I found this looking for something else:

[ballotpedia.org]

Quote

The Senate is already minoritarian because of the overrepresentation of small and rural states in the body. For example, California, with 39 million people, gets two senators in Washington, the same as Wyoming, Vermont, and Alaska, each of which is home to fewer than a million people. And by 2040, given projected population growth, two-thirds of Americans will be represented by just 30 percent of the Senate.

When the founders of the Republic created the Constitution, the greatest disparity in Senate representation was one state having 13 times the population of the smallest population state (but still had equal representation in the Senate). Today that disparity has swollen to nearly 70 times the population (California compared to Wyoming). This egregious imbalance is - as projected above - going to get so large that 2/3 of the population could very well have less than 1/3 representation in the Senate.

---

e pluribus unum

North Dakota and South Dakota should unify!

---

Quote
mattkime
North Dakota and South Dakota should unify!

They already have in almost all respects.

---

Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.

Quote
Speedy

Quote
mattkime
North Dakota and South Dakota should unify!

They already have in almost all respects.

Except they have 4 senators.

Only 2 Representatives, tho. Those are apportioned per population, not acreage like Senators.

Quote
Speedy

Quote
mattkime
North Dakota and South Dakota should unify!

They already have in almost all respects.

Quote
Speedy

Quote
mattkime
North Dakota and South Dakota should unify!

They already have in almost all respects.

Except they still enjoy 4 senators.

I have two solutions for this problem... neither practical in the current political environment but perhaps something will change.

1) Combine Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and the Dakotas - it's the biggest skew that 1/10th the Senate represents less than 6 million people, 1/55th the national population - and that they are all from essentially the same region.

2) Double ALL representation EXCEPT Senators for states with populations below below 1 million. That is, California would now have 4 senators and 108 representatives; North Dakota would now have 2 senators and 2 representatives. Also, to reduce the utility of gerrymandering, the doubled representatives would all be elected statewide. So, in North Dakota, no change, except you'd be voting for 2 congressional representatives every 2 years. In California, you'd be voting for your district representative and 54 statewide representatives every year.

Hm... ok, maybe that needs some work.

---

g=

The constitution originally called for one representative for every 30,000 inhabitants.

If that still held true, the combined populations of Idaho, Montana, Wyoming the Dakotas (~5 million) would have 167 representatives. That would be roughly the same as Alabama.

California's population of 39 million would have 1,316 representatives. Under that formula it would equal the combined congressional representation of Connecticut, Utah, Iowa, Nevada, Arkansas, Mississippi, Kansas, New Mexico, Nebraska, Idaho, West Virginia, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Montana, Rhode Island, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming.

The states of California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, and Illinois represent more than half of the US population.

---

“No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong.” -- François de La Rochefoucauld

"Those who cannot accept the past are condemned to revise it." -- Geo. Mathias

Quote
Ombligo

The states of California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, and Illinois represent more than half of the US population.

So half of the U.S. population gets 10 senators (10%) and the other half of the population gets 90 senators (90%). How far down this road can we go before a lot more people start feeling like this is too undemocratic?


A thing I just remembered: More people live in Washington D.C. than live in Wyoming yet Wyoming gets two senators and D.C. has no official voting representation at all in the senate.

---

e pluribus unum

DC isn't a state, it's a federal district. It's SUPPOSED to be apolitical.

---

********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

[www.youtube.com]

Quote
Racer X
DC isn't a state, it's a federal district. It's SUPPOSED to be apolitical.

Lack of representation is noble, isn't it?

---

Quote
Ombligo
The constitution originally called for one representative for every 30,000 inhabitants.

If that still held true, the combined populations of Idaho, Montana, Wyoming the Dakotas (~5 million) would have 167 representatives. That would be roughly the same as Alabama.

California's population of 39 million would have 1,316 representatives. Under that formula it would equal the combined congressional representation of Connecticut, Utah, Iowa, Nevada, Arkansas, Mississippi, Kansas, New Mexico, Nebraska, Idaho, West Virginia, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Montana, Rhode Island, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming.

The states of California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, and Illinois represent more than half of the US population.

This is the way it should be. OK, for modern times, up the representative to population amount, but otherwise keep it representative of the people, as the founders intended. Right now it is a bastardized version of the Senate makeup. There is no way that the House, knowing the voting patterns of the population, should be anywhere close to having a Republican majority.

---

The arts are not luxuries but assets that give way more than they cost.
--Ronald Tucker on YouTube

A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it is not open.
--Frank Zappa

Quote
Racer X
DC isn't a state, it's a federal district. It's SUPPOSED to be apolitical.

Why does the 23rd Amendment give residents of D.C. votes for president (D.C. gets three electoral college votes) if it is supposed to be apolitical? Is voting for president not political but voting for representation in the House and Senate is political?

There are plans for making D.C. a state with the exception of federal buildings like the Capital and White House. It can be done and should be done. “No Taxation Without Representation" - Sam Adams.

---

e pluribus unum



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/14/2022 07:57AM by Ted King.

Quote
Racer X
DC isn't a state, it's a federal district. It's SUPPOSED to be apolitical.

Then don’t allow citizens to live there.

Quote
Ted King

Quote
Racer X
DC isn't a state, it's a federal district. It's SUPPOSED to be apolitical.

Why does the 23rd Amendment give residents of D.C. votes for president (D.C. gets three electoral college votes) if it is supposed to be apolitical? Is voting for president not political but voting for representation in the House and Senate is political?

There are plans for making D.C. a state with the exception of federal buildings like the Capital and White House. It can be done and should be done. “No Taxation Without Representation" - Sam Adams.

It kept D.C. quiet for a long time. One or two electors doesn’t mean a thing for presidential elections, and they knew that. But a Senator? Uh oh, serious.

Quote
deckeda

Quote
Racer X
DC isn't a state, it's a federal district. It's SUPPOSED to be apolitical.

Then don’t allow citizens to live there.

They chose to live on/in a swamp. Why? Why would you DO that?

I've been to D.C. 3 times, all for a week or longer. No way I'd live there.

---

********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

[www.youtube.com]

Quote
Racer X

Quote
deckeda

Quote
Racer X
DC isn't a state, it's a federal district. It's SUPPOSED to be apolitical.

Then don’t allow citizens to live there.

They chose to live on/in a swamp. Why? Why would you DO that?

I've been to D.C. 3 times, all for a week or longer. No way I'd live there.

No one want's to live on the surface of the sun, yet people still live in Phoenix.

No reason to deny them representation.