-
Wyoming Area: 253,335 km2
-
United Kingdom area: 244,376 km2
-
Wyoming population: 576,851 (2020)
-
Glasgow urban area population: 632,350 (2020)
Wyoming Area: 253,335 km2
United Kingdom area: 244,376 km2
Wyoming population: 576,851 (2020)
Glasgow urban area population: 632,350 (2020)
deleted by creator
Disproportionate representation can be kind of a bummer for the under represented folks. Get rid of the senate and remove the cap on the house!
Sadly that will never happen (peacefully) because the smaller states would never vote to reduce their own power. That’s not even considering it would require a constitutional amendment, which is notoriously hard to pass.
Senate, yes. House, no.
The House used to regularly increase in size and has only been at 435 seats since 1911 and capped at that size since 1929. This is changeable through normal law making.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-the-house-got-stuck-at-435-seats/
Oh 100% a pipe dream, yeah, but it would be so rad
Removed by mod
The Senate was the solution, the house is meant to be population based but they ran out of space in the chamber and capped it instead of just building a bigger room so now Wyoming is massively overrepresented.
Removed by mod
What part is a lie?
Removed by mod
They weren’t suggesting that there be less than one congressman in Wyoming. You seem to have entirely ignored the actual suggestion they were making, which seems difficult.
Removed by mod
What an incredible amount of self Ls in such a short amount of time.
And that one congressman represents 500k people, Meanwhile each of Florida’s represents 800k people. Why should the people of Florida’s votes be worth 60% of a Wyoming voter’s? Why should we not just give Florida 11 more congresspeople so it’s even?
Take a look at https://www.thegreenpapers.com/Census10/FedRep.phtml?sort=Elec#table
California has 678,945 residents per elected representative versus Wyoming’s 284,150, meaning that Wyoming’s residents have an almost 3x voice. Wyoming is the most represented state by population ratio and California is last.
As others have said, that’s what the senate was for, while the House should have a static ratio across all states with the count increasing by total national population.
Removed by mod
In area, sure, but most of it is empty or populated by more cows than humans. You’re basically saying that empty land and cows deserve equal representation to humans.
You could, but you’d be very very wrong. A third as much is not more.
Wouldn’t be any more stupid than the current situation 🤷
Removed by mod
So where do you think I’m from?
By your own logic, I’d guess you’re from somewhere with more livestock than people and a severely underfunded education system.
Removed by mod
Puerto Rico is six times as populous and gets none
Because they’re a territory and not a state.
Whenever it comes up, they reject becoming a state - it’s not a beneficial change for them (I don’t blame them).
They passed three pro-statehood referendums since 2012. It doesn’t seem to matter. Presumably, if they passed a pro-independence referendum, it wouldn’t happen either.
It helps that many of them don’t pay federal income tax (though they do pay other taxes)
Actually 52% in favor of statehood as of 2020. Sentiment seems to be shifting.
Don’t territories get 1 non-voting representative (effectively 0)?
My problem is that my vote has far less weight than someone in that state. Wasn’t that implied?
Square miles of farmland shouldn’t have votes, people should.
Removed by mod
Not if I live near a state boundary.
Removed by mod
Like I said to the other person, I understand how the system works. I’m criticizing it.
Removed by mod
Your vote for president has zero power outside of your state. Your vote informs your state’s electoral representative as to who to vote for.
States elect a president as the leader of the executive branch, a federal role, which affects relationships between a federation of states. Federal government’s role is supposed to be limited to managing the relationships between states.
It’s not a popular vote. Never has been, and would be inappropriate to make it so. Basic civics.
There’s way too much attention paid to the office of president, when there are ~500 other federal politicians who are ignored by doing so.
I know how the system works. I’m not disputing it. I’m saying the status quo is bad, not that it’s false.
Pointing out it’s “basic civics” that that’s how it works currently, and using that to sneak in the huge claim that it’s also “basic civics” that a popular vote “would be inappropriate”. If that was intentional, it was clever.
The house of representatives is unjust in its uneven, disproportionate, and meager representation. Is that what you wanted to hear?
“But that’s how it currently works! Why don’t you understand that?!”
— that person, probably
deleted by creator