General Discussion

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)

175. Fair point. And gerrymandering is made easier by the concentration of people...

Fri Jul 20, 2018, 08:34 PM

Jul 2018

Last edited Fri Jul 20, 2018, 09:13 PM - Edit history (1)

...of the same political persuasion, which makes urban/blue areas most vulnerable.

I guess I'd like to see a list of every district by population. In theory, every district should be about the same size, population-wise...but are they? Does your average 'blue' district actually have far more people than your average 'red' district? If so, then it would be in our interest to increase the number of districts and make sure every district has no more than, say, 50 thousand people *and* no fewer than, say, 45 thousand people.

I have not yet found such a list.

*Edit: But I did find this: https://demography.cpc.unc.edu/2016/02/29/u-s-congressional-district-population-estimates-and-deviation-from-ideal-population-size-2014/

If there are districts with considerably more people than other districts, that presents a real problem. Without a complete list, it's hard to say which party would benefit from greater parity, but I'm betting it would the Democratic Party.

Rather than put a cap on the number of districts, let's put a cap and a minimum on the number of people within a single district. And let's make that cap a lot lower than the current average (of nearly 800,000 people per district--ridiculous to have 1 person representing that many people)

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

224 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What's the argument for each state having the same number of US Senators? [View all] Garrett78 Jul 2018 OP

It works hack89 Jul 2018 #1

It doesn't work. 70% of the population will be living in 16 states before long. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #7

If you say so. Nt hack89 Jul 2018 #23

You're right. Everything is going great! kcr Jul 2018 #101

It's fucked up already. shanny Jul 2018 #27

Agreed. Reading that article earlier today just drove the point home that it's getting worse. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #41

Can you give us a link to the article? Nt raccoon Jul 2018 #107

here Celerity Jul 2018 #110

100% of the population lived in 13 states right after the Revolutionary War. LiberalFighter Jul 2018 #85

19% of the population in 1790 lived in Virginia Spider Jerusalem Jul 2018 #103

Really? WTF does that even mean?? nt USALiberal Jul 2018 #71

It means it is better than most alternatives hack89 Jul 2018 #83

It works for the RW anti-democracy forces. Crunchy Frog Jul 2018 #105

Ok. hack89 Jul 2018 #108

It works well for Rhode Island hack89 Jul 2018 #109

And our taxation system works great for billionaires Crunchy Frog Jul 2018 #134

That's nice hack89 Jul 2018 #136

It works for the states that are over-represented. Not for the states that aren't. pnwmom Jul 2018 #151

Oh well hack89 Jul 2018 #153

Why would it be hurting the small states? I agree they would fight it -- because they would lose pnwmom Jul 2018 #157

You have to get them to vote for it first hack89 Jul 2018 #160

It clearly does not work Chickensoup Jul 2018 #152

From my perspective in Rhode Island it works very well hack89 Jul 2018 #154

Dictatorships "work" as well. guillaumeb Jul 2018 #155

It was a necessary compromise to create America hack89 Jul 2018 #156

Even thought it allows a very few rural states to control the rest? guillaumeb Jul 2018 #158

So convince all those states that stand to lose political power to support such an admendment hack89 Jul 2018 #159

How exactly would small states be harmed? Please provide specifics? Garrett78 Jul 2018 #203

Our two senators have ensured Rhode Island gets its fair share of federal funds hack89 Jul 2018 #204

We can create laws to ensure fairness/proportionality in funding without... Garrett78 Jul 2018 #206

Why are you so determined........ WillowTree Jul 2018 #211

They would still have a voice. Why are you determined to make sure they have an outsized voice? Garrett78 Jul 2018 #212

They would have no voice in the government that would mean anything. WillowTree Jul 2018 #213

Please give specifics. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #217

This is a pointless exercise. WillowTree Jul 2018 #218

Representation in the House is based on population DeminPennswoods Jul 2018 #2

What does "on even footing" mean, though? Again, would the small states not benefit from... Garrett78 Jul 2018 #9

The US is a representative democracy DeminPennswoods Jul 2018 #15

No manor321 Jul 2018 #18

Like I said, it seems to boil down to the argument that tyranny of the minority is better... Garrett78 Jul 2018 #19

The relatively few people who live in less populated states are represented when it Sophia4 Jul 2018 #104

I would add that the District of Columbia should be granted statehood. thucythucy Jul 2018 #129

Yes, and the status of Puerto Rico should be changed so that it is a state also. Sophia4 Jul 2018 #135

Absolutely. thucythucy Jul 2018 #139

Yes. argyl Jul 2018 #221

I agree. Captain Stern Jul 2018 #222

If they don't want to be a state, then we should have no responsibility for them. Sophia4 Jul 2018 #224

Your wage disparity argument falls flat based on the figures. former9thward Jul 2018 #32

There are many factors there. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #37

It would only be elegant if the representation in the House was... brush Jul 2018 #65

It's Republican privilege. Democrats are starting the race from well behind the starting line. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #75

It got out of whack when they decided to limit the total number to 435. LiberalFighter Jul 2018 #87

All that takes is an Act of Congress, it doesn't take a Constitutional Amendment Celerity Jul 2018 #111

Thanks for the link. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #124

Yes, I knew the Senate was slowly drifting this way as well but had no idea Celerity Jul 2018 #127

Yep! LiberalFighter Jul 2018 #141

Now that is a good argument and possible. It should be increased. California is penalized by this. Demsrule86 Jul 2018 #114

I can't see this a being an issue GulfCoast66 Jul 2018 #161

CA's increase in seats would be far greater. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #164

Which is the exact same proportion those two states are now! GulfCoast66 Jul 2018 #165

High density/blue areas would be broken up into a lot more districts than... Garrett78 Jul 2018 #170

Now you're moving the goalposts. Changing the subject really GulfCoast66 Jul 2018 #171

Fair point. And gerrymandering is made easier by the concentration of people... Garrett78 Jul 2018 #175

It's an issue because the number of reps was capped at 435... brush Jul 2018 #179

In 1930 California had 20 congressmen GulfCoast66 Jul 2018 #185

You should read the link and google other repug schemes over the... brush Jul 2018 #186

So now you just change the subject? GulfCoast66 Jul 2018 #189

You are correct about 53. brush Jul 2018 #191

I would agree with that if Congress was proportional represented JonLP24 Jul 2018 #195

This is why the republicans have invested in 30+ years of the hate am radio that Tumbulu Jul 2018 #3

Technically an option manor321 Jul 2018 #10

Or we can just vote. EffieBlack Jul 2018 #46

This is why I can't take seriously the idea that we just need to have a "50-state strategy." Garrett78 Jul 2018 #51

But we can fund progressive radio to battle these horrible stations. Tumbulu Jul 2018 #96

For sure. There are a number of media-related concerns we need to address. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #98

I wish I could agree. But I can't. GulfCoast66 Jul 2018 #162

That's a good point. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #178

There are too many states, too many legislatures and way too many politicians BSdetect Jul 2018 #4

Compromise at the Convention manor321 Jul 2018 #5

They probably didn't envision 70% of the population living in just 16 out of 50 states. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #11

There were only 13 states then tirebiter Jul 2018 #22

Yep. It's a completely different world, and our laws should reflect that. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #33

Exactly, farmers / rural live was the most common treestar Jul 2018 #57

I totally think they could picture of the industrial revolution. GulfCoast66 Jul 2018 #163

True. I recall Jefferson's letters treestar Jul 2018 #168

The best argument for it is no longer valid. tinrobot Jul 2018 #6

Yep, this isn't the 18th century. And soon 70% of the population will be living... Garrett78 Jul 2018 #24

Is this post for real? oberliner Jul 2018 #8

Yes. Because before long 70% of the population will be living in just 16 states. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #13

OK oberliner Jul 2018 #20

I'm arguing that both chambers should be proportional. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #26

Then what would be the point of having two different chambers? oberliner Jul 2018 #34

The two chambers have different constitutional rolls. Blue_true Jul 2018 #47

I agree with this. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #49

What are your thoughts on the Electoral College? oberliner Jul 2018 #70

I'd abolish it. thucythucy Jul 2018 #78

It should be modified to also reflect population. Blue_true Jul 2018 #79

Have you seen this? oberliner Jul 2018 #80

No, I didn't see that. Blue_true Jul 2018 #88

This example gives California 65 electoral votes and drops Wyoming to 1 oberliner Jul 2018 #89

Did it adjust all states, or just Wyoming and California? Blue_true Jul 2018 #91

It adjusted all states oberliner Jul 2018 #116

Giving them out proportionally wouldn't solve the problem of... Garrett78 Jul 2018 #121

True but it would address the millions of votes in California that didn't matter oberliner Jul 2018 #131

Allocating proportionally opens the system up to manipulation. Blue_true Jul 2018 #132

Plus the judiciary exists to enforce treestar Jul 2018 #59

They know they have it backwards, but they like it that way. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #62

I've seen the allegation, but could you point us towards the actual argument LanternWaste Jul 2018 #145

If the House had fair representation living with 2 senators per state... brush Jul 2018 #74

I think the framers did envision exactly that. former9thward Jul 2018 #36

Perhaps, but the total population back then was minuscule. It's a totally different world now. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #39

Let's have a new Constitutional convention then. former9thward Jul 2018 #42

I think that's the way to go, and I think the framers would've expected that to have happened by now Garrett78 Jul 2018 #43

That should be something. The Koch brothers and the Mercers will be dirty tricking Blue_true Jul 2018 #50

You are basically proposing eliminating the Senate, not changing it. forthemiddle Jul 2018 #112

What's wrong with considering this issue? treestar Jul 2018 #58

Fair enough oberliner Jul 2018 #72

The argument is "all states have equal power" under the Constitution PoliticAverse Jul 2018 #12

But, of course, all states don't have equal power. The small states have *much* more say... Garrett78 Jul 2018 #14

Well that's electoral votes not senators. And smaller states do have less say than larger states... PoliticAverse Jul 2018 #21

The number of electoral votes is based on the number of Reps and Senators, giving small states... Garrett78 Jul 2018 #28

Electoral votes counts are affected treestar Jul 2018 #60

The Senate is proportional 2naSalit Jul 2018 #16

So, your two Senators represent a million people stopbush Jul 2018 #25

Yep. Tyranny of the minority prevents universal health care, action on climate change, etc. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #30

And that's why the 2naSalit Jul 2018 #140

Well, one fix would be to move some Senate functions - like confirming judges and SCOTUS justices - stopbush Jul 2018 #147

Which would also require a constitutional amendment. WillowTree Jul 2018 #148

I am okay with it 2naSalit Jul 2018 #149

Just wait until the House has 5000 or 10000 members. We'll need a new Capitol Building. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #150

Because we are the union of separate states? X_Digger Jul 2018 #17

Changing it is all but impossible. Hoyt Jul 2018 #29

I know, sadly. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #31

that is why we must always have 50 states strategy AlexSFCA Jul 2018 #35

Unless Democrats abandon core principles, they aren't going to win in places like WY and ID. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #38

Tell that to Doug Jones in Alabama GulfCoast66 Jul 2018 #166

There's a world of difference between a national campaign and a statewide campaign. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #167

I think abandoning core principals JonLP24 Jul 2018 #198

So, what is your proposal to fix this? Bettie Jul 2018 #40

Fairness. Proportionality. Every state would have at least 1 Senator. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #45

I say one house only treestar Jul 2018 #63

We could live with 2 senators per state if the House representation... brush Jul 2018 #76

Your post is factually incorrect GulfCoast66 Jul 2018 #169

Your post has some truths to it but NY is still one of the largest... brush Jul 2018 #174

I'm about done here GulfCoast66 Jul 2018 #180

That 700k is an average. California should have more reps. brush Jul 2018 #181

No it's not an average. GulfCoast66 Jul 2018 #188

Dig into Tom Delay as one example of repug gerrymandering schemes. brush Jul 2018 #190

Gerrymandering is a totally different thing than congressional proportioning GulfCoast66 Jul 2018 #192

California was just an example. Gerrymandering IMO has contributed... brush Jul 2018 #194

It is an average. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #196

In that you are correct. The small states are the fly in the ointment GulfCoast66 Jul 2018 #197

I'd like to see a complete list of districts by population size. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #200

I too would be curious GulfCoast66 Jul 2018 #202

It becomes even more impossible as the overall population grows. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #205

So much good food for thought here. GulfCoast66 Jul 2018 #208

Sounds like a plan. I may start a new thread asking those questions. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #209

Wait till tomorrow? Please 😄 GulfCoast66 Jul 2018 #210

Oops. Here's the link, so that you can find it tomorrow: Garrett78 Jul 2018 #216

Not directed at anyone in particular sdfernando Jul 2018 #44

I get all of that. This is a completely different world now, and I suspect... Garrett78 Jul 2018 #48

I am loathe to have a Constitutional convention sdfernando Jul 2018 #67

They were a small group of wealthy, white supremacist men. Let's not glorify them. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #69

I don't believe I'm glorifying them sdfernando Jul 2018 #126

The Connecticut Compromise which resulted in each State, irrespective of size, having two senators TomSlick Jul 2018 #52

I bet the framers would be surprised to know we haven't already had another const. convention. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #53

Oh, surely not! TomSlick Jul 2018 #54

Perhaps. fescuerescue Jul 2018 #128

the smaller states might not be so treestar Jul 2018 #61

Smaller Republican states would never go along. They will not give up their over-sized power. TomSlick Jul 2018 #84

should be 1 senator allocated to each state and the other 50 given proportionally by size sunonmars Jul 2018 #55

That's how the House works. dflprincess Jul 2018 #93

Now not much, but back at the start treestar Jul 2018 #56

Look up the Connecticut Compromise sarisataka Jul 2018 #64

I'm aware of how things came to be, but this is a completely different world. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #68

Argue with the founding fathers...but seems to work. beachbum bob Jul 2018 #66

The framers couldn't have envisioned today's world. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #73

There is none, and it's funny watching people try to defend it. DanTex Jul 2018 #77

Good grief, get a 5th grade civics book KelleyKramer Jul 2018 #81

I didn't ask how it originated. I asked what the current justification is for it. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #82

The same as it has been all along KelleyKramer Jul 2018 #92

Thanks for the snark, but I don't think that justification applies any longer. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #95

Super informative! kcr Jul 2018 #102

The Senate is the last chamber to pass the law. LiberalFighter Jul 2018 #86

"What's the argument for each state having the same number of US Senators?" AncientGeezer Jul 2018 #90

That's not an argument for it. And this is a completely different world now. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #97

How is each State having 2 Senators cruel Government? AncientGeezer Jul 2018 #115

A fraction of the population is represented by half the Senators. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #119

It was a necessary concession to get the smaller states to ratify the Constitution Recursion Jul 2018 #94

Yes, that's how it originated. But, as you say, it's incredibly unfair. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #99

And then the same pressures that originate it sustain it Recursion Jul 2018 #100

It's absolutely necessary to have a balance between territory and population. joshcryer Jul 2018 #118

Yeah, I don't particularly care about the territory Recursion Jul 2018 #123

Why does a territory need representation? What does that even mean? Garrett78 Jul 2018 #187

You can have all the intellecutual thought games you want on this, the reality is it isn't going to still_one Jul 2018 #106

It really doesn't matter because you won't change it. If you can't convince enough people to vote Demsrule86 Jul 2018 #113

It's the epitome of perfection for a democratic republic. joshcryer Jul 2018 #117

I agree about boosting the number of Representatives. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #120

That's fine. If there is an overwhelmingly popular bill... joshcryer Jul 2018 #122

Presumably, but that sure as hell isn't happening now. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #125

The argument is that.... NCTraveler Jul 2018 #130

Because we were only a Union, where States had much more power, and Senators represented THOSE jmg257 Jul 2018 #133

Consider that if all of Congress was proportional based on population....... WillowTree Jul 2018 #137

It was a compromise D_Master81 Jul 2018 #138

Correct me if I'm wrong, but for the sake of clarity, I think you meant to say....... WillowTree Jul 2018 #142

correct D_Master81 Jul 2018 #193

You have to go back to the begining louis c Jul 2018 #143

On the off chance schools no longer teach the basics... LanternWaste Jul 2018 #144

You must have missed my edit of the OP. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #146

Every idea floated here would not only require a super majority in Congress. GulfCoast66 Jul 2018 #172

Actually, that would be my preference, as well. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #177

This is basic civics jmowreader Jul 2018 #173

I wish people would stop with the "basic civics" stuff, especially since I clarified the OP. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #176

You mean, why do we still have it? jmowreader Jul 2018 #199

Basically, but I'm well aware of the enormous hurdles in the way of amending the constitution. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #201

The Greens want to eliminate the Senate because it's undemocratic. DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2018 #182

It is insane. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #184

So urban doesn't overrun rural wonkwest Jul 2018 #183

Please see posts #203-#204, as well as #206. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #207

I saw wonkwest Jul 2018 #220

and I'm sorry to say.....and hope it hasn't been said already...... a kennedy Jul 2018 #214

HOLY CRAP.....IS THIS THE LONGEST THREAD EVER??? a kennedy Jul 2018 #215

The argument is we haven't adjusted the electoral process at all despite 250 years of change. Saguaro Jul 2018 #219

It gives the states with smaller population disprapportionate strength in the Senate. Captain Stern Jul 2018 #223