7 ms·
It is rather absurd how large California is compared to many other states. There should be a general process to split large states rather than doing this as a
by masterleep 10y ago
It is rather absurd how large California is compared to many other states. There should be a general process to split large states rather than doing this as a one-off though. For example, after the 10-year census, the largest state gets divided in half.
- CalChris 10y agoHow about instead merging North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming and Montana? 739,482 + 853,175 + 584,153 + 1.024M = 3,200,810 which is less than the population of LA but for some stupid reason has 8 Senators.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- masterleep 10y agoMerging states is impractical compared to splitting them, because state law is so different in each state. The split states can inherit their existing laws, but there is no simple way to reconcile laws in a merged state.
- humanrebar 10y agoJust brainstorming here, but have the citizens vote in a referendum on which state's laws to keep. And then they can further tweak from there.
- scottLobster 10y agoI get your point, but bad example. The Senate was never designed around population. In fact it's original purpose was to represent the incumbent state governments vs the house representing "the people". It wasn't until 1913 that Senators were popularly elected.
- CalChris 10y agoWyoming has a population of 584,153. California has a population of 38.8 million, 66 times more population. They both have 2 Senators. California also pays more than its share in Federal taxes and gets less in Federal spending. If you look at the Base Closure Commission list, CA lost 28. Mississippi isn't even on the list because they didn't lose any. Your originalist argument means nothing.
- scottLobster 10y agoYou're judging a system by standards it was never intended to meet and declaring victory. If you're going to argue that small states are over-represented, do it well. Plenty of examples of Gerrymandering as well as the electoral college itself. If you want to debate whether the Senate should exist or not, or whether it serves a purpose or not, or whether how senators are allocated should be changed or not, then fine. But that's a whole other thread. I'd also argue that the Senate serves the important purpose of preventing abuse-of-the-majority, a problem known as far back as Ancient Greek democracy and well-considered by the founders. Getting rid of the Senate or making Senator allocation population-based with no further structural modifications would simply turn us into the United City-states of America. Which is great... if you live in a city and aren't a regional political minority.
- CalChris 10y agoThe Senate is of Roman origin and definitely not Greek. The form of government it emulates is republican and not democratic. Et cetera.
- narrowrail 10y agoGiven your comments, I believe you should read some of the Federalist Papers. Specifically, #10, #39 and #45. The states were designed to be the democracies, but the federal governments was designed as a republic; this was very deliberate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._39 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._39 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._45 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._45
- pheldagryph 10y ago> but for some stupid reason has 8 Senators The constitution? The desire of rural Westerners to not be directly governed by urban voters in Northeastern or Southwestern megacities? The incrementalism of Manifest Destiny?
- toast0 10y agoIgnoring the massive issues in state governance that would result; if you're splitting the most populous in half, you should also join the smallest state to a neighbor. If the least populous state is Alaska or Hawaii, set it free from the union.
- masterleep 10y agoCompared to merging states, splitting them is quite practical.
- pheldagryph 10y ago> If the least populous state is Alaska or Hawaii, set it free from the union. Wyoming, followed by Vermont are the least populous states.
- toast0 10y agoSure, but after who knows how long, Alaska is going to come up. You have to make these rules suitable for forever, because they're hard to change.
- pheldagryph 10y agoThe current rules on statehood are suitable to Alaskans.
- chrismcb 10y agoWhen do you stop spring a state? When it is the size of a city? Or the size of a neighborhood? How will spring the state really change anything, on the federal level? It might make things better locally, as some of the local government gets closer to the people. But how will this makes things better for people outside of that state?