caveat - no state loses a representative. This seemed a reasonable compromise. I started with a goal of 450* to set the divisor, but ultimately ended up with 456 members. I think the results are interesting.
*As far as I can tell this was considered to be the maximum capacity. ITTL the House will quickly realize how cramped they are and build a new chambers. Thoughts on how and where would be appreciated.

State	Total Reps	Gain
Arizona	2	1
California	15	4
Connecticut	6	1
Illinois	28	1
Michigan	16	3
New Jersey	13	1
New Mexico	2	1
New York	44	1
Ohio	24	2
Pennsylvania	37	1
Texas	20	2
Washington	6	1

Regarding Arizona and New Mexico - they are right on the bubble under the Webster method with Arizona just on this side of staying at 1. I ultimately bumped them both up to 2 in fairness because of how much an outlier they were in representation (the only two with >300,000 per representative).

Michigan, California, and to a lesser extent Ohio and Texas, are the biggest gains reflecting ongoing economic booms.

States that most deserve to lose a representative (divisor >.6)
- Iowa (-.796)
- Kentucky (-.743)
- Maine (-.740)
- Missouri (-1.552)
- Nevada (-.671) - Obviously can't be turned back into a territory though.


How plausible is an apportionment act passing, barring US entry into WWI?
What are the potential ramifications on the 1924 elections?
Where and when would the House get a larger chambers?
This is obviously a political process - how would these apportionments shift depending on if the Democrats or Republicans are in power?

 

[dieg-ish]

Howdy all.

I am currently playing with an American-focused timeline of that old hobby horse, no US entry in World War I. A major immediate effect is that nativism and the dries are much less in ascendancy, and a compromise Congressional Apportionment Act eventually passes in 1922. I wasn't really able to find a thread here where this topic was discussed in depth, so I am curious to the thoughts you all may have.

I used a Webster method in line with the 1911 Act, with the following caveat - no state loses a representative. This seemed a reasonable compromise. I started with a goal of 450* to set the divisor, but ultimately ended up with 456 members. I think the results are interesting.
*As far as I can tell this was considered to be the maximum capacity. ITTL the House will quickly realize how cramped they are and build a new chambers. Thoughts on how and where would be appreciated.

State	Total Reps	Gain
Arizona	2	1
California	15	4
Connecticut	6	1
Illinois	28	1
Michigan	16	3
New Jersey	13	1
New Mexico	2	1
New York	44	1
Ohio	24	2
Pennsylvania	37	1
Texas	20	2
Washington	6	1

Regarding Arizona and New Mexico - they are right on the bubble under the Webster method with Arizona just on this side of staying at 1. I ultimately bumped them both up to 2 in fairness because of how much an outlier they were in representation (the only two with >300,000 per representative).

Michigan, California, and to a lesser extent Ohio and Texas, are the biggest gains reflecting ongoing economic booms.

States that most deserve to lose a representative (divisor >.6)
- Iowa (-.796)
- Kentucky (-.743)
- Maine (-.740)
- Missouri (-1.552)
- Nevada (-.671) - Obviously can't be turned back into a territory though.


How plausible is an apportionment act passing, barring US entry into WWI?
What are the potential ramifications on the 1924 elections?
Where and when would the House get a larger chambers?
This is obviously a political process - how would these apportionments shift depending on if the Democrats or Republicans are in power?

I did the same calculation a few months ago with a calculator that uses the Huntington-Hill method (which is the one used by Congress since 1929) and the result it gave me was 485 seats, which is two more seats than Congress planned to allocate IOTL (483). Perhaps you could try to get it to 483 using the Webster (or Saint-Lague) method and see if no state loses seats compared to 1911.

As for the effects, that depends on whether Congress had decided to keep increasing the size of the House. If ITTL they do, this is what I think that would have happened:
1. An even more diverse U.S. House of Representatives. That means that ITTL you would see even more women, ethnic minorities (specially African, Hispanic, Asian and Indian Americans), religious minorities (possibly more Jews, Muslims, Mormons, people who belong to lesser-known Christian denominations and more openly atheists or agnostics), sexual minorities (possibly even some trans and non-binary congressmen and women) and more interesting combinations (such as an Hispanic Jehova's Witness congressman or an Afro-Latina lesbian congresswoman).
2. Cheaper congressional races, which means that ITTL all those congressmen and women would be less dependent on interest groups. This has the side effect that ITTL there would be more money to spend in Senate races, which isn't good.
3. The true impact would only really be noticed in presidential elections with close results such as those of 1960, 1968, 1976, 2000, 2004 and 2016. In particular, the 2000 election would have changed because Gore would have won with the states he got IOTL, even without getting Florida or New Hampshire.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

What makes you think WW I was the reason no apportionment was made after 1920?

What I've read was that it was the shock of learning that for the first time, most Americans lived in cities. Though I've never understood why that would impact the apportionment of seats among the states.

 

[Paragon]

What makes you think WW I was the reason no apportionment was made after 1920?

What I've read was that it was the shock of learning that for the first time, most Americans lived in cities.

I agree that is the base factor - but that fear is tied to wets, "hyphenated Americans", and socialist / labor radicals. The dry movement is cited as a major factor in preventing apportionment - they feared shifting power to the wet cities would lead to the repeal Prohibition. Needless to say, without the war-time backlash against the Irish- and German-American communities, in addition to the dry-run of wartime prohibition, the Eighteenth Ammendment is not passed after the 1918 midterms. Likewise, without the war-time justification, the attacks on the IWW's and other socialists for sedition are hampered.

Likewise, the Democrats are in a different electoral position, and would want apportionment to fairly reflect their power base in the urban cores of the industrial north.

I think a combination of these factors would be enough to allow an apportionment act, though given the House is starting to bulge at capacity, I don't want it to be as aggressive as expansion to 483 as some sources indicate would be warranted based on the 1911 methodology.

Though I've never understood why that would impact the apportionment of seats among the states.

I agree with you that the impact is unclear. Looking at the 1911 Act, it arguably requires redistricting. Section 3: "That in each State entitled under this apportionment to more than one Representative, the Representatives to the Sixty-third and each subsequent Congress shall be elected by districts composed of a contiguous and compact territory, and containing as nearly as practicable an equal number of inhabitants." But, e.g. Tennessee did not redistrict form 1901 - 1962, which led to Baker v. Carr.