Sean Trende: “First, a bigger House would diminish the impact of malapportionment that comes with single-member states. A certain amount of malapportionment is inherent in House redistricting, but as the number of single-member states grows, this effect becomes more and more pronounced. The largest single-member state, Montana, requires a representative to take on over 1 million constituents. On the other hand, the smallest state, Wyoming, only has 582,000 constituents.”
“Second, increasing the size of the House could diminish the impact of gerrymandering. While the commonly voiced concerns about the evils of gerrymandering are overstated, they aren’t entirely without basis. Moreover, the perception of impropriety is important, and there’s something inherently untoward surrounding legislators drawing districts that resemble Rorschach inkblots rather than compact units that draw together communities of interest.”


?Political Trivia
Eight moments in political history. Put them on a timeline.
Play →
Five senators. Three bills. Can you guess how they all voted?
Play →
Nine Justices. One case. How did they rule?
Play →
Do you have your finger on the pulse of America?
Play →
Four questions a day.
Play →
A new game every day.