More on US electoral reform

John George, my friend at Coro Verdi, was asking me about my scheme for reforming the House of Representatives.  Being the obsessive type, I checked the 2010 census results and figured out how the seats would be apportioned under my scheme.

The way I figured it, Washington DC, Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota and Alaska would each get one seat; South Dakota, Delaware, Montana and Rhode Island would get two; New Hampshire, Maine, Hawaii and Idaho three; Nebraska, West Virginia and New Mexico four.  Each of these states would have nothing but category A seats, as they do today.

Nevada, Utah, Kansas, Arkansas, Missisippi and Iowa would get six seats; Connecticut seven; Oklahoma and Oregon eight; Kentucky nine; Louisiana, South Carolina and Alabama ten.  These states would get two category B seats each and the rest would be A.

Colorado and Minnesota would get 11 seats; Wisconsin and Maryland 12; Missouri, Tennessee and Arizona 13; Indiana, Massachusetts and Washington 14.  These states would get three B seats each, the rest A.

New Jersey would get 18 seats, North Carolina and Georgia 20.  These states would get four B seats and one category C seat, the rest A.

Michigan/Ohio would get 21/24 seats each, including 15/16 A, 5 B and 1 C; Illinois and Pennsylvania would both get 27 seats, including 20 A, 6 B and 1 C; Florida/New York would get 40/41 seats, including 30/31 A, 8 B and 2 C; Texas would get 54 seats, including 40 A, 11 B and 3 C; California would get 79 seats, including 59 A, 15 B and 5 C.

Now consider the totals.  There'd be 540 A seats (83.1% of the total), 92 B (14.2%) and 18 C (2.8%).  Five-sixth of the seats would still be chosen in the old "first past the post" way, so the system would not be seriously destabilized.  But a greater range of the public would be represented, and gerrymandering would have a much smaller effect.