3 ms·

Should the region/counties that have a smaller population but different work forces or geographical makeup not have representation? Population alone cannot dict

• alistairSH 5y ago
  Why should empty land get a vote? Why should the majority of the populace be beholden to an even-dwindling minority?
  • throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    It's required for keeping the country intact. All the low population states would leave if they had no say at the federal level.
• scelerat 5y ago
  But that is how the House is explicitly defined in the US constitution: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers..." Part of the problem is that the number of Representatives in the house has been fixed at 435 since the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. There would be no "small/rural/unique regions aren't represented without drawing crazy district lines" argument if the number of people represented per US Rep were lower. And, as we see now, the lines of districts are simply not drawn according to regional peculiar needs. They are drawn by party affiliation, by the parties themselves. Which is insane.
• qqqwerty 5y ago
  That is what the Senate is for. A minority party should never get control of all three branches of government with only 46% of the popular vote. Control of one branch of government is sufficient to exert influence on the legislative process. In our current setup, the minority party has zero reason to appeal to the median voter. This results in increasing polarization as the two parties are no longer competing against each other for voters, but instead are trying to drive turnout.