> Are you proposing we merge these lesser states together and allow California to be the one state to have separations due primarily to population? You're igno

> Are you proposing we merge these lesser states together and allow California to be the one state to have separations due primarily to population? You're ignoring my overall point. The concept of "states" doesn't make sense in the way it did when the country was formed. The 13 colonies were actually separate states, with separate governments and economies that agreed to join together to form a single state/country. However, as you pointed out, the process of creating states became political. An example (as you showed) North/South Dakota were split for political reasons, to achieve a certain voting outcome. The criteria being used to separate them is a political one, not something based on separate economic structures, or separate governments, or some other notion of what a "state" is. This shows that the notion of a "state" has changed since the late 1700's. Some current "states" are the result of political calculations, where as the original 13 states were separate entities in some other sense. > Are you proposing we merge these lesser states together and allow California to be the one state to have separations due primarily to population? I'm saying the entire concept of a "Senate" with 2 reps for each "state" doesn't make sense today. It's an outdated concept from a different reality. The Senate does have other useful properties, of course, but the current division of states doesn't make sense.