The following is a thought exercise. I sometimes do these exercises of the mind to see what the impact of changing numbers around would be.  This thought exercise started several years ago, after I noticed that it became more easily gerrymandered and less representative of the general population, after the state of Massachusetts reduced the number of seats in its state legislature on the excuse of saving money.  Their costs have since skyrocketed with the increase in taxes, spending & appointed committees, upon which possible competitors are placed out of incumbents path to re-election. 

So without anything further...on to the thought exercise.

Based on the estimated 2008 numbers, if nothing changes it is very likely that 6 states (Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, Texas, & Utah) will all pick up at least 1 seat in the House of Representatives after the 2010 Census.  It is also likely assuming the same conditions that 8 states (Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio & Pennsylvania) will lose at least 1 seat in the House of Representatives.  There are a number of states on the bubble with regards to gaining or losing seats and depending how severe the economy gets in certain states versus other states and how much of a dramatic effect it will have on redistricting.  California because of its size and the net outflow of legal residents is one such state sitting on the bubble, especially due to the severity of the damage our own legislature has done to our economy. Using just the 2008 numbers California is currently slated to keep its 53 seats at about 693,520 persons living in each district.  California, Michigan, South Carolina, & Rhode Island seem to be hurting the most from this economic downturn and each may be significantly affected by residents leaving for work in other states.

But let's suspend the effects of the economy and ask the following question; what if the number of seats in the House were increased?

Let's first ask what is the minimum number of seats that would be needed to be added to make it so no state would lose a seat in the House?  The answer is approximately 30, with 20 states picking up at least one seat, including New York & California, while the other 7 states that would otherwise lose seats maintain what they currently have.  Increase of 30 seats benefitting 27 states, including several large states.

What would the impact of upping the number of seats just 10 more to 40, giving us a total of 475 House seats?  25 states would benefit from picking up seats, with 5 not losing a seat.  Texas would pick up 6 seats, while California would pick up 5 & Florida picking up 4.  Arizona & Georgia would pick up 2 each, with the other 20 states gaining just 1 seat.  Increase of 40 seats benefiting 30 States.

How about upping the ante 50 more to 525 House seats, what would be the impact of this change? 37 states would benefit by picking up at least 1 seat, with Iowa not losing a seat.  California could gain 11 seats, Texas 10, Florida 7, New York 5, & Georgia 4.  Arizona, North Carolina, & Pennsylvania would all pick up 3, with the rest picking up 1 or 2 seats.  Increase of 90 seats benefiting 38 states.

Let's really blow the top and ask what if as James Madison had originally proposed that each state have at least 2 representatives and the population per district were as close as practicable.  What would be the number of representatives in the House if this were law? The answer is approximately 852 total representatives give or take depending on what happens in Wyoming over the next 2 years.  California would have around 103 members in its Congressional delegation with an average of 356,861 persons per district, followed by Texas at approximately 68 representatives with an average of 357,750 persons per district.  New York (55 at 354,369 per), Florida (51 at 359,379 per), and Pennsylvania (35 at 355,665 per), would round out the top 5.  Increase of 417 seats benefiting all 50 states.

Now all of this is great fantasy but how on earth could our nation afford such a change?  How could this thought experiment be handled logistically? 

There are two answers that could offer a hope to make this change work. 

Solution 1: Shut down Executive Branch committees & programs/Departments, consolidate & move remaining programs left to other buildings/Departments, and transfer that power, the office space and hearing room space to Congress.  Depending on how much Congress expands; junior members could meet by videoconferencing in an offsite chamber, traveling to the Capital area for committee hearings.  Also reduce the number of committees and subcommittees a member of the House can take on allowing them to focus attention on one or two area(s) of expertise.

Solution 2: Move Congress to a brand new complex with office space, conference room space, & library space more centrally located in the Great Plain/Midwest region.  First purchase the farm land at much less than it would take to do so in Washington, D.C. making sure that no flight path comes near the property and that the property is not part of a flood plain.  Build a much more secure Capital Building that can hold more representatives, along with an Executive Office Building, the gardens (for contemplation purposes) and libraries (for research purposes).  Build into the new buildings the latest in video conferencing technologies with the widest possible bandwidth. Next sell off land rights to nearby properties at inflated prices to hotel chains, and other developers. Once the Congress is moved, turn the Capital into a Museum ran by the Smithsonian, leaving the Supreme Court and most of the Executive Branch in Washington, D.C.  Of course the new lands and property would almost have to be privately funded and then gifted to the Federal Government and the Executive Branch would have to be downsized to some degree depending on the growth of the House.

With both plans the staffing formulas would probably not change much from current staffing formulas with most of the staff from the executive branch offices that would be shut down moving over to staff for members of Congress.  However, travel costs for many of the new members would be less and the train and airline corporations would likely benefit from higher ridership on a more diverse selection of domestic flights and commuter train routes.

So how could this impact LA County? With more seats, LA County would likely have more seats, with 1 or more new possible swing/Republican seats located in the San Fernando Valley, the South Bay &/or the Southeast regions of LA County depending on size of expansion.  Of course with redistricting numbers unchanged we may get that and more anyway as the left pushes for more swing districts thinking that the Republican Party is on its death bed, while kicking itself for not doing just that last time they had the power so that they could have picked up more seats in the 2006 & 2008 elections.

Thus this concludes this thought exercise.