Wyoming Rule

The Wyoming Rule is a proposal to increase the size of the United States House of Representatives so that the standard representative-to-population ratio would be that of the smallest entitled unit, which is currently the State of Wyoming.[1] Under Article One of the United States Constitution, each state is guaranteed at least one representative. If the disparity between the population of the most and least populous states continues to grow, the disproportionality of the U.S. House of Representatives will continue to increase unless the body, which size has been fixed at 435 since 1929, except for a brief period from 1959 to 1963, is expanded.

A total of 569 seats would have been required to implement the Wyoming Rule based on the 2000 United States Census results.[2] However, the decade leading up to the 2010 United States Census saw Wyoming's population increase at a greater rate than that of the rest of the United States; as a result, the required House size to implement the Wyoming Rule was reduced to 547. Under the Wyoming Rule, California would gain the most seats with thirteen more members than it currently has. The wide disparity in population among the states combines with the cap on House membership to lessen the effective representation for people who live in more populated states. The most glaring example is Montana, which according to the 2010 Census had a population of 989,415 with one representative, compared to Rhode Island's 1,052,567 residents with two. This makes a Rhode Islander's vote worth 88% more than a vote from a Montanan.

While a larger House size will generally result in the smallest and largest districts being proportionally closer in size, this is not always the case. Therefore, in some cases, the Wyoming Rule may actually result in an increase in the ratio of the sizes of the largest and smallest districts. After the 1990 United States Census and with a House size of 435, the largest district (Montana's at-large congressional district) had 799,065 residents, 76.1654% larger than the smallest district (Wyoming's at-large congressional district) with 453,588 residents. The Wyoming Rule would have given a House size of 545 in 1990 if the former method of seat apportionment been used. With that size, the largest district (North Dakota's at-large congressional district) would have had 638,800 residents, 91.7835% larger than the smallest districts (Delaware's two districts), at approximately 333,084 residents each.

Legal and constitutional basis for the current House of Representatives size

The current size of the House was set by Reapportionment Act of 1929. This law would need to be repealed and replaced in order to change the number of congressional members, which would require a majority of both houses of Congress to approve it.

From a constitutional standpoint, the only restriction on House size is a limit of one representative per thirty thousand people. Therefore, the Wyoming Rule would be constitutional as long as the least populous state had a population of at least 30,000.

Under the 2010 U.S. Census

The chart set out below identifies the number of House members that would be given to the respective states if the Wyoming Rule were to be implemented using the population numbers from the 2010 United States Census.

South Dakota with its two seats and an average of 407,090 people per seat would have the most seats per capita. Alaska's lone seat (710,231 people per seat) would have the fewest seats per capita. This gives a ratio of 1 to 1.74465 between greatest and smallest number of persons per seat. By comparison, it would be 1 to 1.88000 for the current lone seat of Montana (989,415 per seat) and Rhode Island's two seats (526,284 per seat).

States just short of getting an extra vote in the House include Alaska, Hawaii, North Dakota and Maine, which all have more than 650,000 people per representative. At the other end of the scale, states like South Dakota, Delaware, Montana and New Mexico just manage to secure an extra seat in Congress, each having below 515,000 people per representative.

State	Seats (2010)	Seats (Wyoming Rule)	Pop. per seat	Seat change	Notes
Alabama	7	9	531,082	+2
Alaska	1	1	710,231	0	Highest population per seat.
Arizona	9	11	581,092	+2
Arkansas	4	5	583,184	+1
California	53	66	564,454	+13	Largest gain in seats.
Colorado	7	9	558,800	+2
Connecticut	5	6	595,683	+1
Delaware	1	2	448,967	+1	Smallest state to gain seats.
Florida	27	33	569,737	+6
Georgia	14	17	569,862	+3
Hawaii	2	2	680,151	0
Idaho	2	3	522,527	+1
Illinois	18	23	557,854	+5
Indiana	9	12	540,317	+3
Iowa	4	5	609,271	+1
Kansas	4	5	570,624	+1
Kentucky	6	8	542,421	+2
Louisiana	6	8	566,672	+2
Maine	2	2	664,181	0
Maryland	8	10	577,355	+2
Massachusetts	9	12	545,636	+3
Michigan	14	18	549,091	+4
Minnesota	8	9	589,325	+1
Mississippi	4	5	593,459	+1
Missouri	8	11	544,448	+3
Montana	1	2	494,708	+1
Nebraska	3	3	608,780	0
Nevada	4	5	540,110	+1
New Hampshire	2	2	658,235	0
New Jersey	12	16	549,493	+4
New Mexico	3	4	514,795	+1
New York	27	34	569,944	+7
North Carolina	13	17	560,911	+4
North Dakota	1	1	672,591	0
Ohio	16	20	576,825	+4
Oklahoma	5	7	535,907	+2
Oregon	5	7	547,296	+2
Pennsylvania	18	23	552,277	+5
Rhode Island	2	2	526,284	0
South Carolina	7	8	578,171	+1
South Dakota	1	2	407,090	+1	Lowest population per seat.
Tennessee	9	11	576,919	+2
Texas	36	45	558,790	+9
Utah	4	5	552,777	+1
Vermont	1	1	608,827	0
Virginia	11	14	571,501	+3
Washington	10	12	560,378	+2
West Virginia	3	3	617,665	0
Wisconsin	8	10	568,699	+2	Closest to average population-to-representative ratio.
Wyoming	1	1	563,626	0
Total	435	547		+112

Historical House sizes

The following table describes how the House of Representatives would have looked like historically, had the Wyoming Rule been adopted as part of the Reapportionment Act of 1929, instead of fixing the size at 435 representatives.

Census, Year	Size	AL	AK	AZ	AR	CA	CO	CT	DE	FL	GA		HI	ID	IL	IN	IA	KS	KY	LA	ME	MD		MA	MI	MN	MS	MO	MT	NE	NV	NH	NJ		NM	NY	NC	ND	OH	OK	OR	PA	RI	SC		SD	TN	TX	UT	VT	VA	WA	WV	WI	WY
15th, 1930	1,343	29	–	5	20	62	11	18	3	16	32		–	5	84	35	27	21	29	23	9	18		47	53	28	22	40	6	15	1	5	44		5	138	35	7	73	26	10	106	8	19		8	29	64	6	4	27	17	19	32	2
16th, 1940	1,188	26	–	5	18	63	10	16	2	17	28		–	5	72	31	23	16	26	21	8	17		39	48	25	20	34	5	12	1	4	38		5	122	32	6	63	21	10	90	6	17		6	26	58	5	3	24	16	17	29	2
17th, 1950	936	19	–	5	12	66	8	13	2	17	21		–	4	54	25	16	12	18	17	6	15		29	40	19	14	25	4	8	1	3	30		4	92	25	4	50	14	10	65	5	13		4	21	48	4	2	21	15	13	21	2
18th, 1960	790	14	1	6	8	69	8	11	2	22	17		3	3	44	21	12	10	13	14	4	14		23	35	15	10	19	3	6	1	3	27		4	74	20	3	43	10	8	50	4	11		3	16	42	4	2	18	13	8	17	2
19th, 1970	674	11	1	6	6	66	7	10	2	23	15		3	2	37	17	9	8	11	12	3	13		19	30	13	7	16	2	5	2	3	24		3	61	17	2	35	9	7	39	3	9		2	13	37	4	2	15	11	6	15	1
20th, 1980	562	10	1	7	6	59	7	8	2	24	14		2	2	28	14	7	6	9	10	3	10		14	23	10	6	12	2	4	2	2	18		3	44	15	2	27	8	7	30	2	8		2	11	35	4	1	13	10	5	12	1
21st, 1990	545	9	1	8	5	65	7	7	2	28	14		2	2	25	12	6	5	8	9	3	11		13	20	10	6	11	2	4	3	2	17		3	40	15	1	24	7	6	26	2	8		2	11	37	4	1	14	11	4	11	1
22nd, 2000	569	9	1	10	5	68	9	7	2	32	17		3	3	25	12	6	5	8	9	3	11		13	20	10	6	11	2	3	4	3	17		4	38	16	1	23	7	7	25	2	8		2	12	42	5	1	14	12	4	11	1
23rd, 2010	547	9	1	11	5	66	9	6	2	33	17		2	3	23	12	5	5	8	8	2	10		12	18	9	5	11	2	3	5	2	16		4	34	17	1	20	7	7	23	2	8		2	11	45	5	1	14	12	3	10	1
Census, Year	Size	AL	AK	AZ	AR	CA	CO	CT	DE	FL	GA		HI	ID	IL	IN	IA	KS	KY	LA	ME	MD		MA	MI	MN	MS	MO	MT	NE	NV	NH	NJ		NM	NY	NC	ND	OH	OK	OR	PA	RI	SC		SD	TN	TX	UT	VT	VA	WA	WV	WI	WY

The smallest state in each census since 1930 were:

• Nevada (censuses 1930–1950)
• Alaska (censuses 1960–1980)
• Wyoming (censuses 1990–2010)

Effect on the Electoral College

The Wyoming Rule would directly impact the United States Electoral College which elects the President of the United States since apportionment to that body is calculated as the sum of a state's Representatives and Senators. Under the Wyoming Rule, the Electoral College would currently consist of 650 Electors (547 Representatives plus 100 Senators plus three Electors for Washington, D.C.) and 326 electoral votes would be required to win the Presidency.

Under the 2010 census, neither state which allows individual Congressional districts to choose electors (Maine and Nebraska) would gain Representatives (and, by extension, Electors) under the Wyoming Rule. Thus, their current Congressional district boundaries would remain valid for the purposes of comparing actual and theoretical presidential election results since 2012. However, Maine (which implemented the Congressional district method in 1972) would have had one additional electoral vote until the 2008 election and Nebraska (which implemented the Congressional district method in 1996) would have had one additional electoral vote until the 2000 election, and for those elections would have been electing presidential electors using different congressional district boundaries.

Under the Twenty-third Amendment, the District of Columbia would remain effectively capped at three electors as is the case now. DC cannot have more electors than the least populous state per the Twenty-third Amendment, meaning it would not be granted an additional elector unless all states had at least two representatives and therefore four total electors.

Potential impact on the 2000 presidential election

As indicated in the table below, the Wyoming rule typically only carries a modest notional impact on historical presidential elections. In only two cases since 1932, these being 1960 and 1976, would the Wyoming rule have potentially caused a candidate to gain or lose more than a full percentage point in terms of electoral vote share. Both of these elections were special cases - 1960 due to the presence of unpledged electors in the South and 1976 due to the potential effect the Wyoming rule could have had in the notional Congressional districts of Maine.

The one presidential election for which the Wyoming Rule might have significantly impacted the result was the tightly-contested 2000 United States presidential election, assuming the disputed state of Florida had still been carried by George W. Bush. In this case, had Bush and Al Gore received all of the electoral votes in the states they won and had there been no faithless electors, they would have finished tied in the Electoral College with 324 electoral votes each, possibly forcing contingent elections in the United States Congress. However, it must be noted that both Maine and Nebraska at the time would have had one additional electoral vote each under the Wyoming rule, and thus both states would have had radically different Congressional district boundaries. In Nebraska, this would not likely have been a factor since Bush carried every county in the state, thus making it extremely unlikely an additional electoral vote there could have been won by Al Gore. However, in Maine, Bush carried 5 of the 16 counties including heavily populated Penobscot County as well as Piscataquis, Washington, Lincoln and Waldo counties. All of those counties are contiguous with one another. Bordering the counties Bush won are Hancock, Knox and Aroostook counties, all of which Bush lost by small margins. Had those eight counties comprised a congressional district in 2000, it would have been carried by Bush by 4,767 votes. Of course, there are countless ways Congressional districts can be legally drawn in a state including innumerable ways in which all three notional Maine districts would have been won by Gore. Moreover, district boundaries often do not follow county lines.

Following the actual 2000 elections, the Republicans controlled 27 state House delegations, the Democrats controlled 18, one was controlled by an independent who caucused with the Democrats and the remaining four were split. The Republicans therefore controlled one more state House delegation than needed to elect the President on a party-line vote in a contingent election under the Twelfth Amendment. However, four of those Republican delegations were single Representatives from states (Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire and South Dakota) that at the time would have elected two Representatives under the Wyoming Rule. Had only two of those House delegations split as a result, and the Republicans not gained control of any other delegations, the Republicans would have lacked control of enough state House delegations to elect Bush on a party-line vote. A much more radical shift would have been required to produce a House that could elect Gore on a party-line vote.

In any hypothetical contingency election, a House without one party controlling a minimum of 26 state delegations cannot elect a President under a strict party-line vote. In this situation, at least some Representatives would need to break ranks with their party for the House to elect a President. Under this sort of circumstance, since Gore won the popular vote in 2000 it is likely that Congressional delegations would have been under considerable pressure to respect the result of the popular vote in any contingency election, especially if the process became deadlocked.

Had the electoral vote for Vice President ended tied, the United States Senate would have elected the new Vice President. A party-line vote in that chamber would have resulted in a tie between Joe Lieberman and Dick Cheney. The Constitution is not clear as to whether the Vice President can vote to break a tie in that situation, meaning that Gore as Vice President would have potentially but not certainly had the opportunity to cast the deciding vote and elect his running mate Lieberman. Such a move (if permitted) would not only have allowed Lieberman to succeed Gore as the next Vice President, but would have resulted in the Democrats retaining control of the Senate. Had the House contingent election remained deadlocked on Inauguration Day, then under the provisions of the Twentieth Amendment the new Vice President (whether elected by the Electoral College or by the Senate) would have acted as President until the contingent election was resolved.

Electoral College results under the Wyoming Rule (since 1932)

The following table compares actual number of pledged presidential electors that have been elected since 1932 to the number who would have been elected under the Wyoming Rule, based on the apportionments given in the previous section's table. Any uncertainties and assumptions are noted for each election. Also, for the sake of simplicity and because faithless electors have never successfully changed the result of an election, and because the number of faithless electors under the Wyoming Rule cannot be known, faithless electors are ignored for the purposes of this table. The table only tabulates pledged electors and counts faithless electors as if they voted as pledged.

Elections won by the Democratic Party

Elections won by the Republican Party

‡ indicates winner lost the popular vote

	Actual Pledged Electors										Notional Pledged Electors under the Wyoming Rule
Year	Democratic		Republican		Others		Total		Needed to Win		Democratic		Republican		Others		Total		Needed to Win		Notes
1932	472	88.89%	59	11.11%	0	0.00%	531	100.00%	266	50.09%	1282	89.09%	157	10.91%	0	0.00%	1439	100.00%	720	50.03%
1936	523	98.49%	8	1.51%	0	0.00%	531	100.00%	266	50.09%	1422	98.82%	17	1.18%	0	0.00%	1439	100.00%	720	50.03%
1940	449	84.56%	82	15.44%	0	0.00%	531	100.00%	266	50.09%	1229	85.41%	210	14.59%	0	0.00%	1439	100.00%	720	50.03%
1944	432	81.36%	99	18.64%	0	0.00%	531	100.00%	266	50.09%	1051	81.85%	233	18.15%	0	0.00%	1284	100.00%	643	50.08%
1948	304	57.25%	189	35.59%	38	7.16%	531	100.00%	266	50.09%	731	56.93%	461	35.90%	92	7.17%	1284	100.00%	643	50.08%	[lower-alpha 1]
1952	89	16.76%	442	85.24%	0	0.00%	531	100.00%	266	50.09%	170	16.47%	862	83.53%	0	0.00%	1032	100.00%	517	50.10%
1956	74	13.94%	457	86.06%	0	0.00%	531	100.00%	266	50.09%	143	13.86%	889	86.14%	0	0.00%	1032	100.00%	517	50.10%	[lower-alpha 2]
1960	303	56.42%	220	40.97%	14	2.61%	537	100.00%	269	50.09%	600	57.69%	413	39.71%	27	2.60%	1040	100.00%	521	50.09%	[lower-alpha 3][lower-alpha 4][lower-alpha 5]
1964	486	90.33%	52	9.67%	0	0.00%	538	100.00%	270	50.19%	809	90.59%	84	9.41%	0	0.00%	893	100.00%	447	50.06%	[lower-alpha 6]
1968	191	35.50%	302	56.13%	45	8.36%	538	100.00%	270	50.19%	325	36.39%	495	55.43%	73	8.17%	893	100.00%	447	50.06%	[lower-alpha 7]
1972	17	3.16%	521	96.84%	0	0.0%	538	100.00%	270	50.19%	24	3.09%	753	96.91%	0	0.00%	777	100.00%	389	50.06%	[lower-alpha 8][lower-alpha 9]
1976	297	55.20%	241	44.80%	0	0.0%	538	100.00%	270	50.19%	435-437	55.98%-56.24%	340-342	43.76%-44.02%	0	0.00%	777	100.00%	389	50.06%	[lower-alpha 10][lower-alpha 11]
1980	49	9.11%	489	90.89%	0	0.0%	538	100.00%	270	50.19%	68-69	8.75%-8.88%	708-709	91.12%-91.25%	0	0.00%	777	100.00%	389	50.06%	[lower-alpha 12]
1984	13	2.42%	525	97.58%	0	0.0%	538	100.00%	270	50.19%	15	2.26%	650	97.74%	0	0.00%	665	100.00%	333	50.08%	[lower-alpha 13]
1988	112	20.82%	426	79.18%	0	0.0%	538	100.00%	270	50.19%	136	20.45%	529	79.55%	0	0.00%	665	100.00%	333	50.08%	[lower-alpha 14][lower-alpha 15]
1992	370	68.77%	168	31.23%	0	0.0%	538	100.00%	270	50.19%	448	69.14%	200	30.86%	0	0.00%	648	100.00%	325	50.15%	[lower-alpha 16]
1996	379	70.45%	159	29.55%	0	0.0%	538	100.00%	270	50.19%	459	70.83%	189	29.17%	0	0.00%	648	100.00%	325	50.15%	[lower-alpha 17][lower-alpha 18]
2000	267	49.63%	271	50.37%	0	0.0%	538	100.00%	270	50.19%	323-324	49.85%-50.00%	324-325	50.00%-50.15%	0	0.00%	648	100.00%	325	50.15%	‡[lower-alpha 19][lower-alpha 20]
2004	252	46.84%	286	53.16%	0	0.0%	538	100.00%	270	50.19%	319	46.47%	353	52.53%	0	0.00%	672	100.00%	337	50.15%	[lower-alpha 21][lower-alpha 22][lower-alpha 23]
2008	365	67.84%	173	32.16%	0	0.0%	538	100.00%	270	50.19%	458	68.15%	214	31.85%	0	0.00%	672	100.00%	337	50.15%	[lower-alpha 24]
2012	332	61.71%	206	38.29%	0	0.0%	538	100.00%	270	50.19%	402	61.85%	248	38.15%	0	0.00%	650	100.00%	326	50.15%	[lower-alpha 25]
2016	232	43.12%	306	56.88%	0	0.0%	538	100.00%	270	50.19%	280	43.08%	370	56.92%	0	0.00%	650	100.00%	326	50.15%	‡[lower-alpha 26][lower-alpha 27]

Notes

1. The electoral vote of a Tennessee faithless elector pledged to Harry Truman who cast his vote for Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond is counted for Truman in this table.
2. The electoral vote of an Alabama faithless elector pledged to Adlai Stevenson II who cast his vote for non-candidate Walter Burgwyn Jones is counted for Stevenson in this table.
3. Alaska and Hawaii participated for the first time in this election. For the purposes of this table, these states are reckoned to have the same number of notional electors in 1960 as they would have had in 1964, i.e. three for Alaska and five for Hawaii.
4. In 1960, Alabama cast its votes for eleven individual electors, of whom six were unpledged electors who voted for Harry F. Byrd and five were pledged to John F. Kennedy. For the purposes of this table, eleven of Alabama's 21 notional electors plus Mississippi's notional slate of 16 unpledged electors are allocated to Byrd, with the remaining ten notional Alabama electors allocated to Kennedy.
5. The electoral vote of an Oklahoma faithless elector pledged to Richard Nixon who cast his vote for Harry F. Byrd is counted for Nixon in this table.
6. The District of Columbia participated for the first time in this election. For the purposes of this table, the provisions of the Twenty-third Amendment effectively limiting the district to three electors are assumed to be in effect.
7. The electoral vote of an North Carolina faithless elector pledged to Richard Nixon who cast his vote for American Independent Party candidate George C. Wallace is counted for Nixon in this table.
8. Maine began awarding one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district in this election. Under the Wyoming Rule it would have had five electoral votes until 2008. Where this may have resulted in (a) congressional district(s) plausibly being carried by someone other than the statewide winner, it will be noted.
9. The electoral vote of an Virginia faithless elector pledged to Richard Nixon who cast his vote for Libertarian Party candidate John Hospers is counted for Nixon in this table.
10. Gerald Ford narrowly carried Maine and both of its congressional districts in 1976. If Maine had three congressional districts in this election, Jimmy Carter could plausibly have carried one or even two out of the three.
11. The electoral vote of an Washington faithless elector pledged to Gerald Ford who cast his vote for Republican nomination challenger Ronald Reagan is counted for Ford in this table.
12. Jimmy Carter won two adjacent Maine counties in 1980 that could have formed the majority of a plausible, notional Congressional district he could have carried.
13. Ronald Reagan won every county in Maine in 1984, so there is no plausible, notional Congressional district Walter Mondale could have carried.
14. George H.W. Bush won every county in Maine in 1988, so there is no plausible, notional Congressional district Michael Dukakis could have carried.
15. The electoral vote of a West Virginia faithless elector pledged to Michael Dukakis who cast his vote for Democratic vice presidential nominee Lloyd Bentsen is counted for Dukakis in this table.
16. While independent candidate Ross Perot carried three contiguous counties in Maine in 1992, they combined for only 8.09% of votes cast in the state. Because Perot did not carry any combination of contiguous Maine counties containing approximately one third of the state's population, for the purposes of this table he is reckoned to have not carried any of Maine's three notional congressional districts.
17. Bill Clinton won every county in Maine in 1996, so there is no plausible, notional Congressional district Bob Dole or Ross Perot could have carried.
18. Nebraska began awarding one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district in this election. Under the Wyoming Rule it would have had a fourth congressional district until 2000. While Bill Clinton carried three Nebraska counties in 1996, there is no plausible, notional Nebraska congressional district encompassing these counties he could have won.
19. The effect of the Wyoming Rule on the 2000 election is discussed in the preceding section.
20. The electoral vote of an District of Columbia faithless elector pledged to Al Gore who failed to cast her vote is counted for Gore in this table.
21. From this election to the present, the number of notional Nebraska congressional districts under the Wyoming Rule is the same as the actual number of districts (i.e. three) so the actual district boundaries are assumed to be in effect.
22. While George W. Bush carried two non-contiguous Maine counties in 2004, he did not carry any combination of contiguous counties that could form a plausible notional Congressional district, so for the purposes of this table John Kerry is regarded as having won all three notional Congressional districts.
23. The electoral vote of a Minnesota faithless elector pledged to John Kerry but cast for Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards is counted for Kerry in this table.
24. John McCain won only one county in Maine in 2008, so for the purposes of this table Barack Obama is regarded as having won all three notional Congressional districts.
25. From this election to the present, Maine has the same number of notional districts under the Wyoming rule as its actual number of districts (i.e. two) so for the purposes of this table the actual Congressional district boundaries are used.
26. Four electoral votes of Washington faithless electors pledged to Hillary Clinton but cast for other persons and one electoral vote of a Hawaii faithless electors pledged to Hillary Clinton but cast for someone else are counted for Clinton in this table.
27. Two electoral votes of Texas faithless electors pledged to Donald Trump but cast for other persons are counted for Trump in this table.

See also

• List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution
• List of U.S. states and territories by population
• Apportionment
• Simpson's paradox

References

1. Taylor, Steven L. (December 14, 2010). "Representation in the House: The Wyoming Rule". Outside the Beltway.
2. Shugart, Matthew Søberg (July 1, 2014). "Economix: Expand the US House". Fruits and Votes.