- A national representative should, in theory, represent more people than a state representative. If a state rep represents more people, then either the national reps need less reps or the state reps need more reps - Along that line, it shows just how big California is as a state and how much influence they can have on the country. You can argue that based on that alone, they should get more national representatives since they can have such an impact on our country. But at the same time, you can argue that California's immense size should be reason to limit their national reps so that the state can't be the deciding factor on most things - Also, at this point, which rep has the higher status/power/influence? The state rep or the national rep? Which one will people choose to run for? If state reps represent more people, they obviously hold more influence, but not necessarily more power and status as they don't really mean much outside of their state.
Just a few thoughts that came to mind.
yeah I suppose it is significant in some ways
I can't imagine doing legislative work on a state level in California compared to Arkansas. State Senators here represent about 75,000 people and they are much harder to get a hold of than State Representatives, who represent about 30,000 people. ---
He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.