The total seats / number of districts is capped and set for each state. It should be uncapped but that is besides the point
. The redistricting / gerymandering makes use of packing (putting as many X voting areas into a single district to give them less voting power by basically wasting their vote since their candidate wouldve won that distric anyways) and cracking (splitting X voting areas up into multiple districts which will be majority Y voting).
This means that with even numbers of X and Y voting people, they can be partitioned so that 9/10 districts for example are 55-45 for Y, and the remaining X voting people can be packed into the last district. The end result is Y winning 90% of the districts with only 50% of the overall support.
So each State can send as many reps to the House as they want?
I’m not sure how a larger population in a State translates into more Federal House seats for that State.
I assumed the whole number of seats allocated to each State in the House was set. But i’ve never really had reason to question that assumption.
The total seats / number of districts is capped
and set for each state. It should be uncapped but that is besides the point. The redistricting / gerymandering makes use of packing (putting as many X voting areas into a single district to give them less voting power by basically wasting their vote since their candidate wouldve won that distric anyways) and cracking (splitting X voting areas up into multiple districts which will be majority Y voting).
This means that with even numbers of X and Y voting people, they can be partitioned so that 9/10 districts for example are 55-45 for Y, and the remaining X voting people can be packed into the last district. The end result is Y winning 90% of the districts with only 50% of the overall support.
The number of reps is not set, but it is capped. The numbers are evaluated every ten years via the census survey.
Every ten years they adjust the number of house reps per state based on the state census survey.