Must a state have a certain population?

[Markxxx]

I was just reading about a movement in the UP of Michigan to make it into its own state called Superior.

My question is if it was a state it would only have about 300,000 people. Is there a minimum population? I know at one time that was the point behind making Washington DC a state that it had more people than some states, though now I believe it is only larger than Wyoming.

[BobT]

There aren't any constitutional minimum requirements. If Congress wants to create a state and the all the proper steps are followed, you've got a state.

[jayron 32]

300,000 people would make it about as large as 3 other states (Vermont, Wyoming and Alaska all have considerably less than 500,000 people)

------------------
Jason R Remy

"No amount of legislation can solve America's problems."
-- Jimmy Carter (1980)

Actually, as someone who loves demography, I feel the need to correct Jayron.

According to the 1997 U.S. Census Bureau:
Wyoming has a pop. of 480,097 (Lowest in the nation)
However, Alaska's pop. is 614,010, and Vermont's is 590,883.

Being a Michiganian, I am appauled that the UP wants to separate from the LP. It will never go through.

Adam


------------------
"Life is hard...but God is good"

[Markxxx]

1997 Population Est

50) Wyoming - 479,743
49) Vermont - 588,978
48) Alaska - 609,311

BTW - DC if it were a state would be 543,213

[Markxxx]

You know I never really thought of it before but it seems kind of stupid that California with 32 million and Texas with 19.5 million and NY with 18 million should have the same influence in The Senate.

[jayron 32]

Then I stand corrected... Thank you all for digging up teh figures. But the fact still remains that there is no population requirement on statehood. I would posit that Alaska had considerably less population when it became a state in 1959...

------------------
Jason R Remy

"No amount of legislation can solve America's problems."
-- Jimmy Carter (1980)

[DSYoungEsq]

it seems kind of stupid that California with 32 million and Texas with 19.5 million and NY with 18 million should have the same influence in The Senate.

Read James Madisons Notes on the Constitutional Convention for the history of this interesting development. Basically, the Senate was developed to check the political power of large population states (then consisting of Virginia, New York, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts primarily) who it was feared would have their way with the small states if the only representation was based on relative populations. The compromise was offered by Olliver Ellsworth and Roger Sherman, and became known as the Connecticut Compromise.

[Squid Vicious]

OK my memory is a little fuzzy on this one; but I seem to recall being taught in grade school that in order for a territory to become a state, it had to have at least 60,000 residents.

[BobT]

You are probably remembering the Northwest Ordinance passed by the Congress (the one before the present Constitution).
It established guidelines for dividing up the Old Northwest into territories and then into states.
It was one of the few accomplishments of that version of Congress.

[NanoByte]

As a Californian, I don't understand why the rest of this nation stands for this state's running the nation (except that money calls almost all the shots).

Ray

[BobT]

Alaska's population in the 1960 census, one year after statehood was 226,167

[Markxxx]

I understand the concept of The Senate back when the constitution was written, but state have no where near the local independence they had back then.

We are moving more and more away from a federal system. Be it right or wrong it makes no sense that Wyoming with 470,000 thousand people can have as much say as California with 32 million.

This is why the USA loses out in a lot of global ideas as they lesser backward states stop the progressive populas states from doing what should be done.

[Montfort]

The beauty of the USA legislative branch is that while California and Wyoming are equal in the Senate, they're not in the House.

Checks and balances, kids. That's why there's two houses of Congress, that's why the Senate approves Executive branch appointees, that's why the President has veto power, and that's why the Supreme Court is around to decide constitutionality.

In practice it may look like a mess, but in theory, the USA system of democracy looks pretty damn good.

... or so I was taught in my poli sci classes.

[Lumpy]

This may be changing the subject, but:

Considering how small the population of some states are (Wyoming, etc), has anyone ever considered the idea that all it would take would be about one million people all belonging to some group, to move to a sparsely populated state and take over by outvoting the original inhabitants?

[Markxxx]

I thought of that myself. Actually in two countries in the world. Israel and Fiji (esp Fiji) there is a real fear that will happen. [the immigrants will outvote the natives]

I still see no justification why a group of states (the 11 smallest states in poputlation have 22 senators BUT only have 10.5 million. that is less than 1/3 as large as California) have so much influence over policies that effect so many others.

As I state federalism isn't the same today as when the constitution was written. States simply do not have the independence they did back then.

[cmkeller]

It is necessary for states to have equal as well as proportional representation, because acts of Congress are binding not only on the individual residents of every state (which are different in number) but also on the government of every state (of which every state has one). If, for example, Congress tries to pass some sort of state mandate that will prove to be efficient for a populous state to administer, but grossly inefficient for a less populous state, why should Wyoming's government have less say in what the feds demand of them than California's?

------------------
Chaim Mattis Keller
ckeller@schicktech.com

"Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be
the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks."
-- Douglas Adams's Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective

[pldennison]

Marxxx, it all balances out both in the House of Representatives and in the electoral college. When was the last time you saw a candidate for president campaign in Wyoming, Montana, Alaska, Hawaii or Rhode Island? Hell, you can win the presidency by carrying only 13 states.

[BobT]

States like Wyoming actually have a disproportionately high number of electoral votes. If you divide the total population of the US by 538, you get a number that is slightly higher than the population of Wyoming. By that method of calculation, they should get less than one elector.

[Geenius]

The problem with having states get as huge as California isn't really in their administration or their representation in Congress -- it's the clout they wield in the Electoral College. Win California's 54 electorial votes, and you're 40 percent of the way toward winning the election (for which you need 270). And you only have to win the state by one vote, which means that more than 16 million people's votes are as good as thrown out.

Here's how I think it oughta be done: Since a state gets electoral votes equal to is Senate representation plus its House representation, let the state's overall winner get two electoral votes, then let each candidate get one more electoral vote for each House district he carries. Never happen, but I flatter myself that it's a fairly elegant idea. And it makes sure that Northern Californians' votes count for something.

[BobT]

Which Northern Californians do you mean? People who live north of Sacramento who are predominantly Republican or the people who live around the Bay Area and Sacramento who are mostly Democrats.

California's parties split geographically east-west more so than north-south. The Democrats control most of the coastal counties and the Republicans control the more inland counties (Orange and San Diego being notable exceptions.)

Splitting up the electoral vote by district has been discussed in another thread. It has its good points and bad points. One of the principal arguments against it is that it could make for some even more egregious cases of gerrymandering.

[DSYoungEsq]

Win California's 54 electorial votes, and you're 40 percent of the way toward winning the election (for which you need 270).
54 divided by 270 is 20% by my calculator.

52 divided by 218 is 23% and change. Therefor, the California House delegation, were it to vote as a block, would exercise more control over the House, than it would over the college. Of course, in the College, by common usage, it will vote as a block, and in the House, well...

[Markxxx]

Unfortunately things do not balance out in The House. The 25 smallest states in population come to 43.6 million. That is 16.2% of the population (1997 est 267.6 million). That means 16.2% of the people can block legislation that 83.8% of the people want.

Granted, in reality it doesn't work that way due to the party system,

Now if we take a constitutional amendment. 2/3 of all state need to pass it. That means only 17 states need not to vote for it.

The 17 state with the LEAST population come to 14.6 million. Now that is 5.4% of the total population. That means 5.4% of the population can
block a constitutional amendment wanted by over 94% of the country.

That is what I mean when I say this is an outdated concept. One senator from CA is responsible for 16 Million people. One senator in WY is responsible for 238,000. Thus ONE person in Wyoming has more influence
over government policies than ONE Californian.

This is why we have such outdated influences in this country. This is why we fall behind in a global market. Because a few people in a few states can block modern thinking.

This relates directly to why there is disproportinal influence of farming and mining in this country.

[According to Pliny]

One California senator does not represent 16 million people. Two California senators represents ONE state. One California Representative represents about 500,000 specific Californians.

BTW- The people of that state number 32 million. You seem to imply that Boxer is responsible for, say, citizens A-L and Feinstein for M-Z. Kinda reminds me of high school councilors. ;)

[Markxxx]

Sorry but the fact remains CA populatoin is 32 Million. They have 2 senators. That is one senator for every 16 million people

Wyoming has one senator for for every 238,000 people. Thus people from Wyoming statistically and in reality have more clout.

BTW

Califonia has 52 Reps in the House. That one Rep for every 615,000(aprx)
Whereas Wyoming has one Rep for every 476,000(aprx)

While it is true Senators represent their entire state I broke it down to show you that a lot of influence (right or wrong) is caused by the outdated concept of The Senate.

The states have no where near the powers they did back when it was written and while it made sense 200 some odd years ago it clearly is unfair. And it clearly isn't made up for in the House.

[AWB]

It's rather misstated that a senator represents only half of a state. It's not as only half the state geographically came out to the election. The senatorial candidates are on all the ballots in the state.

If a state has two House members, then yes, each one of them represents 1/2 the state, the half that had her or him on the ballots.

[DSYoungEsq]

The states have no where near the powers they did back when it was written and while it made sense 200 some odd years ago it clearly is unfair. And it clearly isn't made up for in the House.
As if your prior posts hadn't already made it clear, this should crystallize for all to see that you have a) a bias and b) no understanding of why the Senate exists.

The Senate isn't in existence to protect the STATES that have small populations (a quaint, but incorrect notion, see the commentary from Madison's Notes). It exists to protect the PEOPLE in the states with small populations. People in Wyoming and Montana and North Dakota, etc., shouldn't be forced to live life with restrictions placed on them by the whims of residents in large population states, without some protection.

In practice, both in the past, and in the present, that has proven to be a wise decision by the framers. The split of the Union was forestalled for forty years by the existence of the Senate, and the astute efforts of the Congress at the time to maintain the balance the Senate preserved between the increasingly more populous north and the agricultural south. Keep in mind, slavery wasn't the only issue between them. Presently, farm states, mostly small states of the midwest, owe a lot of the existing farm legislation to their power in the Senate.

Now, you can point to the farm issue, with its subsidies, and say: "but that's just it! They whole program benefits only a few at the cost of the many, and it isn't 'fair' that that can continue."

But that's the whole point TO the Senate. Like a lot of the checks and balances inserted into the document, including the restrictions on the federal and state governments regarding restriction of personal freedoms, the framers understood that ANY fool country can rule itself by 'majority says so.' But to live the life we WANT to lead, there are times the 'majority' can't have its way. And if you think that makes no sense, take a look at Venezuela, where the overwhelming majority of voters approved a President who is promptly attempting to totally dismantle the democratic institutions there.

I have lived in California most of my life. I have also lived in Colorado. I now call Ohio home. And I can tell you that there were significant differences involved in living in each state and I would hate to see that truth dissapear to the demands of those who want to totally dismantle the federal nature of our representative democracy.

[BobT]

The concept of the Senate was important enough to the Framers that they put a clause into the Constitution that you can amend the constitution in a couple of ways, but you can't amend it to change anyone's representation in the Senate. It is the only thing in the Constitution that can't be changed.

(You would have to amend the part that says you can't amend it first I suppose.)

[Big Iron]

Whether or not it is ultimately justified as necessary for protection of the smaller states, I don't think there is much question that the disproportionate influence of the largely-western Senators of the less-populated states has often been pernicious. I would suggest that, say, about 20 to 30 "at large" Senators be added -- or at least I'd think real hard about such a proposal.

[Northern Piper]

markxxx, before going all out for a constitutional amendment changing the composition of the U.S. Senate, you might want to consider the example of the Canadian Senate. Our Senate is very ineffectual, because its members are appointed, not elected. As a result, the real action is in the House of Commons, which is based on the population of the provinces.

Many people in western Canada have long felt that all decisions affecting the country are made with Central Canada in mind - Ontario and Quebec together have traditionally had over 50% of the population. The lack of an effective Senate with political clout is often seen as contributing to strong feelings of western alienation.

By contrast, the strong U.S. Senate has helped to reduce similar regional tensions in the United States, by ensuring that the people in the smaller states feel they do have a say in the nation's business. That is a non-inconsiderable benefit.

[Northern Piper]

Erratum: for "non-inconsiderable benefit", read "not-inconsiderable benefit."

Memo to self: avoid double-negatives.

[Polycarp]

I used to live in a small city in upstate New York and work for a state agency that helped little rural towns and villages.

Every so often the majority in the state legislature, who lived within a 50-mile radius of NYC if not in it, would pass a law (or at least propose one), with every good intention, that would be very easy for a city of 7 million or even one of 100,000, or a suburban town of 50,000, to carry out the provisions of. But when you've got a community of 250 where the only full-time town employee is the highway superintendent, the town clerk does her job moonlighting from her regular job as secretary at the school, and the supervisor (CEO of the town) is a semi-retired farmer, they didn't have the first clue how to do, e.g., the environmental impact statement for the new fire station. Nor were the 250 citizens (maybe 100 taxpaying families) thrilled about the idea of paying $10,000 to a consultant to do it for them.

So, yes, the state government and citizens of North Dakota or Wyoming do need some clout.