> But the House hasn't reapportioned representation by population in a century.

The House reapportions by population after each census (10 years), with the exception of the notable failure after the 1920 Census.

The House hasn't increased total size since the reapportionment after the 1910 census, which is probably what you are thinking of.

> The House hasn't increased total size since the reapportionment after the 1910 census, which is probably what you are thinking of.

Doesn't this effectively make it impossible to correctly reapportion by population though, because without a change in size a number of low population states "should" have < 1 member?

No, they are performing the task as outlined by the constitution, which is the “correct” method, and which the people are free to amend.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_Stat...

Ok, but that's heading into a circle though. The complaint I thought is that the "correct" method does not result in proportion by population, and some people think that would be better.

Many people often think that something different than an existing system would be better or more advantageous for themselves and advocate for it. Claiming rightness or correctness is an appeal to a moral sense of fair play for which their counter-parties are not likely imagine reciprocated once the change comes to fruition.

I’m surprised that given technology advances people don’t just cut out the expensive elected officials and put everything up to several national votes per day. If you think that the founders got the proportional balance wrong, what about the temporal balance? Why invest decision making power in one person over such long time frames?

> Doesn't this effectively make it impossible to correctly reapportion by population though, because without a change in size a number of low population states "should" have < 1 member?

You can define “correctly reapportion” in a way that this is true, but there is no reason to think that was the Constitutional intent.

Which isn't to say I don't think there is a policy problem, I just don't think you can reduce it to incorrect apportionment.

That is correct.

"But the House hasn't reapportioned representation by population in a century."

Not sure where you live, but since 1914 in Colorado:

1914 - four representatives

1973 - five representatives

1983 - six representatives

2003 - seven representatives

So clearly seats are added as population changes in a state.

See also: https://www.insightsassociation.org/article/states-expected-...

Yes, Colorado gained states, but some other states lost seats. The overall size of the House is unchanged in over a century.

I stand corrected. Feeling particularly silly as I’m from Colorado and probably should have known that.

No. 385 are redistributed, which still enforces unequal representation, as states with less population than some territories have more purchasing power in the House. For example, Wyoming get a rep for 500,000 people, but everyone else has to pay 700,000 people.

To truly remedy this situation in the House, you have to bring the House up to about 930.

https://time.com/5423623/house-representatives-number-seats/

Of course, if we went by the original law of 30,000 people per congressperson, we'd have over 10,000 representatives.

I'm not sure adding more reps would make the system work any better - part of me thinks it would be even more expensive and chaotic.