Current Events > Wyoming had 266,000 voters California had 15.5 million voters

(+) Yeah! (+)

Each state has 2 Senators...

Here's the worst part:

We seem to share a boat with states like Montana and Wyoming. Theyre also unlikely to meet presidential candidates. But, one of the differences is that voters in those states have more clout than Massachusetts voters. We are close to the ideal of one person, one vote, with our 11 Electoral College votes, as is Arizona, which has 11 and a population about the same as ours.
But, that ideal voter power doesnt work everywhere. Wyoming, for instance, has a population of just over a half-million, while California has 39.5 million, the highest in the country, and 55 Electoral College votes. Wyoming has three votes, one based on population and two just because it has two senators, like every other state.

Translated, that means each Electoral College vote in Wyoming represents 192,919 age-eligible voters; each in California stands for 718,181. As CNNs John King would say, Look at the math. Not one person, one vote, not by a long shot.

https://www.berkshireeagle.com/news/local/ruth-bass-purpose-and-effect-of-electoral-college-has-changed-over-the-years /article_70259ca6-22ae-11eb-a96a-77fdab3c7dd5.html

To say that our system is broken is a severe understatement...

---

We could totally fix this by just mashing a bunch of states together. Who needs 50? We can get to like, 35 maybe.

Its kicking the can down the road sure, but do we really need two Dakotas?

increase the size of the house. wouldn't need a constitutional amendment and if would better reflect the true populations.

---

that's literally the point of the senate. the house represents the people, the senate represents the states.

The apportionment act needs to go, though. it's only going to increase the imbalance in the house over time.

---

That's odd considering there are more people from CA moving out than moving in.

DuranOfForcena posted...

or just make the number of electors a state gets equal to the number they get in just the House and not the Senate

That'd require a constitutional amendment. Increasing the number of representatives would not.

---

21WIVES_CHILL posted...

That's odd considering there are more people from CA moving out than moving in.

prob to spread out the vote. Smart strategy.

---

Proto_Spark posted...

We could totally fix this by just mashing a bunch of states together. Who needs 50? We can get to like, 35 maybe.

Its kicking the can down the road sure, but do we really need two Dakotas?

To be honest, we don't need any Dakotas.

---

Proto_Spark posted...

We could totally fix this by just mashing a bunch of states together. Who needs 50? We can get to like, 35 maybe.

Its kicking the can down the road sure, but do we really need two Dakotas?

i want to go the other way. all states must be between 500k and 5 million people. get too small (unlikely), get absorbed by your neighbor(s). get too big, get cut in half. borders redrawn every other census, on the not presidential election years.

---

Medussa posted...

that's literally the point of the senate. the house represents the people, the senate represents the states.

This-- people crying about the fact that each state has 2 senators need to probably take a history class.

Can't wait until Puerto Rico becomes a state, 2 free Democratic senators.

United States
---

DrizztLink posted...

To be honest, we don't need any Dakotas.

this honestly

---