Forum:Federal States/Federal States Congress
What is this forum post about?
This is a continuation of the frequent talks in the discord server regarding the legislative body of the country, or the congress, which is composed of the upper house (Senate of the Federal States) and the lower house (General Assembly of the Federal States). This discussion aims to reach the number of seats for the lower house, the number of representatives on the upper house per state and deciding whether the politics of both chambers are going to revolve around a coalition led system or an individual party system (like the real life US). Other smaller topics that revolve around the same theme are also welcome such as regional (not acting in one single state) parties.
What have we settled with for now?
Right now the unofficial setup caps the lower house at 325, which was a randomly chosen number used to calculate seats in this spreadsheet, we are also using a coalition led system, with each stateowner choosing which party acts in their state. An example would be the F&D Party in Apawiland coalitioning with the Federalist Party in Mennowa and West Massodeya to enact laws on a compromise. This system would be akin to the ones in countries like Germany. The upper house hasn't been discussed, but it is set as 2 senators per state (the upper house is likely not going to be capped to prevent states having decimals in their senator number).
The results of this initial discussion was the creation of this map that exposes what we can achieve with making these topics cannon. (to be posted)
Jr000 (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
Discussion
Upper House (Senate)
Lower House (General Assembly/House of Representatives)
This topic is getting into the world-building weeds a bit, but I think it still has some import and some minor implications for the map. There are a couple outstanding issues that we face right now in trying to figure out any apportionment. First, we still have some states that are available and could impact any percentage-based apportionment. Second, there are still a few states where the population is questionable at best. Third, we always face the potential of changeover in the future.
As a result of all that, I would propose that we go with a rolling apportionment based on a fixed population per representative. While this does run the risk of people overinflating their populations, it allows us to keep things pretty constant and not have to realign everything every time a state properly corrects its population, becomes owned, or is withdrawn. Interestingly, we could pin things off of the smallest state. At the moment, Roguemont is the smallest at 250,000 residents. If that number were to become the fixed basis as the smallest state, we can either base representatives right off that threshold or use a simple multiplier. This gives the smallest state a touch of over-representation, but it gives us a meaningful baseline. If the Federal States were to have a total population of 235 million, we could have an approximate tally like this:
| No multiplier (250,000 per rep.) |
1.25 multiplier (312,000 per rep.) |
1.5 multiplier (375,000 per rep.) |
|---|---|---|
| 940 representatives | 752 representatives | 626 representatives |
Alternatively, we could peg it to a forumla-derived number that would have historically rolled higher over the years. We would not have to come up with the hard formula, as we could probably retcon it later. Importantly, this pulls it away from making it contingent on a state-owner's cooperation and occupation of that territory. Under this type of scenario, that number would not rise fast, as some states would not want lose too many representatives even if they lost percentage of power by being eclipsed in population. In a way, this system is aligned with the 1789 Congressional Apportionment Amendment that stalled out one state-vote short of ratification (and is still technically open). Given how close it was to becoming part of the Bill of Rights (Connecticut Senate did not approve but its House did), it is certainly within verisimilitude to use this type of a system.
| 300,000 per rep. | 350,000 per rep. | 400,000 per rep. | 450,000 per rep. |
|---|---|---|---|
| 783 representatives | 671 representatives | 588 representatives | 522 representatives |
At first glance, these numbers seem astronomical compared to the United States, but the country was on course for this until the Reapportionment Act of 1929 fixed the congressional cap at 435 instead of increasing it to 483 in the 1932 election. I think having 600–700 representatives is actually an interesting proposition, because it theoretically dilutes the ability of the Federal congress to operate at a deeply centralized capacity. President Madison talked about the risks and tradeoffs of Congress getting too large, and I think that our slightly-more decentralized FSA would align well with the inflated congressional numbers. If we had about 600 representatives, it amplifies the need for our coalitions to work and gives room for local ideologies and parties to be amplified. Something for us to consider. — Alessa (talk) 03:14, 16 August 2025 (UTC)