That chart shows exactly why the Wyoming Rule sucks. Could be useful to add the result if the cube root rule applied.This is more of a proof of concept that could be used for alternate maps/timelines than an actual alternative history.
What if the Wyoming Rule-or in this case, the "Nevada" Rule-had been used to apportion representatives following the 1900 Census.
For those unfamiliar, the Wyoming Rule is a proposed way to change how the House of Representatives apportions its members, dividing the population of State X by the population of the smallest state and then rounding to determine State X's number of representatives. For example, New York's population in the 1900 census was 172x Nevada's 1900 population, so New York receives 172 representatives. The total number of representatives that this would result in after the 1900 census is 1,762. For comparison, if this were used after the 2010 census it would have resulted in a ~555-member House. I chose to make a map of the 1900 enumeration because it's the most extreme example of what could happen if the US switched to this system rather than the fixed number of 435 members it has now.
Remember: this is a map of numbers of representatives, NOT electoral votes.
View attachment 588465
And a respectable graph of how this would have affected the size of the House over time.
View attachment 588467
If anyone would like me to whip up maps of this using data from other census years or maps of representative numbers using other apportionment styles-such as the cube root rule or a fixed number like 500, 600, something like that-just ask, and I would be more than delighted to do so.