3 ms·

It's funny that you mention Alaska, because they are the #1 overall state when it comes to Senate and Electoral College "voter power". As you said, they get the

It's funny that you mention Alaska, because they are the #1 overall state when it comes to Senate and Electoral College "voter power". As you said, they get the same Senate representation despite having a fraction of the population of NJ. In addition, each vote cast in Alaska counts far more towards the presidential election than a vote in NJ does.

hellojesus 4y ago
That's because the federal level is supposed to only deal with federal matters and be nonexistent elsewhere. Each state has the same weight in the senate because they are all equal players in that space. The house has the bias towards population. Most regulation is supposed to take place at the state level.
- joshstrange 4y ago
  > Each state has the same weight in the senate because they are all equal players in that space. Except they represent wildly different populations and all have equal say in the senate. > The house has the bias towards population. One that has been capped by the DC Admission Act and perverted by gerrymandering. > Most regulation is supposed to take place at the state level. Says who? How in the world does that work for things like pollution (which isn't stopped at state lines) or basic rights such as the right to love who you love and/or get married?
  - hellojesus 4y ago
    > Says who? How in the world does that work for things like pollution (which isn't stopped at state lines) or basic rights such as the right to love who you love and/or get married? Says the Constitution... 10th Ammendment: any power not explicitly enumerated to congress is left to the states. Article 1 Section 8 enumerates the powers that the federal government has, along with some granted through ammendments.
    - joshstrange 4y ago
      I'm aware that powers not left to congress falls back to the states, you specifically mentioned regulation and this is in a thread about the EPA. How is a state supposed to, on it's own, handle regulation against pollution from it's neighbors? How do they stop the state upstream? How do they they stop the state next door?
      - jaywalk 4y ago
        A state isn't supposed to do any of that on it's own. Congress is supposed to pass laws regarding those sorts of things, not just create an agency in the Executive branch and let it run wild.
        joshstrange 4y ago
        > Congress is supposed to pass laws regarding those sorts of things You honestly think it's a good system to have congress be the ones legislating on every new way companies come up with to pollute? > let it run wild. We have very different definitions of "running wild". All of this assume a functional congress which we absolutely don't have. I'm working with the cards dealt, you want to imagine some pie-in-the-sky idea of how congress should function. I agree it should function better but I don't see how letting companies pollute more is somehow a "win" and it certainly won't motivate the people in congress who don't even believe in climate change. All of this thinking seems to completely ignore that we need 60 senators to pass any legislation (due to the filibuster), a chamber of congress that is in no way representative of the people.
        jaywalk 4y ago
        > You honestly think it's a good system to have congress be the ones legislating on every new way companies come up with to pollute? Absolutely not, and nobody (including SCOTUS in their ruling) says that they have to. Congress can still delegate authority to agencies, but at a certain point the agencies are limited in what they can do unilaterally without specific legislation. > All of this assume a functional congress which we absolutely don't have. I'm working with the cards dealt, you want to imagine some pie-in-the-sky idea of how congress should function. I agree that Congress is entirely dysfunctional. But I think that this sort of unconstitutional power that they've been so happy to delegate to the Executive has absolutely played a role in getting us the dysfunctional Congress we have today. You can call it "pie-in-the-sky" but letting Congress continue to skate by without doing their jobs and letting Executive branch agencies unconstitutionally usurp the authorities of the other two branches is something I'm glad to see put to an end. We can hold Congress accountable. I can't say the same for nameless, faceless bureaucrats.
vonzeppelin 4y ago
This is mainly because Congress will not increase the size of the House of Representatives. If we were to give Wyoming a single representative and used that as the bar for how many citizens a representative should actually represent then California would have 82 members in the House instead of 53. California would be worth 84 points in the Electoral College while Wyoming would still only be worth 3.

hellojesus 4y ago

That's because the federal level is supposed to only deal with federal matters and be nonexistent elsewhere. Each state has the same weight in the senate because they are all equal players in that space. The house has the bias towards population. Most regulation is supposed to take place at the state level.

joshstrange 4y ago
> Each state has the same weight in the senate because they are all equal players in that space. Except they represent wildly different populations and all have equal say in the senate. > The house has the bias towards population. One that has been capped by the DC Admission Act and perverted by gerrymandering. > Most regulation is supposed to take place at the state level. Says who? How in the world does that work for things like pollution (which isn't stopped at state lines) or basic rights such as the right to love who you love and/or get married?
- hellojesus 4y ago
  > Says who? How in the world does that work for things like pollution (which isn't stopped at state lines) or basic rights such as the right to love who you love and/or get married? Says the Constitution... 10th Ammendment: any power not explicitly enumerated to congress is left to the states. Article 1 Section 8 enumerates the powers that the federal government has, along with some granted through ammendments.
  - joshstrange 4y ago
    I'm aware that powers not left to congress falls back to the states, you specifically mentioned regulation and this is in a thread about the EPA. How is a state supposed to, on it's own, handle regulation against pollution from it's neighbors? How do they stop the state upstream? How do they they stop the state next door?
    - jaywalk 4y ago
      A state isn't supposed to do any of that on it's own. Congress is supposed to pass laws regarding those sorts of things, not just create an agency in the Executive branch and let it run wild.
      - joshstrange 4y ago
        > Congress is supposed to pass laws regarding those sorts of things You honestly think it's a good system to have congress be the ones legislating on every new way companies come up with to pollute? > let it run wild. We have very different definitions of "running wild". All of this assume a functional congress which we absolutely don't have. I'm working with the cards dealt, you want to imagine some pie-in-the-sky idea of how congress should function. I agree it should function better but I don't see how letting companies pollute more is somehow a "win" and it certainly won't motivate the people in congress who don't even believe in climate change. All of this thinking seems to completely ignore that we need 60 senators to pass any legislation (due to the filibuster), a chamber of congress that is in no way representative of the people.
        jaywalk 4y ago
        > You honestly think it's a good system to have congress be the ones legislating on every new way companies come up with to pollute? Absolutely not, and nobody (including SCOTUS in their ruling) says that they have to. Congress can still delegate authority to agencies, but at a certain point the agencies are limited in what they can do unilaterally without specific legislation. > All of this assume a functional congress which we absolutely don't have. I'm working with the cards dealt, you want to imagine some pie-in-the-sky idea of how congress should function. I agree that Congress is entirely dysfunctional. But I think that this sort of unconstitutional power that they've been so happy to delegate to the Executive has absolutely played a role in getting us the dysfunctional Congress we have today. You can call it "pie-in-the-sky" but letting Congress continue to skate by without doing their jobs and letting Executive branch agencies unconstitutionally usurp the authorities of the other two branches is something I'm glad to see put to an end. We can hold Congress accountable. I can't say the same for nameless, faceless bureaucrats.

vonzeppelin 4y ago

This is mainly because Congress will not increase the size of the House of Representatives. If we were to give Wyoming a single representative and used that as the bar for how many citizens a representative should actually represent then California would have 82 members in the House instead of 53. California would be worth 84 points in the Electoral College while Wyoming would still only be worth 3.