4 ms·

But, currently, it's just the opposite! Power is by definition "ripped away" from residents of urban areas (or any dense areas) due to the fixed population-inva

But, currently, it's just the opposite! Power is by definition "ripped away" from residents of urban areas (or any dense areas) due to the fixed population-invariant representation of each state in the U.S. Senate (and partly, electoral college). (E.g., North Dakota has the same representation in the Senate as California, despite an order of magnitude more Americans living in California than North Dakota. That is to say, a Californian has maybe 2% of the influence via the U.S. Senate as a North Dakotan.) Is this really fair to the large and growing proportion of Americans who live in denser areas? Some of them, like those in D.C., aren't even represented at all! > Using faceless macro-economics to justify ripping power away from suburban and rural communities is the exactly the type of liberalism that pissed off every person Trump is appealing to right now.

JoBrad 11y ago
But the House of Representatives balances that out...
- galdosdi 11y ago
  Not sure if you're joking so I assume you're not. The House of Representatives doesn't balance that out. The House gives _equal_ (approximately[1]) per-person representation to residents of high and low density states, while the Senate gives much more per-person representation to residents of low density states. To balance that out, you'd need a House that gave more per-person representation to residents of higher density states. [1]: Actually, the error on this is as much as 50% due to the huge size of congressional districts -- there are a small number of states with as few as half a million residents per congressional district or as many as one million per. But this is not consistently biased in one direction or another towards or against denser or larger states)