Puerto Rico is voting on statehood referendum next month

Let them eat conch stew. Seriously. Originally Posted by kehaar

eat cheese cake instead!!!

yes, but that is not likely PR would get 4 or 5 in this current political climate. when PR enters the union, they will get 1 or 2 seats, like Alaska & Hawaii and other states before them did... Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

The "current political climate," such as it may exist at the time a new state enters the Union, is not what governs the number of House seats it would get. House apportionment law is.

Of course, congress could change the law at any time it wishes, although it seems extremely unlikely that it would do so absent some compelling reason. (Of course, it may be equally unlikely that P.R. will ever become a state. At least, I hope so!)

So, under existing law, P.R. would get at least 4 House seats (and possibly 5), assuming that its population would be somewhat more than 1% of the US as a whole.

4 (or maybe 5) other states would lose a seat. The losers would be states that just barely have enough population to qualify them for their present number of seats, and thus got their apportionment of districts "rounded" to the next higher integer at the time of the previous census.

The point I made earlier is that the net effect of all this would likely be a net +2, averaged out over time, for Democrats, who obviously would be expected to dominate elections in P.R. The states that lose a seat might result in a slight loss to either party, depending on the luck of the draw (and how redistricting shakes out over time).

...and with your proposed split of california, that is additional 2 house seats. making it 439. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

No, it isn't, at least under present law. Since the two split states would not have a greater population than CA had before, they would not be entitled to have a larger combined share of seats. Of course, they could easily end up with one more (or less) than CA now has, depending on how the rounding worked out.

That's how it would work, at least under current law.

The "current political climate," such as it may exist at the time a new state enters the Union, is not what governs the number of House seats it would get. House apportionment law is. Originally Posted by Ex-CEO

Yes, but I have looked at the numbers the state seats awarded. it has been congress, not the apportion law (it may play a role in it), that has awarded new states a set number of seats.

politics can & do play a factor in the number of seats awarded. congress can ignore the apportion law.

interestingly, there have been times where Congress reduced the number of seats in the House. they did this 3 times.

Yes, but I have looked at the numbers the state seats awarded. it has been congress, not the apportion law (it may play a role in it), that has awarded new states a set number of seats.

politics can & do play a factor in the number of seats awarded. congress can ignore the apportion law.

interestingly, there have been times where Congress reduced the number of seats in the House. they did this 3 times. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

After the apportionment law now in effect was passed, the only time congress allowed the number of Reps to diverge from the statutory 435 was during the aftermath of the admission of Alaska and Hawaii in 1959. And that was only temporary.

Both states were allowed one new Rep, which due to their very low populations would have been all they likely could have been allowed following a procedural apportionment, anyhow. Note that even today, there are several states that still only have one district. Alaska, for example. North and South Dakota as well, and also Wyoming. May be a couple of others, but I am way too lazy to look it up.

When it was about time for the new House to be seated in January of 1961, the committee tasked with collecting and certifying census results and performing the apportionment had not finished its work. It took a while for all the census results to come in and be duly certified. So congress delayed the new apportionment so that the number of House seats was not reduced back to 435 until the run-up to the 1962 midterms.

So the 1963-64 House had 435 members, whereas the one preceding it had 437.

Obviously, then, a couple of states (I don't remember which ones) lost a seat in the shuffle.

When it was about time for the new House to be seated in January of 1961, the committee tasked with collecting and certifying census results and performing the apportionment had not finished its work. It took a while for all the census results to come in and be duly certified. So congress delayed the new apportionment so that the number of House seats was not reduced back to 435 until the run-up to the 1962 midterms.

So the 1963-64 House had 435 members, whereas the one preceding it had 437.

Obviously, then, a couple of states (I don't remember which ones) lost a seat in the shuffle. Originally Posted by Ex-CEO

yes that is true. however, there was proposed legislation in the early 60's to keep it at 437. it apparently did not pass or make it out of the committee. I think it was the latter due to politics.

yes that is true. however, there was proposed legislation in the early 60's to keep it at 437. it apparently did not pass or make it out of the committee. I think it was the latter due to politics. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

As I recall, there just wasn't very much interest in the proposal or energy behind it, because not very many people really cared. Probably only the state delegations that lost a seat, and they didn't exactly have numbers on their side!

wikipedia has a good write up on this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United..._apportionment