Talk:United States congressional apportionment

message: Does anyone know if prisoners count towards the population of a state?
If so, does the original law, which included the phrase "including those bound to Service for a Term of Years", include prisoners with a life sentence as life sentences are not based on a term of years?
:That quote refers to indentured servants, not prisoners, who are counted. -Rrius (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Prisoners do count toward represented population.  "But when the right to vote ... is denied ... except for ... crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced ..." (14th Amendment)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:2200:9900:D0C4:E9CF:AC37:81DA (talk) 05:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prisoners 

message: Unless I'm misunderstanding something, Massachusetts is the wrong color in the map at the top of this article page. Before the redistricting that arose from the 2010 census, Massachusetts had ten U.S. Representatives. With the redistricting stemming from the 2010 census, Massachusetts has lost a House seat: it now has nine seats. The map shows "9" for Massachusetts, but has the state colored orange, which represents "no change". In fact, there was a change, from 2000 to 2010, from ten to nine. Map needs correction. — President Lethe (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massachusetts is the wrong color in the 2010 map 

message: The list states that Iowa's admission to the Union added 2 representatives and increased the total number correspondingly. However, the citation given () states that Iowa would only get a single representative. What is the basis for this claim? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 18:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The act of Aug 4, 1846 () amended the statute you cite (). See, , §3, in particular. --Foofighter20x (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks for the clarification, and for updating the article to reflect it! —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 22:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iowa's original representation 

message: After the 1850 Census, there were 234 Representatives, yet the act cited for that provided that the size of the House would be 233 Representatives (in section 24).  Where did the extra Representative come from?  Was there a later amendment to that act? XinaNicole (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a problem with collecting or tabulating the California census data (the number that did come in was interpreted as wildly low), so  allowed California to maintain the 2 representatives it had originally be allotted upon entry to the Union. However, it is not clear to me why the total remained at 234 (plus additions) after the next census. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 16:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: 1850

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on United States congressional apportionment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205020547/http://www.nationalatlas.gov/ to http://www.nationalatlas.gov/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080207101945/http://www.fairvote.org:80/action/commentary.htm to http://www.fairvote.org/action/commentary.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Were slaves counted as population? I expect that the slave states wanted the slaves to count for the apportionment. Smiley.toerist (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: For the not-so-simple answer to that simple question, see Three-Fifths Compromise. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks: I added this info to the article.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It was really already there, but I can see why you wanted an explicit statement. I just reworded what you wrote a little bit. I removed the second occurrence, because that was explicitly removed by the Fourteenth Amendment. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slaves 

message: I've just made this WP:BOLD edit to the table in this section. I'm not entirely happy with it but it seems an improvement. I'm inviting discussion here regarding that.
This grew out of a suggestion in Talk:United States Electoral College#Indicator of highest amount of electors from each state, and I have made a suggestion there which involves this the Past apportionments article section here. If there is discussion regarding that, please discuss it there. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Past apportionments" section 

message: Not sure I'm doing this right so feel free to correct it. In the Apportionment Methods section it states "The revised method was necessary in the context of the cap on the number of Representatives set in the Reapportionment Act of 1929."  This is not true - the prior (Webster) method would work with a fixed number of representatives.24.8.46.212 (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Past apportionments" section 

message: In the Computing Apportionment section of the census website they explain the formula of Equal Proportions Method as 
: A_{n} = \frac{P}{\sqrt{n(n-1)}} 
Not
: A_{n} = \frac{P}{\sqrt{n(n+1)}}  
how apportionment is calculated
Ospination (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The highest priority number formula is wrong 

message: Have there been any recent bills to repeal Permanent Apportionment and expand the House? 107.115.207.41 (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent legislation 

message: The chart at the top of the page House Seats by State 1789-2020 Census was discussed at https://junkcharts.typepad.com/junk_charts/2023/02/area-chart-is-not-the-solution.html. I'd be happy to make something similar to what is proposed as the better solution, but I need a source for the data. All I can find is https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/interactive/historical-apportionment-data-map.html, but that only goes back to 1910, not 1789. Vexations (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chart revision data for 1789–1910 

message: :
 
If we're going to indulge conjecture— Supposing that the pattern of the clause were continued, it would go 
: … not less than sixteen hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every hundred ninety thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to seventeen hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than seventeen hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every two hundred thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to eighteen hundred
bringing today's count to 1700 exactly (because that number is between 331449281/200000 and 331449281/190000).  —Tamfang (talk) 05:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  the lost first amendment