Map: States with a smaller population than Los Angeles County

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Retweeted by Ken Layne: https://twitter.com/KenLayne

States with a smaller population than Los Angeles County

Link to tweet

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Omigod! That is most of the country!

I know there are a lot of people here, and more all the time...

But I hadn't realized that we are more populous than this many states!

[cwydro]

2. Very happy to be where there are less people.

Always.

[guillaumeb]

3. A smaller population, but far more strength in Congress. eom

[edhopper]

6. similar to New York

there are States with a Congress person and two Senators that have a smaller population than my district.

[guillaumeb]

7. The city of Chicago has more population that most states.

And probably more economic activity.

The big evil cities versus small town perfection.

[roamer65]

10. That is easily fixed.

Repeal the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 which sets the House of Reps to 435. Decrease the district sizes to about 100,000 and have more representatives.

Make the scumbag lobbyists have to buy off a lot more of them to get their shitty legislation passed.

[OliverQ]

25. That also means a lot more taxpayer money for their cushy salaries.

[roamer65]

38. You would also have a representative more attuned to local issues.

The districts are now too large and are not represented well by it. Also makes gerrymandering MUCH harder.

[Bettie]

65. This I agree with completely

Set a threshold for representatives and don't have districts that have more than that number in them.

Then draw them in a politically neutral way.

Ah, we can dream....

[Sophia4]

4. And the state of California has a higher population than any other state

yet only two senators and thus, proportionately lower representation in the electoral college making "democracy" a mere travesty in our country when it comes to electing a president and the actions of the Senate.

We are not a democracy.

Are we a "republic"?

Not a very just one when Californians have so little to say about what happens in Washington, D.C., a continent away.

As a Californian born in a smaller midwest state, I understand both sides of the representation in D.C. issue, but at this time in history the lack of fair representation for California is a serious problem.

[roamer65]

8. We never were a democracy.

The Constitution established a representative republic. If any territory did not like the terms of statehood, they were more than welcome to remain a territory.

[Sophia4]

15. The Constitution established a republic in which a slave counted as 2/3 or something like that

of a person when it came to counting the citizens to determine representation

http://www.blackpast.org/aah/three-fifths-clause-united-states-constitution-1787

Would you also say, "If any territory did not like the terms of statehood (which at that time meant respecting slavery in other states), they were more than welcome to remain a territory?

How about bigamy and Utah?

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/utahs-very-interesting-path-to-statehood

One person, one vote.

If Democrats oppose gerrymandering and denying people of color and others of the right to vote, why shouldn't they support the principle of one person, one vote in all federal elections, at least the election of the president?

This problem did not exist when California joined the Union.

[sarisataka]

18. One person one vote in federal elections

When California became a state. Slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person for elections and slavery existed when California joined the union in 1849. So to answer your question, yes California did choose to respect slavery in other states.
Direct election of senators was not a requirement until the 17th Amendment ratified in 1913.
The people still do not directly elect the president and Constitutionally the popular vote is completely irrelevant.

[Sophia4]

21. That needs to change.

We got Trump because we do not have the principle one person/one vote.

Might as well just cheat on counting the votes.

I'm worth just as much as a person and a voter as a resident in Montana, and my vote should count for just as much in federal elections as any other voter in the US.

We need to change the Constitution to end the electoral college. As you point out, direct election of senators was not required until 1913.

And my mother, born in 1916, did not have the right to vote when she was born.

We changed our Constitution to allow women to vote. We can change it to give citizens living in populated states the same voice in electing our president as citizens in less populated states. It's a minor change compared to suddenly enfranchising over 1/2 our population -- which is what happened when men "gave" women the right to vote.

As Jefferson stated in the Declaration of Independence, we are ALL equal. Those of us who live in California should be equal with regard to the value of our votes in presidential elections and for senators as other citizens of the United States.

[ClarendonDem]

29. Does the Constitution

Support your argument?

[Sophia4]

45. I am suggesting that we amend the Constitution (as we have done many times in the past)

to make our country more democratic, to give more people a meaningful vote.

Trump is a huge mistake. He received around 3 million, that's 3 million fewer votes than Hillary did, yet HE became president. A travesty. That's what the 2016 election was without even thinking of the Russians.

The Russians did not impose Trump on our country. The electoral college did.

The electoral college should go the way of the dirt road. We don't need it any more.

I prefer a simple direct vote for president. What difference does it make in a national vote whether I live in California or Nevada. It should make none. My vote should count as one vote in Maine, one vote in San Diego. One vote in Houston, and one in Miami. All the same.

There are other proposals, but from my point of view, they just add more complexity to the election process. One person; one vote. That's all we need to know.

We have amended the Constitution 25 times. We should do it again.

And while we are at it we should impose some campaign financing rules and maybe some rules about how other countries should be dealt with when wishing to be involved in our election or campaign process.

[MurrayDelph]

40. Not get rid of Electoral College, redesign it.

The Electoral College needs to be a dual-proportional system.

1. All states and territories would receive some number of electoral college votes proportional to their percentage of the country's registered voters. If California has 35% of the country's population (I'm just picking a number for example), they should have 35% of the country's electoral votes.

2. If a Democrat wins in a state with 65% of the state's total vote, the Democrat would be awarded 65% of that state's electoral votes, with the remaining distributed proportionally to the other candidates.

This way, Washington DC gets a say, US Virgin Islands gets a say, Puerto Rico gets a say, and we don't have a problem with (again, for example) Kentucky recording more Republican votes than there are citizens of that state and skewing the national vote.

[FakeNoose]

42. Yes this plan, along with redrawing the Congressional Districts

...to end gerrymandering after the next census - would be the most fair way to revise the system.

While we're at it, let's do away with the electronic voting machines. I don't need to see "instant vote counts" on the TV, I'd rather have them counted by hand even though it takes a couple of days. I'm fine with that because I want us to believe the results when they're reported.

[MurrayDelph]

44. I live in Oregon now

All ballots are on on paper, are sent to your home several weeks before due date, and you can mail them in or drop them off at an official collection site up to the actual election day. No reason the whole country couldn't do it, other than they don't want to.

[Sophia4]

20. Tell that to South Carolina or Georgia or the Southern states that rebelled because

they wanted to maintain the right to hold slaves.

Please understand I am not arguing in favor of slavery, but the fact is that we have changed our Constitution as awareness of the right of each individual to have a say, to have his or her vote or life count grew in our nation.

Californians do not have a fair, much less equal, vote either in the Senate or in the electoral college.

That is an abuse of our human rights.

And it hurts the country as a whole.

Hillary would be president today if California votes counted as equal to all other votes in the countery.

[HeartachesNhangovers]

9. California knew the rules when they applied for

statehood: 2 senators always and forever.

[Sophia4]

11. That's a wonderful, Republican viewpoint.

Hillary would be president if Californians had an equal say in the selection of the president.

So now we have a president who did not enjoy the confidence and votes of the majority of Americans.

That's what happens when people in small states act too big for their britches.

One person, one vote.

When the US was formed, slavery was legal in certain states. No one would argue that the non-slave states knew what the rules were when they agreed to statehood.

Wrong is wrong. Denying Californians a fair voice in the government and selection of the president in this time in history is wrong. We would criticize a third world nation if it set up a government that did not give an equal vote to every one of its citizens about something as important as electing the nation's president.

Times change.

California is cheated because of the way the electoral college is chosen, and so is the entire country.

[HeartachesNhangovers]

14. I'm not a Republican, I'm a realist.

[Sophia4]

17. If the Democratic Party wants to be believed with regard to its claimed stance on

gerrymandering and denying votes to minorities and certain others, then it needs to stand up for the principle of one person, one vote, especially in presidential elections.

It is ridiculous to complain about unfairness in voter registration and counting if Californians are to be denied equal representation in the presidential elections and maybe even in the Senate. The disparity between votes cast and votes that really count from California is unacceptably great.

Hillary would be president if a California voter's vote counted as much as the vote of someone in Montana.

[ClarendonDem]

30. The Constitution provides

A mechanism for electing presidents, and it isn’t a popular vote.

[potone]

33. No, but there is a way around that.

The Senate was set up deliberately to protect the interests of small states. What has skewed the government so far in favor of less populated states is the Electoral College. Since it would take a constitutional amendment to abolish it, and that won't happen because states with small populations benefit from it, the only remedy on offer now is the National Popular Vote Act, in which states pledge to commit their electoral college votes to the winner of the popular vote nationally. The system we have now is grossly unfair to residents of states with large populations. Anyone who believes that every person's vote for president should have equal weight needs to pressure their state legislatures to support that.

What makes the situation even more galling is that it is the blue states with large populations that support with their taxes the red states who consistently oppose the progressive policies that blue states favor. States like California end up paying the bill for people who are opposed to things like universal health care and environmental protection.

[whopis01]

62. The Constitution provided a mechanism for selecting Senators

It was not a popular vote either. They were appointed by state legislatures.

But in 1913 that was changed with the 17th Amendment, and in 1914 the people of the US were allowed to elect their senators with a popular vote.

The Constitution has been amended before and it can be amended again.

[ClarendonDem]

63. Oh sure, I'm not arguing we can't amend the Constitution to address the issue

Just that the Constitution as currently drafted provides for a different system.

[DBoon]

32. They had these things called "rotten boroughs"

here is the definition from Encyclopedia Britannica:

Rotten borough, depopulated election district that retains its original representation. The term was first applied by English parliamentary reformers of the early 19th century to such constituencies maintained by the crown or by an aristocratic patron to control seats in the House of Commons. Just before the passage of the Reform Act of 1832, more than 140 parliamentary seats of a total of 658 were in rotten boroughs, 50 of which had fewer than 50 voters.

The British eliminated these as stated in 1832.

Somehow our equivalent is enshrined in the order of the universe and cannot be touched. leding to a residen of Wyoming having many more times the effective political clout of a voter in California.

Britain eliminated the rotten boroughs in 1832, ours still survive.

[Glorfindel]

35. The UK had no written constitution in 1832, nor does it have one now.

Parliament can enact whatever laws they see fit, and the head of state has no choice but to approve them. Our head of state, who is also chief of government, wields a veto, which is very difficult to override. Here's a link to a very interesting "New York Times" article concerning the small-state advantage in the US Senate:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/03/11/us/politics/small-state-advantage.html

I certainly agree that "taker" states like Wyoming are comparable to rotten boroughs, but there's no chance ever of correcting the problem. Bottom line: senators represent states, not people.

[Kentonio]

54. The UK parliament cannot just enact whatever laws they see fit.

Despite the lack of a formal written constitution in the American sense, the UK has centuries of statutes, law and rules regarding parlimentary convention that impose many, many limits on how parliament can legislate and act. Any attempt to pass legislation that disregarded those rules would result in a supreme court case, just like in the US.

In the UK there would also be absolutely no point in the head of government having a veto, as they are the elected (by their own party) head of the party, so legislation comes from them anyway. The UK system does however allow for much more likelihood of radical bills being rejected because there are far more parties in parliament than in congress, and rebels from the ruling party are much more common.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

50. "That's what happens when people in small states act too big for their britches."

Oh, dear. So they should know their place?

Welcome to DU.

Thanks for writing.

[Sophia4]

58. Yes. I was born in a small state. I understand the mentality.

They are far, far, far "too big for their britches." Especially Southern states (also lived in Alabama).

Let's see who Alabamans send to the Senate. Should be interesting.

I realize that at common law, girls were married at 14. But the life expectancy and the expectations about women's lives were very different at the time that law was operative.

If we are one nation, people in small states should recognize that we are all one people. They should not accept an election system that disadvantages others, that diminishes the voices of others just because they live in urban areas or more populated states.

[Fred Sanders]

12. So "the rules" can not be changed to fit current reality and political unfairness? Got it.

[HeartachesNhangovers]

16. Of course the rules can change - there is a clear

procedure to do it. Are there any serious efforts underway to change congressional representation for the states?

[calimary]

53. Uh-huh!!! Yes!!! California gets such short shrift!

That’s a BIG thorn in my paw! Has been for a long time. I’ve long resented that California gets almost literally NO SAY, NONE, in presidential elections. Our primary isn’t til June! When the nominee has for all intents and purposes already been chosen. Yet WE have the biggest population that, because of its size and scope, is more directly affected by everything decided in Washington DC than any other state. Why don’t we have more say?

This has burned me up for years! Ever since Reagan in 1980 when the whole damn election was called at roughly 5pm Pacific time! While many of us were still voting!!! While our precincts were open for hours more! What? We don’t count out here? All those other taker states sure don’t mind taking our tax money, since we’re a donor state and out of every tax dollar we pay in, we only get back 78 cents! Very often I find myself thinking that, for all the abuse and derision heaped upon us in California by the rest of the nation, how ‘bout we just keep all that tax money then? We have problems out here for which WE could use that money!

Sorry to sound like a butt-head here but I’ve gotta say - this just intensely burns me up.

[Ligyron]

61. No you're right.

If states with large populations like Cali and NY made their primary dates much earlier we'd see a whole different group of candidates in Pres. elections.

[HeartachesNhangovers]

5. Well that explains the traffic.

I grew up in the city of L.A., and I don't mind visiting, but the overcrowding basically drove me away when I turned 18.

[dalton99a]

13. Great map.

[JI7]

19. That's why traffic sucks

[DFW]

22. There are about six million of us Americans Abroad

Not including military personnel.

That makes us a population bigger than about half the states. Our representation is exactly zero.

[FakeNoose]

43. You can vote by mail, right?

I'm pretty sure the armed forces who are deployed outside the country all vote by mail-in ballots. If you are a US citizen you should always have a the opportunity to vote. Living outside the country doesn't matter.

[DFW]

47. I'm not talking about the right to vote. I'm talking about representation in Congress.

Poorly staffed consulates and embassies (especially now) with ridiculously short hours, antiquated tax treaties that allow for double taxation, little to no contact info in times of crisis. We have no one we can turn to for issues that affect us. The ONE member of Congress who WAS going to take up our cause lost his bid to regain his Senate seat last year (Russ Feingold).

[Sophia4]

59. If we had one person, one vote, your votes would count the same as if you lived in the US, but you

would not have representation in Congress because you are not here -- although you may be able to vote in the elections of the state in which you are a resident.

I've also lived outside the US. I just stopped voting when I was not in the US because I did not think I knew enough about what was going on here. I was raising small children most of that time.

[DFW]

64. My children are grown and I keep VERY in touch with what is going on back home ALL the time

From your post count, you are new here, and have no reason to know. My dad was a Washington print journalist in Washington for 50 years, and knew every president since LBJ, plus most VPs (except Dan Quayle, who was barely there to begin with), was good friends with Bobby Kennedy, Sr. He introduced me to most presidents from LBJ to Clinton. I know Obama slightly from other channels, and Howard Dean is a long time personal friend. Several members of Congress, too. So, even though I might maintain a physical distance, I keep a VERY close eye on what happens back home, I promise you!

One person, one vote doesn't get us far if the electoral college still stands. Republican voter repression wouldn't have the same effect if the whole country just counted votes, period. Presidents Al Gore and Hillary Clinton would have made sure nothing like the damage we suffered under Cheney (dba Bush Lite), or now suffer under Trump, ever came close to occurring.

I vote absentee in Texas (for all the good THAT does me), although the only one that showed the slightest interest in actively getting fair representation for Americans abroad as a group was Russ Feingold. He was sympathetic, as he understood our position, since his wife was spending extended time in the UK. Unfortunately, he did not regain his Senate seat seat year. At least, not as far as the official vote count said.

[fescuerescue]

23. wow. That is amazing

Not for me, but if you like crowds, must be heaven.

[R B Garr]

24. Heck, I remember hearing a stat that Long Beach

was the size of one of the New England states.

[fallout87]

26. Unfortunately.....

The requirement to change the electoral college is so high, that it will never be abolished. Never.

[Kentonio]

56. Two thirds of states for a constitutional convention, so 34 states.

The Republicans had 32 last time I checked, with (IIRC) 34 governorships. If they ever get those last couple they will almost certainly hold a convention.

If anything should encourage us to start working to take back state governance it is that. If they can get that close to 34, then there's no reason why we shouldn't be able to aim for it.

[pangaia]

27. LOLOLOLOL

kersplurt !!!

[oberliner]

28. And the NYC metropolitan area has double the population of LA county

Between the two of them, we are talking about 10 percent of the entire US population.

[padfun]

52. The LA metro area covers more than just LA county (10.5m).

It also covers Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. Overall, about 18.6 million.

[oberliner]

55. Good point

There are a whole lot of people living in the NY and LA areas. When they show those maps with all those giant red states, people need to realize how few people live there relatively speaking (same deal when they talk about how many counties were won by Republicans).

[zipplewrath]

57. Manhattan

It has a larger population than many states.

Truth is, the general area between DC and Boston, together with the general area between San Diego and LA represents something like 25% of the total population of the US.

[VOX]

31. And we Californians have to let Wyoming, the Dakotas, Idaho, etc. hold the remote.

And they keep the set on Fox News constantly.

[brooklynite]

34. Relevance?

If your argument is that this is unrepresentative of the power those States control, let me say that: 1) you're right and 2) that's what our Constitution came up with to get unanimous support for independence and 3) changing that will involve more than venting at a political blog site.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

51. Sometimes a map is just a map. NT

[treestar]

36. We need liberals to

crowd Fl and TX somehow. And get better turnout from PA, like we usually do - how did we slip this time?

[Dawson Leery]

37. In another generation, 70% of the population

will be in the largest 15 states, meaning 70% of the population will be represented by just 30 Senators.

Representative Apartheid is real.

[GeorgeGist]

39. The fatal flaw in the plan is kinda obvious ...

when you present it that way.

[Dawson Leery]

41. kick

[Hekate]

46. Yet California's votes count for less in the Electoral College. Go figure.

[Sancho]

48. We have added women's right to vote....

And lowered the voting age to 18. Changes can be made and it seems obvious that the electoral college is a flawed process. Maybe tRump is the catalyst to get people riled enough to do something.

[Lurks Often]

49. And that's why the Electoral College will NEVER be abolished

And if CA was a red state we wouldn't even be having this conversation

[workinclasszero]

60. So why are these puny redstate bastards

running the show and destroying the country!?