The last time the Democrats gained more than 8 seats in the House was 1982.

[TahitiNut]

In 1982, the Democrats gained 27 seats in the House, going from a majority of 242 seats to 269 seats in the first Reagan mid-term election. The 54-seat loss in 1994 was the biggest loss of seats, by either party, since the Republicans lost 75 seats in 1948

Here's a little chart for DUers to reference ...




And just for balance, here's the Senate ...




Note: The total number of seats in the House has been 435 since the 63rd Congress (1913-1915), with the exception of the 86th and 87th Congress (1959-1963) when it was 436 and 437 respectively. That's when the Constitution was amended to provide for a limit of 435 seats in the House of Representatives. The number of Senators became 100 (due to the admission of Hawaii and Alaska to the Union) in 1961.

[TahitiNut]

1. (sigh)

:shrug:

[dorktv]

2. I really think they need to remove that restriction. There simply needs

to be smaller districts.

[David Zephyr]

3. Thanks for the charts, TahitiNut

No wonder I've been pissed off for so long.

[Solon]

4. The note at the bottom of your post is factually incorrect...

there is no Constitutional Amendment that concerns how many Representatives are allowed in the House. That number was set in the 1910s through legislative action. Technically, it could be considered unconstitutional.

[TahitiNut]

5. Yep. Screwed the pooch on that one. It's Public Law 62-5

Public Law 62-5, passed by the United States Congress on August 8, 1911, set the number of members of the United States House of Representatives at 435 effective with the 63rd Congress in 1913. It also included a provision for the addition of one seat each for Arizona and New Mexico when they became states. The number of members increased temporarily to 437 when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted as states during the 87th Congress, but the 1960 census reduced the number to 435.

I agree it's gotta be unconstitutional - which is probably why I brain-farted on that.