As the US campaign revs up, mathematicians debate how states should be represented.
With 53 seats in the US House of Representatives, California has long dominated congressional and electoral politics. Now mathematician Paul Edelman says that a much-needed rehaul of the way these seats are assigned would knock them down three notches.
Edelman, who is also a law professor at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee, is proposing a different method for apportionment, the process that divvies up the 435 congressional representatives based on state populations. He claims his method is fairer than the existing one because it comes closest to the "one person, one vote" ideal set forth by the US Supreme Court. The current method "takes no account of what the law has to say", argues Edelman, who outlined his method in a talk on 6 January at the Joint Mathematics Meetings in San Diego, California.
There's more in the full article.
This issue stems from the method we now use to assign House seats.
"Each state receives representation in the House proportional to its population but is entitled to at least one Representative." (Wikipeada)
Edelman's suggestion has some merit. But note it is a small change. We also need to remember that the House was constructed by our Founding Fathers to represent "the people." Therefore more populous states will have more Representatives.
It is in the Senate that each state has equal power, 2 Senators = 2 votes.
This is why, except for Constitutional Amendments, you need both houses of congress to pass any law. The House = the people's will, the Senate = the will of the individual State.
At least that is the ideal, but thanks to money, lobbyists, etc. ..................
No comments:
Post a Comment