In the USA, do big states resent small states?

Factual Questions
41

[QUOTE=Grelby]
John Mace stated that this was an arguable position, and he’s exactly right. This is not GD, but as an example I could argue that the ratification of an amendment by the state in question would amount to that stating giving consent to being divided.
[/QUOTE]

Correct. I did not mean to imply that it wasn’t amendable, but that it might not be. We actually had a GD thread on this awhile back that was very interesting. I suspect that if a sincere effort were made to change the make-up of the Senate that it would fuel a constitutional crisis of a sever magnitude, possibly even raise the specter of secession by some states.

42

[QUOTE=Omniscient]
I think it’s worth noting that many people (most?) would agree that of the two possibilities:

  1. A somewhat disproportionate distribution of power in the small states favor, versus
  2. A near complete subjugation of small states to the large ones in a perfectly representative system.

That the former is most certainly the lesser of the two evils…
[/QUOTE]

As someone from a large city in a populous state, I strongly disagree with your conclusion of which is the lesser evil.

Small staters love to ignore the fact that, by definition, large states are large states is because they are filled with people. Just because they are concentrated together should not mean that their voices deserve to be diluted. **Giving populous states the full power of one man, one vote does not lead to “subjugation” (a spin term, if ever there was one), it leads to democracy in its purest form. ** Furthermore, I would contend that giving a small state resident, in effect, more than one vote (like the Senate and Electoral College do) is far, far closer to any objective definition of the term subjugation.

43

[QUOTE=dtilque]
Point out to them that the current situation is actually skewed towards the Republicans already.

The real place where the big state/little state thing makes a difference is in the Electoral College. All states get a minimum of 3 electoral votes, which is a disproportionately large representation for low population states. Since more of them tend to vote Republican, this gives that party an extra boost in Presidential elections. For instance, in the 2000 election, if the minimum number of electoral votes per state had been just 2, Gore would have won.
[/QUOTE]

My emphasis.

Why is this?

44

[QUOTE=F. U. Shakespeare]
However, if you look at red/blue maps with results broken out by county, the trend I’m talking about is borne out: California is a state that voted blue, but a lot of its rural, non-coastal counties voted red.
[/QUOTE]

Yep.The whole red state/blue state dichotomy is a gross oversimplification that blurs the real issues. Plus, it’s determined completely by presidential politics which can be different from the politics affecting other political offices, like the Congress.

45

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Correct. I did not mean to imply that it wasn’t amendable, but that it might not be. We actually had a GD thread on this awhile back that was very interesting. I suspect that if a sincere effort were made to change the make-up of the Senate that it would fuel a constitutional crisis of a sever magnitude, possibly even raise the specter of secession by some states.
[/QUOTE]

I’d say that secession attempts would be a given. It would be the worst crisis since the Civil War. Possibly the worst ever.

Seeing as how the creation of an equal Senate was the key compromise that made this country possible, the only intellectually honest way to change that would be to draw up an entirely new constitution and convince states to ratify it. Anything else would be an end-run around the Founding Fathers’ intentions.

46

[QUOTE=Happy Clam]
My emphasis.

Why is this?
[/QUOTE]

Most of our largest states are those big square ones out there in flyover country. States with large rural populations, that is. The tiny states are mostly on the East Coast and urban.

47

[QUOTE=Happy Clam]
My emphasis.

Why is this?
[/QUOTE]

States with the largest populations tend to get there through urban areas with huge amounts of people in them. States with small populations are less likely to have these urban areas. Urban areas traditionally vote Democrat.

This page has a few maps relating to the 2004 election. The first map is a standard red-blue state map. The second map is redrawn to make the states relative in population size, so California and the Northeast become nearly as big as the rest of the country. The fifth map is the same thing done by county, where the large cities become apparent.

48

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Plus, it’s determined completely by presidential politics which can be different from the politics affecting other political offices, like the Congress.
[/QUOTE]

And what’s more, it’s determined completely by presidential politics at a certain period of time. You’re generalizing from a snapshot. You know, Georgia is a “red state”, but it voted Democratic in 1992. Mass. and New York are “blue states”, but they both voted Republican in 1984.

49

[QUOTE=Oakminster]
On the other hand, there is some resentment by the small states against the big states. In national elections, all the candidates go to the big states, which have lots of electoral votes, while the small states are often ignored.
[/QUOTE]

I think it works both ways. The big states also resent the small states power which is inflated by the fact that there are certain key things that only the Senate can do, like conducting an impeachment proceeding. Also, IIRC if a proposed constitutional amendment passes the Legislature and is put up to the states for ratification, the small states can make it a slamdunk. For instance, it’s my contention that if the amendment to ban gay marriage had made it out of the legislature, then the small states, which tend to be rural and socially conservative, would have made its ratification a slamdunk.

50

[QUOTE=DVsickgirlDV]
No, we have the House of Representatives to solve that problem.
[/QUOTE]

Actually, the House of Representatives also disproportionately favors small states. If Wyoming gets one seat in the House, for example, then a system proportional to population would give California 71 seats, not the 53 seats that it actually gets.

51

[QUOTE=633squadron]
What amazes me is that Wyoming can find two senators, one Congressperson, a state legislature, a governor, and all the state officials in such a small population. I live in the Silicon Valley; my guess is that I have the equivalent of the entire state of Wyoming living within 10 miles of my house. The Lord help us all if we had to provide an entire state and Federal representation from them…

So in fact, I pity the Wyomingers; seems like everybody in that state has to be part of the gummint. Talk about hating your neighbors!
[/QUOTE]

Wyoming native in a political job checking in. (and yes, I am currently running for office in November).

On thing that helps is that the state legislature is part-time. My own state representative is in charge of maintanance at two of my kid’s school. We have part time judges, public defenders, prosecutors, public board members, etc. In fact, the majority of governmental decision making bodies are both voluntary and part-time at best.

There are good and bad parts to that. It makes campaigning much more about personality and reputation than platform or party. In my current campaign, I am more likely to be asked about someone I know from high school than about my position on a major political issue du jour. It does tend to perpetuaute a “good-ol-boy” network and I better keep my lawn mowed or I’m much less likely to be voted for. On the other hand, I don’t know another state where I can drop in on the governor and am likely to have a meeting with him and have him ask about my sister. I called my state senator about a bill I read about in the local paper, and he came by my home after work and we talked about it at length. I personally know state senators that live 500 miles away from me, and can call them at home without any real concern.

As to the OP, if there is resentment it seems to be from the low-population states toward the high-population states. (For the record, I spent a few years living in NYC, Cleveland and Dallas). We often feel we are ignored on the national level, particularly by the national media, who acts like we are a foreign nation. Our issues and views are just not discussed. Presidential candidates don’t campaign here, few political ads, etc.

Much of the resentment comes from a perception that big cities think we are uneducated rubes. (I graduated with honors from a top ranked Ivy League law school, thank you very much, but when I call lawyers in big cities, many of them act amazed that I could dial the phone. I have a friend from rural Kentucky with an MBA who was told, when he applied for a job, that the hiring committee laughed and wondered if he actually wore shoes). We are called “Fly-over” states, and if we are portrayed in the media at all, we are treated as folksy and “Mayberry-esque” rather than the normal people we really are. Also, some California and Texas hunters, and New England tourists, can be major pains in the nether regions (but feel free to leave your money). We are the last to get services (like high speed internet or cellular service) or products (movies come her right before, and sometimes after, they are released on DVD).

It’s not a big deal, but my impression is that the resentment is likely to go the other way.

52

Well, as an outsider looking in, I have to say that the system has worked pretty well for you so far!

53

We middle-sized states are stuck with resenting ourselves.

54

[QUOTE=Crandolph]
ascenray, guizot - how is it you figure that Ohio accounts for the results of the 2004 election in isolation? There were 51 contests for electoral votes and Kerry didn’t win enough of them. Again, OH simply turned in its numbers later than the rest of the states in adjoining time zones.
[/QUOTE]
I thought that the state was very close, and that those 20 votes would of have changed the result. Maybe I’m just misremembering. It is a big state in fact, at 20 votes.

55

[QUOTE=guizot]
I thought that the state was very close, and that those 20 votes would of have changed the result. Maybe I’m just misremembering. It is a big state in fact, at 20 votes.
[/QUOTE]

But Texas is a much bigger state with more electoral votes, all of which went to Bush; why not then just “blame Texas?” It seems that Ohio just gets this attention because it put out its results later in the evening than usual.

It’s not at all true that the states with the smallest population are clustered on the East Coast and are more urban; the ones with the smallest land area are more likely to fit that profile though. Note Wyoming, Montana and the Dakotas. Also note that New Jersey, for example, is one of the 10 smallest states in area but the most densely populated and in the top 10 in population.

56

Ohio gets attention because there were better chances it could have swung than Texas, so was much more likely to affect the overall results. I’ts more reasonable to believe something small would have affected the overall results.

Plus there were quite a few, erm, let’s see I’m in GQ, erm… *irregularities * that make many folks suspicious about what would have happened in a, erm… more *regular * election.

57

[QUOTE=Steve MB]
The latest estimates I can find (2005) show a range from 509,294 (Wyoming) to 36,132,147 (California). The 1790 census shows a range from 59,096 (Delaware) to 747,610 (Virginia). The ratio from largest to smallest has increased (from 12.7 to 70.9).
[/QUOTE]
Cool data. Here is another factoid. The area of Rhode Island (the smallest state) is 1,545 sqm. New York, the largest of the original 13 colonies, is 54,566 sqm: a ratio of 35 to 1. Alaska, the largest current state, is 663,267 sqm. The ratio between largest and smallest state now is 429 to 1. The ratio between Texas (second largest state) and Rode Island is 174 to 1.

58

[QUOTE=muttrox]
Ohio gets attention because there were better chances it could have swung than Texas, so was much more likely to affect the overall results. It’s more reasonable to believe something small would have affected the overall results.
[/QUOTE]

:confused: So… the state that votes for the candidate you don’t like by a smaller margin deserves more blame than the bigger one which votes for the candidate you don’t like by a larger margin? This is what I don’t get. Again I have to say that it’s 51 contests & in a nationally close election all of them count. If I don’t like Bush I’m angry at Utah and Texas more than Ohio…

I found the similar emphasis on Florida in 2000 to be odd as well. I do think the FL results were seriously fishy and deserved scrutiny, but had Gore not lost over 30 other states (including every southern state, including his home state) to make things close people would likely not have even noticed what happened in FL. The people who accept Katherine Harris’ numbers and then blame Florida Nader voters for the election results confuse me even more…

59

[QUOTE=muttrox]
Ohio gets attention because there were better chances it could have swung than Texas, so was much more likely to affect the overall results. I’ts more reasonable to believe something small would have affected the overall results.

Plus there were quite a few, erm, let’s see I’m in GQ, erm… *irregularities * that make many folks suspicious about what would have happened in a, erm..more *regular * election.
[/QUOTE]
Texas was never close. Ohio was close, and I think Florida even closer. It’s more the system than anything. Someone in Texas has just as much reason to resent the system as someone from any other large state (even more so because of the House and the recent gerrymandering). If votes were proportioned, people in big states that go overwhelmingly one way or the other might feel more involved, and might be less likely not to vote. But even more important, people in medium-sized states would also. It makes the “red state/blue state” thing simplistic–a stupid media cliche that gives people a false idea of the way people think about the candidates and the issues.

60

[QUOTE=Crandolph]
:confused: So… the state that votes for the candidate you don’t like by a smaller margin deserves more blame than the bigger one which votes for the candidate you don’t like by a larger margin?
[/QUOTE]

Not more blame, more attention and scrutiny.

Look, it’s unreasonable to say, if only 18,000,000 people had voted the other way, things would be different. It’s quite another to say if 500 or 20,000 people had voted the other way, or if a non-partisan offiicial made decisions that didn’t consistently favored one party, then things would be different.

Analogy: Having narrowly escaped a car accident, it is reasonable to think, “Boy, if I’d been just a little slower on the brakes”. It’s a little less reasonable, but not crazy, to say “Good thing I bought that nimble car 8 years ago, so it would respond quicker”. It’s silly to say, “If only I had automatic laser beams, this wouldn’t have been close”, or “Too bad that they invented the car 100 years ago, it almost killed me just then.”

Sure all those things contributed to the end result, but only some deserve “coulda shoulda been different” thinking.