However, there is no incentive for Wyoming and ND and Alaska and ... to fix this.
No Taxation Without Representation? Sure, but that doesn't mean the representation has to be fair.
I think the system is outdated today. Of course, hell will freeze over before it is reformed in a fair way.
Because the Republicans at the time wanted 2 states that would vote Republican.
> If they were merged, and became just Dakota, would anyone notice?
Yes, as someone from North Dakota, you're being rather stupendously ignorant of the midwest and the differences between North and South Dakota.
> Why should they get double representation in the Senate vs. California?
Because the Senate is about state representation. The house is for proportional representation. This is basic civics 101 you learn in High School.
> If anything, having North and South California makes more sense.
You're not the first to propose it, feel free to join these people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_st...
You haven't given any substantial reason for why North/South Dakota makes sense, while North/South California doesn't, except that "Republicans... wanted 2 states that would vote Republican", which obviously is not a legit reason. If it were, we would split North Dakota into 100 Dakota's so that it would give 200 Republican votes in the senate.
Also:
> Yes, as someone from North Dakota, you're being rather stupendously ignorant of the midwest and the differences between North and South Dakota.
And North and South California are massively different, yet lo-and-behold they are the same state. Even more different is central vs. costal California.
Umm, no, thats the accepted reason why the territory was split in two instead of becoming a state outright.
From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Territory because apparently one must link history or be called a troll.
> Admission of new western states was a party political battleground with each party looking at how the proposed new states were likely to vote. At the beginning of 1888, the Democrats under president Grover Cleveland proposed that the four territories of Montana, New Mexico, Dakota and Washington should be admitted together. The first two were expected to vote Democratic and the latter two were expected to vote Republican so this was seen as a compromise acceptable to both parties. However, the Republicans won majorities in Congress and the Senate later that year. To head off the possibility that Congress might only admit Republican territories to statehood, the Democrats agreed to a less favorable deal in which Dakota was divided in two and New Mexico was left out altogether. Cleveland signed it into law on February 22, 1889 and the territories could become states in nine months time after that. However, incoming Republican president Benjamin Harrison had a problem with South Dakota; most of the territory was Sioux reservation land and the state would not be viable unless much of this land became available to settlers
> And North and South California are massively different, yet lo-and-behold they are the same state.
Yet they're the same state today, and North and South Dakota are not. Are you proposing we merge these lesser states together and allow California to be the one state to have separations due primarily to population? Just so that it is more "fair" for Californian Senate inputs? The reason for the senate being 2 per state was to allow each state equal voting ability amongst states so that populated states couldn't easily override less populated states.
You're ignoring my overall point. The concept of "states" doesn't make sense in the way it did when the country was formed. The 13 colonies were actually separate states, with separate governments and economies that agreed to join together to form a single state/country.
However, as you pointed out, the process of creating states became political. An example (as you showed) North/South Dakota were split for political reasons, to achieve a certain voting outcome. The criteria being used to separate them is a political one, not something based on separate economic structures, or separate governments, or some other notion of what a "state" is.
This shows that the notion of a "state" has changed since the late 1700's. Some current "states" are the result of political calculations, where as the original 13 states were separate entities in some other sense.
> Are you proposing we merge these lesser states together and allow California to be the one state to have separations due primarily to population?
I'm saying the entire concept of a "Senate" with 2 reps for each "state" doesn't make sense today. It's an outdated concept from a different reality.
The Senate does have other useful properties, of course, but the current division of states doesn't make sense.
Why should they get double representation in the Senate vs. California?
So with Wyoming's 0.1% population of the US then and its 0.17% now, is that a thinkable process or is it gerrymandering?
Is this really debatable? Are we actually arguing about something that can be settled by referencing a dictionary?
The answer is that the US is not a Democracy, and the Senate was created to limit the short term vacillations of the people.
When you think of representation in the House, think of representation of the States. The United States of America not the United People of America.
That's incorrect just looking at the definition of the word Democracy. Don't look at Google's definition of the word. Google almost always gets their definitions imprecise or incorrect. Look in a dictionary, either online or one that you have.
You may also want to consider that you posted your comment on a page about gerrymandered elections.
> 1. A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
> 1.1 A state governed under a system of democracy
> 1.2 Control of an organization or group by the majority of its members
> 1.3 The practice or principles of social equality
You are mistakenly assuming that the only form or meaning of democracy is direct democracy (1.2 above). That is not the case.
Any polity where a country is at least de jure considered a public matter can call itself a republic.
Even the UK has 650 members in their lower house.
Being able to look at a line item list of how your rep spent your Federal taxes might bring some much needed fiscal responsibility to government spending.
The House is supposed to be the proportional one.
We have house that is proportional representation, another that is fixed representation - theoretically the Senate is supposed to represent the interests of each state (which is why they used to be appointed by the Governor of that state) and the House is supposed to represent the people of the nation. Is this a bad idea?
It is a bad idea if you reject federalism (which grandparent might?). If instead of a union we are a mostly homogeneous country with a single identity, a single logical state -- then perhaps it doesn't make sense for the States to exist as independently as they do today.
But the needs of a state as a whole may be significantly different than the needs of one congressional district within the state. Consider that historically the Senate has been a voice of moderation to an often much more radical house.
It's not so much a bad idea as it is completely inaccurate.
At 321.4 million / 435 = 738850. Wyoming wouldn't even get a House member. Vermont wouldn't either.
This is your original intent. This is your design.
"The U.S. Constitution called for at least one Representative per state and that no more than one for every 30,000 persons." [1]
The Appointment Act of 1911 and subsequent Permanent Appointment Act of 1929 capped the total number of House congressional representatives at 435 [2], so the degree of seperation between an individual elector and their representative in any given congressional district continues to grow as population increases. This also has an effect on the Electoral College, as it's membership numbers are based on the number of congress persons. Furthermore, I will assume this limit, combined with a growing population will increase the chances of a Presidential Candidate winning election without also winning the national popular vote, as we have seen on multiple occasions in recent decades.
[1] http://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The....
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929
Remember, the same people who wrote the Second Amendment wrote this. In any case, that was superseded post Civil War by Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment. That allows for the Reapportionment of 1929. It would seem that that would override the 1 House member minimum but it doesn't because, because nothing.