The State was compelled to enact a new redistricting plan that followed smaller population deviations of district size.

Although there is no precise correlation between district size and educational performance, some redrawing of district lines is long overdue.

To reach the minimum of 100 representatives, Congress would initially have had to keep the district size at 30,000 per representative.

For a population of 8 million, a district size of one per at least 50,000 yields at most 160 representatives, below the minimum of 200.

As the final clause only stipulates a minimum district size, it would thereafter have allowed for any number of representatives between 200 and the current population divided by 50,000.

At the approximate current U.S. population of 310,000,000, this would yield a House of Representatives with 200 to 6,200 members, depending on the district size.

With all the concern over district boundaries, there is no consensus on the ideal district size.

Other factors considered under the formula were cost of living, district size, enrollment growth and the amount of students learning to speak English.

Population changes eventually reduced the district size until it again covered just 21 counties in the eastern part of the state.

By dividing Pennsylvania's population by the number of House seats it was entitled to, the ideal district size in 1930 was 283,275.