5 ms·

The current system is a check that prevents individual states from dominating legislation in Congress. Why would anyone want that except for the very populous

The current system is a check that prevents individual states from dominating legislation in Congress. Why would anyone want that except for the very populous states? The top 6 states (California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois & Pennsylvania effectively tied) have almost half the population and thus could dominate Congress without input from the other 44 states. The author comes from Pennsylvania, and so this article should be seen as nothing but self-serving. But a poll of equal number of citizens from each state would never approve such a measure.

TomVDB 8y ago
> The author comes from Pennsylvania, and so this article should be seen as nothing but self-serving. Of course it's self serving. But it's undeniable that the current situation isn't fair. One where the vote of a rancher in Wyoming with whom I have absolutely nothing in common politically has orders of magnitude more weight than mine. And the difference isn't only in the senate either. CA: population per senator: 19M WY: population per senator: 280k CA: population per electoral vote: 719k WY: population per electoral vote: 192k CA: population per house seat: 746k WY: population per house seat: 577k It's indeed true that the situation for senators is by design. One could weakly argue that the situation for the house isn't too bad. But how do you defend a 4x ratio for electoral votes? It seems to me that the only solution to mitigate this imbalance is to start dialing back the responsibilities of the federal government. (Which I'm not in favor of at all, but what other option is there?)
- masonic 8y ago
  CA: population per senator: 19M For 24 years, California had no change in Senators. Now, how many major pieces of legislation authored by either can your average Californian name?
- davidf18 8y ago
  > But it's undeniable that the current situation isn't fair But it is fair because the House does have the proportional representation by design. As I stated originally, nobody wants a situation where just a few states can dominate the entire federal government, otherwise the opinions of voters in all but the most populous states would have no voice whatsoever. If an individual desires a greater voice, they could move from California to Wyoming or another state where they will get a bigger voice in the senate. But people moving to California, Texas, Florida, New York, knew when they moved there that they would not get proportional representation in the senate, so they shouldn't complain.

TomVDB 8y ago

> The author comes from Pennsylvania, and so this article should be seen as nothing but self-serving. Of course it's self serving. But it's undeniable that the current situation isn't fair. One where the vote of a rancher in Wyoming with whom I have absolutely nothing in common politically has orders of magnitude more weight than mine. And the difference isn't only in the senate either. CA: population per senator: 19M WY: population per senator: 280k CA: population per electoral vote: 719k WY: population per electoral vote: 192k CA: population per house seat: 746k WY: population per house seat: 577k It's indeed true that the situation for senators is by design. One could weakly argue that the situation for the house isn't too bad. But how do you defend a 4x ratio for electoral votes? It seems to me that the only solution to mitigate this imbalance is to start dialing back the responsibilities of the federal government. (Which I'm not in favor of at all, but what other option is there?)

masonic 8y ago
CA: population per senator: 19M For 24 years, California had no change in Senators. Now, how many major pieces of legislation authored by either can your average Californian name?
davidf18 8y ago
> But it's undeniable that the current situation isn't fair But it is fair because the House does have the proportional representation by design. As I stated originally, nobody wants a situation where just a few states can dominate the entire federal government, otherwise the opinions of voters in all but the most populous states would have no voice whatsoever. If an individual desires a greater voice, they could move from California to Wyoming or another state where they will get a bigger voice in the senate. But people moving to California, Texas, Florida, New York, knew when they moved there that they would not get proportional representation in the senate, so they shouldn't complain.