People Per Representative
Population: Census 2008 divided by # of US Representatives
Categories:
| Rank | Region | Population: Census 2008 | ÷ | # of US Representatives | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Montana | 967,440.00 | ÷ | 1.00 | 967,440.00 |
| 2 | Utah | 2,736,424.00 | ÷ | 3.00 | 912,141.33 |
| 3 | Delaware | 873,092.00 | ÷ | 1.00 | 873,092.00 |
| 4 | Nevada | 2,600,167.00 | ÷ | 3.00 | 866,722.33 |
| 5 | Arizona | 6,500,180.00 | ÷ | 8.00 | 812,522.50 |
| 6 | South Dakota | 804,194.00 | ÷ | 1.00 | 804,194.00 |
| 7 | Idaho | 1,523,816.00 | ÷ | 2.00 | 761,908.00 |
| 8 | Texas | 24,326,974.00 | ÷ | 32.00 | 760,217.94 |
| 9 | Oregon | 3,790,060.00 | ÷ | 5.00 | 758,012.00 |
| 10 | South Carolina | 4,479,800.00 | ÷ | 6.00 | 746,633.33 |
| 11 | Georgia | 9,685,744.00 | ÷ | 13.00 | 745,057.23 |
| 12 | Mississippi | 2,938,618.00 | ÷ | 4.00 | 734,654.50 |
| 13 | Florida | 18,328,340.00 | ÷ | 25.00 | 733,133.60 |
| 14 | Oklahoma | 3,642,361.00 | ÷ | 5.00 | 728,472.20 |
| 15 | Washington | 6,549,224.00 | ÷ | 9.00 | 727,691.56 |
| 16 | Arkansas | 2,855,390.00 | ÷ | 4.00 | 713,847.50 |
| 17 | Kentucky | 4,269,245.00 | ÷ | 6.00 | 711,540.83 |
| 18 | North Carolina | 9,222,414.00 | ÷ | 13.00 | 709,416.46 |
| 19 | Indiana | 6,376,792.00 | ÷ | 9.00 | 708,532.44 |
| 20 | Virginia | 7,769,089.00 | ÷ | 11.00 | 706,280.82 |
| 21 | Colorado | 4,939,456.00 | ÷ | 7.00 | 705,636.57 |
| 22 | Maryland | 5,633,597.00 | ÷ | 8.00 | 704,199.63 |
| 23 | Wisconsin | 5,627,967.00 | ÷ | 8.00 | 703,495.88 |
| 24 | Kansas | 2,802,134.00 | ÷ | 4.00 | 700,533.50 |
| 25 | Connecticut | 3,501,252.00 | ÷ | 5.00 | 700,250.40 |
| 26 | California | 36,756,666.00 | ÷ | 53.00 | 693,522.00 |
| 27 | Tennessee | 6,214,888.00 | ÷ | 9.00 | 690,543.11 |
| 28 | Alaska | 686,293.00 | ÷ | 1.00 | 686,293.00 |
| 29 | Illinois | 12,901,563.00 | ÷ | 19.00 | 679,029.63 |
| 30 | New York | 19,490,297.00 | ÷ | 29.00 | 672,079.21 |
| 31 | New Jersey | 8,682,661.00 | ÷ | 13.00 | 667,897.00 |
| 32 | Michigan | 10,003,422.00 | ÷ | 15.00 | 666,894.80 |
| 33 | Alabama | 4,661,900.00 | ÷ | 7.00 | 665,985.71 |
| 34 | New Mexico | 1,984,356.00 | ÷ | 3.00 | 661,452.00 |
| 35 | Maine | 1,316,456.00 | ÷ | 2.00 | 658,228.00 |
| 36 | New Hampshire | 1,315,809.00 | ÷ | 2.00 | 657,904.50 |
| 37 | Missouri | 5,911,605.00 | ÷ | 9.00 | 656,845.00 |
| 38 | Pennsylvania | 12,448,279.00 | ÷ | 19.00 | 655,172.58 |
| 39 | Minnesota | 5,220,393.00 | ÷ | 8.00 | 652,549.13 |
| 40 | Massachusetts | 6,497,967.00 | ÷ | 10.00 | 649,796.70 |
| 41 | Hawaii | 1,288,198.00 | ÷ | 2.00 | 644,099.00 |
| 42 | North Dakota | 641,481.00 | ÷ | 1.00 | 641,481.00 |
| 43 | Ohio | 11,485,910.00 | ÷ | 18.00 | 638,106.11 |
| 44 | Louisiana | 4,410,796.00 | ÷ | 7.00 | 630,113.71 |
| 45 | Vermont | 621,270.00 | ÷ | 1.00 | 621,270.00 |
| 46 | West Virginia | 1,814,468.00 | ÷ | 3.00 | 604,822.67 |
| 47 | Iowa | 3,002,555.00 | ÷ | 5.00 | 600,511.00 |
| 48 | Nebraska | 1,783,432.00 | ÷ | 3.00 | 594,477.33 |
| 49 | Wyoming | 532,668.00 | ÷ | 1.00 | 532,668.00 |
| 50 | Rhode Island | 1,050,788.00 | ÷ | 2.00 | 525,394.00 |
Ready? 1,570 Mashups and counting!
Create a Mashup
Not registered? It's cool.
Register Here
Not enough data? Suggest some more!
Suggest a Data Set
Need something more statistically rigorous?
Analyze This!
Related Mashups
Federal spending by state (total)
divided by
# of US Representatives
sameerb
20 weeks 6 days ago
Number of births
divided by
Population: Census 2008
SamAllgood
22 weeks 5 days ago
State Energy Expenditures
divided by
Population: Census 2008
mark lessans
17 weeks 4 days ago
Refugee Arrivals 2008
divided by
Population: Census 2008
dwhite012
6 weeks 5 days ago
CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel Combustion - Metric Tons CO2
divided by
Population: Census 2008
chaff
16 weeks 3 days ago
- 1 of 29
- ››
Comments
The Constitution sys that there is supposed to be not more than one representative per 35,000 people. Here we see a clear example of just how far astray the country has been lead. Most states have fewer than 1 representative per 700,000 people. In short, the people are vastly less represented and far more distant from their representatives than intended by the Framers. Further, there is the presumption that each citizen is equally represented in congress -- which is clearly a fraud given that huge disparity in these numbers. The citizens of some states are vastly more represented than others.
How does this happen? Why are Americans not rioting in the streets? This makes a joke of American democracy.
Actually if you read the constitution it says "The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand" which means that having one per 700,000 is perfectly legal....
Maybe the people felt they couldn't afford over 8,500 representatives in Washington. I'm with you in decrying the fact that many people are vastly less represented that others, but not sure that it is astray from the framers intention ... not more than (not less than) one representative per 35,000
Also, I believe that representation is determined by the results of the decennial census--so you really need to compare # of reps to population in 2000, not 2008. Demographics can shift pretty substantially in 8 years. That may argue in favor of more frequent redistricting...
Interesting to compare with federal spending by population:
http://www.datamasher.org/mash-ups/federal-spending-population
At first glance, it appears Nevada, Utah and Florida get ripped off - being not only under-represented, but also underfunded, with a miniscule percentage of federal spending per person.
Wyoming seems to be sitting pretty, having the least people per representative, and the second-highest amount of federal money spent per person.
Baba
India is developing day by day and there are Indians in many countries of world. But this chat only shows of USA. There are 25% Indians in USA and are they counted here ?
Regards
People Search
Yes some country's are developing very fast and grown his economy
watch anime online
Pronounced is a significant difference in the size of the circles across the country. This is because the Orkut Scraps requirement of "strict equality of population for each Congress district" was not at the national level to the house, causing a serious breach of the one-person one-vote rule.
Being a citizen of Australia I know about my country there are more than 21 million people living in Australia.
They come from a wide range of funds:
* Indigenous peoples who have inhabited Australia for up to 60 000 years
* Descendants of the British established colonies on the Australian continent in 1700
* The Europeans and others who emigrated to Australia as the colonies grew, they formed a federation in 1901 and the new nation evolved
* The more recent immigrants from Asia, Africa and the Middle East.
payday loan
Me too agree ..In short, the people are vastly less represented and far more distant from their representatives than intended by the Framers. Further, there is the presumption that each citizen is equally represented in congress -- which is clearly a fraud given that huge disparity in these numbers.
30,000 persons per employee? How much is enough for the representatives? How many people you represent? Substitute represents how many people? A represeantive shows how many people? How many representatives per state in the Senate?
get pregnant
India is growing his economy rapidly but its population is also increasing which is not good for economy because India is already over populated.
drept procesual penal
Well my opinion is that, even if it is against the democracy, it really does not matter as they are really well off without having sufficient amount of representatives. But yes you are right, that should not be the case.
Document Management System | sell a business
Post new comment