National Affairs: Warped Mirror

An error between 2.75% and 5.3% has existed in the House of Representatives since the census of 1920. At its best, the House is never a perfect mirror of the U. S. voters, but even this ascertainable error in the House would, in an average mirror, be enough to make wise men look stupid, proud men look fools, honest men look knaves. Most knavish of all look the members of the House who have prevented a reapportionment of popular representation in the U. S. since 1920.*

Should a reapportionment of seats be made on the basis of the 1920 census without increasing the House membership above its present, cumbersome 435, the following States would lose seats: Missouri, 2; Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Rhode Island, Vermont, Mississippi, Nebraska, one each. That is the 2.75% error. Should the estimated census of 1930 be used, 23 seats would be involved, or 5.3% of 435. Losses then would be: Missouri, 3; Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, two each; Alabama, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, one each.

How and why majorities against reapportionment are mustered by the Southern Democrats it is easy to see. Seats gained on the 1930 basis would be: California, 6; Michigan, 4; Ohio, 3; New Jersey, Texas, 2; Arizona, Connecticut,

Florida, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Washington, one each. In addition of course, these states would gain (and the others lose) a like number of votes in the electoral college, which chooses the President of the U. S.

Connecticut’s patient Fenn got his 1930-basis reapportionment bill out on the House floor last week and it was debated for three hours. But the same old thing happened. The measure was sent back to committee, i.e. smothered to death. The mirror stays warped.

* The constitution calls for reapportionment every ten years. The last reapportionment was made on the basis of the 1910 census.