TIL that Wyoming is larger than the United Kingdom in area but less populous than Glasgow
You're viewing a single thread.
And they get 2 senators and 3 electoral votes....sigh....
Yes, as intended.
Since COVID, Migration from large, expensive coastal cities to sparsely populated rural states is one of the greatest opportunity to permanently flip representation. Idaho was the largest percentage population gainer in the US since COVID and almost all of it coming from CA, OR, WA. Were this to continue you'd probably be looking at a blue state in an election cycle or two. I think this is one of the reasons, long with insane sadism, that Rs are trying to push such radical agendas t state levels--to scare moderates and progressives from moving there. Wyoming could be permablue with one year of concentrated migration.
Even states like Texas, thought of as Red stronghold are not that disproportionately voted Red; 2020 was a difference of 600k votes. 100k net Californians(only CA!) were moving to Texas a year during the pandemic, if you add in other states we might actually see it flip in a few cycles, though the radical agenda being pushed is going to kill those numbers perhaps. Very curious to see 2024 shifts.
Spent ALL day driving rural Mississippi and Alamba and has the same thoughts about WFH. I'm happy where I'm at, but what if I wanted to move or retire to one of the picturesque small towns in Alabama? How many people have done exactly that?
Same reason I may take my wife back to the Philippines when we retire. Money spends different when an apartment is $150/mo. and a loaf of bread is $.15.
A lot of the people leaving those states left them for a reason though
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.
it would require a constitutional amendment
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
Wyoming is the under represented folks, this was the solution.
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.
This is a lie, Wyoming has ONE congressman.
What part is a lie?
Wyoming is massively overrepresented.
You want less than one congressman per state or what? California has 40 or 50, there's like 5 states with one congressman. Spare me the crocodile tears about you're so under represented.
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.
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.
boo fucking hoo. they have 40 plus representatives, Wyoming is a big state. 2 senators and a congressman. Person could easily argue a Californians vote is worth much more, that state has a whole team going in the house. the ratio is basically static, except for states that no longer the population to get one. Like do you want Wyoming and north dakota to share a house member? That's not practical either.
Wyoming is a big state.
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.
Person could easily argue a Californians vote is worth much more
You could, but you'd be very very wrong. A third as much is not more.
Like do you want Wyoming and north dakota to share a house member?
Wouldn't be any more stupid than the current situation 🤷
it's hilarious how you can tell roughly where anyone is from by the propaganda they bought.
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.
It doesn't. That's just a soundbite. You're not voting against a wyoming resident. Your vote has the sane power as your neighbours
Your vote has the sane power as your neighbours
Not if I live near a state boundary.
They're nor voting in your election at all, so...
Like I said to the other person, I understand how the system works. I’m criticizing it.
Yeah, you suddenly claimed to understand it after a bunch of statements made it seem otherwise.
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.
It's not a popular vote. Never has been, and would be inappropriate to make it so. Basic civics.
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
