Congressman represents how many people

Also referred to as a congressman or congresswoman, each representative is elected to a two-year term serving the people of a specific congressional district. Among other duties, representatives introduce bills and resolutions, offer amendments and serve on committees.

The number of representatives with full voting rights is , a number set by Public Law on August 8, , and in effect since The number of representatives per state is proportionate to population. Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution provides for both the minimum and maximum sizes for the House of Representatives.

A resident commissioner represents Puerto Rico. The delegates and resident commissioner possess the same powers as other members of the House, except that they may not vote when the House is meeting as the House of Representatives. To be elected, a representative must be at least 25 years old, a United States citizen for at least seven years and an inhabitant of the state he or she represents. Enter your ZIP code in the banner of this page to find the representative for your congressional district.

After extensive debate, the framers of the Constitution agreed to create the House with representation based on population and the Senate with equal representation.

This agreement was part of what is referred to as The Great Compromise. House leadership includes the speaker, majority and minority leaders, assistant leaders, whips and a party caucus or conference.

The speaker acts as leader of the House and combines several institutional and administrative roles. Majority and minority leaders represent their respective parties on the House floor. Whips assist leadership in managing their party's legislative program on the House floor. A party caucus or conference is the name given to a meeting of or organization of all party members in the House.

During these meetings, party members discuss matters of concern. The majority party members and the minority party members meet in separate caucuses to select their leader. Third parties rarely have had enough members to elect their own leadership, and independents will generally join one of the larger party organizations to receive committee assignments. The absolute value 19 of the difference between these two numbers is 0.

Under the equal proportion method of assigning seats in , North Carolina actually received 13 seats and Rhode Island 2. With 13 seats, North Carolina received 1. The absolute value of the difference between these two numbers is 0. As this example shows, using the major fractions method produces a difference in the share of a Representative between the states that is smaller, in an absolute sense, than is the difference produced by the equal proportions method.

In addition, it can be argued that the major fractions minimization of absolute size differences among districts more closely reflects the "one person, one vote" principle established by the Supreme Court in its series of redistricting cases Baker v. Carr , U. Daggett , U. Although the "one person, one vote" rules have not been applied by the courts to apportioning seats among states, the method of major fractions can reduce the range between the smallest and largest district sizes more than the method of equal proportions—one of the measures that the courts have applied to within-state redistricting cases.

Although this range would have not changed in or , if the method of major fractions had been used in , the smallest average district size in the country would have been , one of Nevada's two districts.

With the method of equal proportions it was , one of Montana's two districts. In both cases the largest district was , South Dakota's single seat. It can be argued, because the equal proportions rounding points ascend as the number of seats increases, rather than staying at. It is possible to demonstrate this by using simulation techniques. The House has been reapportioned only 21 times since The equal proportions method has been used in five apportionments and the major fractions method in three.

Eight apportionments do not provide sufficient historical information to enable policy makers to generalize about the impact of using differing methods.

Computers, however, can enable reality to be simulated by using random numbers to test many different hypothetical situations. These techniques such as the "Monte Carlo" simulation method are a useful way to observe the behavior of systems when experience does not provide sufficient information to generalize about them.

Apportioning the House can be viewed as a system with four main variables: 1 the size of the House, 2 the population of the states, 22 3 the number of states, 23 and 4 the method of apportionment.

In order to further approximate reality, the state populations used in the apportionments were based on the Census Bureau's population projections available at that time.

Each method was tested by computing 1, apportionments and tabulating the results by state. There was no discernible pattern by size of state in the results of the major fractions apportionment.

The equal proportions exercise, however, showed that the smaller states were persistently advantaged. Another way of evaluating the impact of a possible change in apportionment methods is to determine the odds of an outcome being different than the one produced by the current method—equal proportions. If equal proportions favors small states at the expense of large states, would switching to major fractions, a method that appears not to be influenced by the size of a state, increase the odds of the large states gaining additional representation?

Based on the simulation model prepared for CRS, this appears to be true. The odds of any of the 23 largest states gaining an additional seat in any given apportionment range from a maximum of In summary, then, the method of major fractions minimizes the absolute differences in the share of a representative between congressional districts across states.

In addition, it appears that the method of major fractions does not favor large or small states over the long term. Support for the equal proportions formula primarily rests on the belief that minimizing the proportional differences among districts is more important than minimizing the absolute differences.

Laurence Schmeckebier, a proponent of the equal proportions method, wrote in Congressional Apportionment in , that. Mathematicians generally agree that the significant feature of a difference is its relation to the smaller number and not its absolute quantity.

Thus the increase of 50 horsepower in the output of two engines would not be of any significance if one engine already yielded 10, horsepower, but it would double the efficiency of a plant of only 50 horsepower. It has been shown Moreover, the method of equal proportions is the only one that uses relative differences, the methods of harmonic mean and major fraction being based on absolute differences.

In addition, the method of equal proportions gives the smallest relative difference for both average population per district and individual share in a representative. No other method takes account of both these factors.

Therefore the method of equal proportions gives the most equitable distribution of Representatives among the states.

An example using the North Carolina and Rhode Island populations illustrates the argument for proportional differences. The first step in making comparisons between the states is to standardize the figures in some fashion. One way of doing this is to express each state's representation in the House as a number of Representatives per million residents. If the major fractions method had been used, then 14 seats would have been assigned to North Carolina, and 1 would have been given to Rhode Island.

Under this scenario, North Carolina has 1. The absolute difference between these numbers is 0. When 13 seats are assigned to North Carolina and 2 are assigned to Rhode Island using equal proportions , North Carolina has 1. The absolute difference between these numbers is. Major fractions minimizes absolute differences, so in , if this method had been required by law, North Carolina and Rhode Island would have received 14 and 1 seats respectively because the absolute difference 0.

Equal proportions minimizes differences on a proportional basis, so it assigned 13 seats to North Carolina and 2 to Rhode Island because the proportional difference between a 13 and 2 allocation The proportional difference versus absolute difference argument could also be cast in terms of the goal of "one person, one vote," as noted above. The courts' use of absolute difference measures in state redistricting cases may not necessarily be appropriate when applied to the apportionment of seats among states.

The courts already recognize that the rules governing redistricting in state legislatures differ from those in congressional districting. If the "one person, one vote" standard were ever to be applied to apportionment of seats among states—a process that differs significantly from redistricting within states—proportional difference measures might be accepted as most appropriate.

If the choice between methods were judged to be a tossup with regard to which mathematical process is fairest, are there other representational goals that equal proportions meets that are, perhaps, appropriate to consider?

One such goal might be the desirability of avoiding large districts, if possible. After the apportionment of , five of the seven states with only one Representative Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming have relatively large land areas. Arguably, an apportionment method that would potentially reduce the number of very large with respect to area size districts would serve to increase representation in those states. Very large districts limit the opportunities of constituents to see their Representatives, may require more district based offices, and may require toll calls for telephone contact with the Representatives' district offices.

Switching from equal proportions to major fractions may increase the number of states represented by only one member of Congress, although it is impossible to predict this outcome with any certainty using Census Bureau projections for The table that follows contains the priority listing used in apportionment following the Census.

Table A-1 shows where each state ranked in the priority of seat assignments. The priority values listed beyond seat number show which states would have gained additional representations if the House size had been increased. Table A A similar, previous CRS report was authored by [author name scrubbed], who retired in While the current report is modified by the current author, Mr.

Huckabee's contribution, in a large part, remains. Of course, any errors that may appear are due solely to the current author. In part, this debate over the apportionment of power in the early years of this country came from the year experience with the unicameral congress provided for under the Articles of Confederation, which assigned one vote to each state delegation in Congress.

For a thorough discussion, see Charles A. A major controversy occurred even over the fixed, short-term apportionment of seats among the delegates at the Constitutional Convention. See Kromkowski, pp. Thomas Jefferson recommended discarding the fractions.

Daniel Webster and others argued that Jefferson's method was unconstitutional because it discriminated against small states. Webster argued that an additional Representative should be awarded to a state if the fractional entitlement was 0.

Congress subsequently used a "fixed ratio" method proposed by Rep. Samuel Vinton following the census of through , but this method led to the paradox that Alabama lost a seat even though the size of the House was increased in But the Supreme Court in rejected an appeal to get the amendment recognized, and so, despite apparently going through all the steps to become part of the Constitution in , it remains unratified.

After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

But the Capitol would probably need to invest in some folding chairs. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower through understanding. Financial contributions from our readers are a critical part of supporting our resource-intensive work and help us keep our journalism free for all.

Please consider making a contribution to Vox today to help us keep our work free for all. Cookie banner We use cookies and other tracking technologies to improve your browsing experience on our site, show personalized content and targeted ads, analyze site traffic, and understand where our audiences come from. By choosing I Accept , you consent to our use of cookies and other tracking technologies. The case for massively expanding the US House of Representatives, in one chart.

Reddit Pocket Flipboard Email. Each state sends two Senators to represent their state in the U. For example, smaller states like Vermont and Delaware have one representative while large states like California have 53 representatives. Currently, the Michigan Congressional Delegation is composed of 14 representatives in the House and two Senators in the U.

How many people do congressmen and senators represent? Members of the U. House of Representatives each represent a portion of their state known as a Congressional District, which averages , people. Senators however, represent the entire state. How do the House and Senate chambers differ? In the House of Representatives, the majority party holds significant power to draft chamber rules and schedule bills to reach the floor for debate and voting.

In most cases, House rules will limit debate so that important legislation can be passed during one legislative business day.

In the Senate however, the majority has the power to schedule when various bills come to the floor for voting but a single Senator can slow legislation from coming to the floor for a vote.