Representatives are supposed to be close to the people. That's why they're elected every 2 years. That closeness is also the result of having rather small districts (compared to Senators). Turning the House into a collection of people who represent their entire state would fundamentally change the connection between the people and their representative. The House shouldn't be a 2 year Senate - it has a different role. Each person gets to vote for 1 person to represent them in the House. If we're going to change that, we need to think long and hard about it and understand the ramifications. E.g. greater representation by smaller parties is good, up to a point. We don't want to be at the mercy of fringe parties the way many parliamentary democracies are.

North Dakota has an "at large" representative in the House because each state must have at least 1 representative. So s/he represents the whole state, and each voter gets to choose 1 person. There's no problem there.

But if Utah has 3 representatives tied to districts, and 1 who is "at large", then Utah voters will effectively have 2 representatives in the House. That's fundamentally unfair as no other House voter in another state would have that.

A much fairer way to expand the House than Davis's plan is to say the new number is 437, DC gets 1 seat, and the other 436 are divided up after the 2010 census based on population (using the existing rules but making the divisor 436 rather than 435, and accounting for ND and any other state that must have 1 representative). That's also when DC gets its seat. Then there would be no new issues about redistricting Utah and at-large-ness, etc. (The decennial redistricting issues would be there, but it wouldn't be a new problem.)

If there's still a worry the 436th seat going to Utah and the Utah democrat being squeezed out, well, them's the breaks. It sounds like it's a potential problem whether or not DC gets a seat.

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.

The DC [link|http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/members.html|City Council] has 8 "wards" (districts) and in addition 4 "at large" seats and a separate Chair that is also elected "at large". AFAIK, the only Republicans and Independents on the Council have "at large" seats.

I understand it works like this: Substantial (political) minorities that are geographically dispersed have a chance for an at-large seat when they would have no chance in a compact district. As such, if a state only had at-large seats, then minority views still might be squeezed out.

In other words, they need to pander to a dispersed, strident minority. :-)

The [link|http://www.abfa.com/ogc/tit4.htm#401|DC Charter] has this to say about the Council's organization:

SEC. 401. [D.C. Code 1-221] (a) There is established a Council of the District of Columbia; and the members of the Council shall be elected by the registered qualified electors of the District.

(b) (1) The Council established under subsection (a) [of this section] shall consist of thirteen members elected on a partisan basis. The Chairman and four members shall be elected at large in the District, and eight members shall be elected one each from the eight election wards established[,] from time to time, under the District of Columbia Election Act [An Act To regulate the election of delegates representing the District of Columbia to national political conventions, and for other purposes, approved August 12, 1955 (69 Stat. 699; D.C. Code 1-1301 et seq.)]. The term of office of the members of the Council shall be four years, except as provided in paragraph (3) [of this subsection], and shall begin at noon on January 2 of the year following their election.

(2) In the case of the first election held for the office of member of the Council after the effective date of this title [January 2, 1975], not more than two of the at-large members (excluding the Chairman) shall be nominated by the same political party. Thereafter, a political party may nominate a number of candidates for the office of at-large member of the Council equal to one less than the total number of at-large members (excluding the Chairman) to be elected in such election.

Emphasis added.

Being a creature of the US Congress, the DC government is a special case. Most people wouldn't tolerate such restrictions on who they can vote for to represent them. But it has the advantage of prohibiting total control of the Council by one political party.

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.