2020 Census Apportionment Results (opens in new tab)

The state legislators of each state will redistrict based on the census numbers (having the same number of seats doesn't mean the district doesn't change). Then the primary / election process starts with candidates declaring their intention to run for one of those seats. It is possible that two sitting Representatives will run for the same seat due to redistricting.

This is where you are going to see the preferences of the majority party and what Representatives they like. A nationally popular Representative might have their district removed and absorbed into two or more adjoining districts. This is often done when the Representative is more trouble to the local party then useful.

In the states that lose a seat, it depends. Sometimes two current members will face off for the new district that most closely resembles their two prior districts. Sometimes one of the members will just decide to retire.

The states with changes in seats are responsible for the redistricting. What this means in practice is that in a state losing one seat, one district will disappear and the map gets redrawn. Then you'll typically have a primary or a general election where both candidates are incumbents. If both incumbents are in the same party, they'll face off in the primary for that party, if they're in different parties they'll face off in the general election. Alternatively, one incumbent may choose to retire.

Even at 435, unless your rep is a senior member with some important committee assignments and they happen to be in the majority party, getting the ear of your rep isn't worth all that much.

First, it puts the balance in the house in the hands of the campaign managers for president (or whichever "vote totals" you would prefer to go by) second, it entrenches the 2 party system as a de jure institution. Third, while districts are drawn very much arbitrarily (and in many cases against the interests of the people in them a la gerrymandering) people do have more in common with neighbors than simple party members from the other side of the country. A republican and a democrat in the 6th district have more in common than two republicans, one from Maine and one from Louisiana. Your proposal eliminates representation of community interests and elevates party interest above all else. It also severely damages the check the house can have on the president since whichever party wins the presidency also wins the house.

A better solution is this solution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Am... thankfully it has already been passed by congress and is awaiting state ratification. It would ensure that each representative represents the same number of people but it would still preserve community interest representation and probably strengthen it and make party interest an afterthought in the house.

I understand where you are coming from as the US is so homogenous now thanks to 250 years of interstate population movement that the delineations seem arbitrary and unfair, but they were very distinct separate regions once upon a time and looking forward the regions we hope to bring into our union are more different than the average American than similar so these same protections will be critical to the effort.

Then, the academic cases, wouldn't a body like that make it more likely to have other parties have a larger role in national politics?

I'd say since the house is supposed to be a democratic institution, the only one in the federal government, making individual members less powerful is a good thing. If the body is supposed to represent the population directly, the less powerful each individual is in the body the less oligarchic that body will be.

Changing the size of the House can be done through normal legislation after a Census.

The GOP has always been on board with this. Why I'll never understand. The only excuse you ever get is "Dems do it too!"

As if Democrats should just lay down arms and not participate in the practice and let the GOP gerrymander every state to oblivion out of principle or something.

In many European countries, families are given considerable support and incentives far beyond what American families receive, yet birthrates still continue to drop.

The fundamental problem in the USA is the broken healthcare and pension system, which allocates too many resources to baby boomers and unfairly burdens younger workers.

The pandemic itself impacted the ability to DO the survey, while also happening when certain areas experienced great movements of their populations.

Edit: also I would not balk at 500k deaths. There will be more to come as well. That is a significant portion of the voting age and likely voter populations.