Why should rural areas get more representation per person?

[John_Mace]

@Jane_Smythe

Nevertheless it should be one vote per person; there is no reason or excuse for anything else. No area should have special influence. One vote per person.

Nope. You get a choice:

1. One vote per person (per your pronouncement), and a bunch of independent countries like South America.

2. The EC with votes apportioned as now (or similarly), and one single country: The USA.

Which do you choose? You don’t get to re-write history.

[k9bfriender]

@John_Mace

Nope. You get a choice:

1. One vote per person (per your pronouncement), and a bunch of independent countries like South America.

2. The EC with votes apportioned as now (or similarly), and one single country: The USA.

Which do you choose? You don’t get to re-write history.

The compromise was for the senate, to make sure that small states didn’t get left out of the govt.

The compromise was not for the entire govt to be beholden to the small states.

The house of representatives being limited to the size it is gives small states unequal power in the house and in the electoral college, these were not part of the deal.

We could go back to having one rep for every 10000 (I think, but I don’t have time to look it up, feel free to correct that number if I’m wrong) voters as it was in the original Constitution, then the small states would get swamped out in the two parts of govt they were never supposed to get extra protection in anyway.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

Stupid question 1: is there any protocol for a state splitting into multiple states?
Stupid question 2: Could we abuse this system by turning each county in Massachusetts into its own state?

[DinoR]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Stupid question 1: is there any protocol for a state splitting into multiple states?

Yes

Stupid question 2: Could we abuse this system by turning each county in Massachusetts into its own state?

Unlikely

Article 4 Section 3 Clause 1 of the Constitution

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Congress would have to approve. The rest of the country would see MA trying to game the system to the other 49 states’ detriment. Good luck getting the votes on that one.

[septimus]

A few decades ago IIRC I read that Texas insisted, as a condition for joining the Union, that it could split into 3 or 4 states. Is that some [del]urban[/del] Deliverance-country myth?

Or was I thinking of the U.S.S.R. which demanded three seats as a condition for joining the U.N.? :smack:

[PatriotGrrrl]

@OldOlds

It is also odd, in that it tends to be more libertarian than red or blue, and that really is the cause of it’s swing state status. I like to tell people that in NH we like gays AND guns.

I always get kick out of voting in the NH primaries. At the sign in desk they ask you “Which party’s ballot would you like today?” and at the exit there’s a desk with a line of people changing back to Independent.

[JRDelirious]

@septimus

A few decades ago IIRC I read that Texas insisted, as a condition for joining the Union, that it could split into 3 or 4 states. Is that some [del]urban[/del] Deliverance-country myth?

Or was I thinking of the U.S.S.R. which demanded three seats as a condition for joining the U.N.? :smack:

Item 1: Myth. In exchange for the US assuming the debts of the ROT, it surrendered to the Federal Government its claim to a lot of lands (that it never actually controlled, to be honest) that later went on to become parts of NM, OK, CO and KS. But the State of Texas may split into parts as may ANY state, the Congress retains the power to approve or reject recognizing and admitting them as it would ANY new state.

Item2: The USSR did argue that if some UK/US not-quite-yet-really-independent jurisdictions, like India and the Phillippines, were going to be admitted, they should get Ukraine and Byelorussia in. The powers eventually decided to stop it at that before things got out of hand.

[RickJay]

@watchwolf49

A WY voter get 66 times the representation in the US Senate than a CA voter … Sixty-six times … sagebrush gets better treatment … what a great country we are !!!

But that is, specifically, the entire point of the Senate. Having a Senate that was proportioned based on population would be… just another House of Representatives. That would be very stupid.

[k9bfriender]

@DinoR

Yes

Unlikely

Article 4 Section 3 Clause 1 of the Constitution
Congress would have to approve. The rest of the country would see MA trying to game the system to the other 49 states’ detriment. Good luck getting the votes on that one.

On the other hand, those in MA could move to the tri state area of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana, and build yourselves a big city there. You’d only need it to be a city of a couple million or so.

You’d overwhelm the inhabitants of those 3 states, flipping the senators, representatives, and electors, as well as adding a few representatives and electors to the mix.