101–110 of 113 posts
Tangential, but instead of making DC into a new state, why not just absorb it into Maryland? Virginia already absorbed the part of DC rhombus west of the Potomac.
Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution: “The legislature, in cooperation with the properly constituted authority of any adjoining state, is empowered to change, alter, and redefine the state boundaries, such change, alteration and redefinition to become effective only upon approval of the Congress of the United States.” Essentially they’d need approval from WV, MD, and an act of Congress. Highly unlikely. This issu…
If WV and MD approve, why wouldn’t Congress?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is pretty common in a lot of blue states. It's been a thing in Illinois for years, and it's been getting louder for the last year and a half. The gist is the rural area's feel underrepresented compared to the metropolitan area's. So in Illinois case, the rural area's feel like the state puts more focus on Chicago.
Why shouldn't the state put more focus on Chicago? The rural areas are a net drain on state finances and are kept afloat by the "liberal hellhole" that they hate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I could see Congress going along with this in exchange for DC statehood. But, while we're talking about things that won't ever happen, we should also combine the Dakotas into one state. Lot of government administrative resources wasted for very few people actually living there. And we're paying for four senators, where two is way more than necessary to represent that population.
Population of California: 39,656,838* Population of North + South Dakota: 1,645,198* Persons per senator in California: 19,828,419 Persons per senator in the Dakotas: 411,300 Getting highly-overrepresented people to give up their overrepresentation is a hard ask. *latest US Census figures
Hence why senators are elected for 6 years, because states interests don't change that often and the house every 2, in order for the people to have as much influence as possible.
Same reason all tax bills have to start in the house, why senators weren't elected by popular vote.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Population of California: 39,656,838* Population of North + South Dakota: 1,645,198* Persons per senator in California: 19,828,419 Persons per senator in the Dakotas: 411,300 Getting highly-overrepresented people to give up their overrepresentation is a hard ask. *latest US Census figures
It's not over-representation, as the senate was never supposed to represent citizens, it was supposed to represent the states. At the time of the declaration of independence, there were some states much larger than others; Virginia had a population of ~747k, and Delaware was at ~59k.
Really, Senate representation is set up to uphold the status quo on slavery. It's supposed toaesre that the free states cant outlaw slavery, and so that slave states cant change the due date for when slavery would stop.
Today's representation carries that legacy, where new states are not allowed unless they preserve the status quo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Population of California: 39,656,838* Population of North + South Dakota: 1,645,198* Persons per senator in California: 19,828,419 Persons per senator in the Dakotas: 411,300 Getting highly-overrepresented people to give up their overrepresentation is a hard ask. *latest US Census figures
But that’s my design. Senators were never supposed to represent population proportionally. That’s what congressman are for, senators represent a state. If you want pure proportional representation then you need to dismiss senate, and change congressional election to nation wide proportional system. Afterwards you wouldn’t even need states anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Population of California: 39,656,838* Population of North + South Dakota: 1,645,198* Persons per senator in California: 19,828,419 Persons per senator in the Dakotas: 411,300 Getting highly-overrepresented people to give up their overrepresentation is a hard ask. *latest US Census figures
The house represents people, the senate the states. Hence why senators are elected for 6 years, because states interests don't change that often and the house every 2, in order for the people to have as much influence as possible. Same reason all tax bills have to start in the house, why senators weren't elected by popular vote.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the other party doesn't want people having representation at all. For the record, the popular vote percentages for the Democrats in the past 3 senate elections were: 53.0%, 58.2%, and 47.0%. That averages 52.7%, so gaining an extra two senate seats would still mean the Democrats were under-represented. (I know that the purpose of the senate is not to represent each citizen equally, I just thought it was worth poi…
The purpose of the senate is to make sure that low population regions have a voice, and that majority interests don’t trample minority interests. To say that one party doesn’t want people to be represented at all is a ridiculous straw-man.
If that's the point of the Senate, those states should be sharing 1 congressional seat amongst multiple states to match their population
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not over-representation, as the senate was never supposed to represent citizens, it was supposed to represent the states. At the time of the declaration of independence, there were some states much larger than others; Virginia had a population of ~747k, and Delaware was at ~59k.
That would make sense if senators were appointed by state governors and not by by elections. Really, Senate representation is set up to uphold the status quo on slavery. It's supposed toaesre that the free states cant outlaw slavery, and so that slave states cant change the due date for when slavery would stop. Today's representation carries that legacy, where new states are not allowed unless they preserve the statu…
Senate representation was one of many bulwarks against majoritarianism, which was one of the founders' principal concerns, for a variety of reasons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By these arguments nearly every sizable city in the country should be its own state. >DC doesn't want to be part of Maryland (they like being independent and feel that Maryland's concerns are not theirs) and Maryland doesn't want DC (they feel it would move the centre of gravity of the state even further towards the DC suburbs, making it worse for the further-flung parts of the state).
But people in those sizable cities can already vote for and are represented by a senator.