Fifty States with Equal Population

[Charles Kozierok]

I found this thought experiment interesting. It will never happen, of course -- it would be impractical, unpopular and there's no provision in the Constitution for it.

But some of those redraws are interesting. Northern New York state does have more in common with northern New England than the NYC area.

I also wonder what impact it would have on our political system if states all had the same number of people in them. The electoral college would cease to have much significance, of course, but the impacts would go well beyond that...

 

[JulesMaximus]

We should name the states after companies though, not geographical features. It is more in keeping with the traditions of these United Corporate States of America.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

It seems like a reasonable idea, actually; kind of like congressional districts, but re-drawing the states.

Unfortunately gerrymandering will occur :-/

But if not, then it would be a reasonable solution to what I think is the pure-stupidity of the massive disproportional representation in the Senate. It served to bring-together states that were more different from each-other than canada is from the US today; but since the civil war it's been philosophically unnecessary.

I still like the idea of a smaller legislative body with longer terms that's a check on the mob-rule schizophrenia of a 2-year election cycle.

 

[soccerballtux]

We should name the states after companies though, not geographical features. It is more in keeping with the traditions of these United Corporate States of America.

lol.

It seems like a reasonable idea, actually; kind of like congressional districts, but re-drawing the states.

Unfortunately gerrymandering will occur :-/

But if not, then it would be a reasonable solution to what I think is the pure-stupidity of the massive disproportional representation in the Senate. It served to bring-together states that were more different from each-other than canada is from the US today; but since the civil war it's been philosophically unnecessary.

I still like the idea of a smaller legislative body with longer terms that's a check on the mob-rule schizophrenia of a 2-year election cycle.

Yes. How gerry-mandered is this current drawing?

Also, I think the biggest problem is that the State government has more or less become like the Federal government-- you can't change it-- which was the founding fathers' main reason for having a union of states, so that you can change things in your state to be the way you like, instead of some clown a long way off taxing you to pay for his stuff and giving you none of it.

So we need another go-between, to get us to the state. Not just electorates that choose the Senator or however it works, but actual sudo-senators with their own opinions, who then go vote for whoever is most like those opinions. Keep layering it up to keep it in check with the population, so that it's always local and not impossible to elect a third or seventh party.

 

[Murloc]

the bicameral system makes having equal states unnecessary.
1 room has equal representation for each state, the other proportional to population.
This way the big guys can't force anything on the small guys and viceversa.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I wonder how many people think "bicameral" means "having two cameras"?

Yes, I disagree with the premise behind this -- that the states need to be made "more equal" -- I just thought it was cool.

 

[DrPizza]

It's a cool idea. I don't think it's necessary. Though, I wonder - for those of us in upstate NY who are ruled by NYC politics, I wonder if we'd have representation? The NYC wields enormous power over the more rural counties. My own school district looked at state aid to schools - for an identical sized district on Long Island - almost the same number of students, they are a much more affluent area - property taxes raise a lot more money than property taxes out here. So, they raise their taxes 2% (which is the limit, by state law), and they raise 100's of thousands more dollars for school funding. Meanwhile, they also get a LOT more money from the state - schools out here are cutting programs left and right, while those other areas can afford more and more.

 

[ElFenix]

It's a cool idea. I don't think it's necessary. Though, I wonder - for those of us in upstate NY who are ruled by NYC politics, I wonder if we'd have representation? The NYC wields enormous power over the more rural counties. My own school district looked at state aid to schools - for an identical sized district on Long Island - almost the same number of students, they are a much more affluent area - property taxes raise a lot more money than property taxes out here. So, they raise their taxes 2% (which is the limit, by state law), and they raise 100's of thousands more dollars for school funding. Meanwhile, they also get a LOT more money from the state - schools out here are cutting programs left and right, while those other areas can afford more and more.

sounds like the kind of mess texas is in. our mess was so bad a state judge declared the state's school funding mechanism unconstitutional under the state constitution.

yay property taxes

 

[Murloc]

the fact is that if you went alone, you'd not have more money than now, while NYC wouldn't help pay state taxes for you to receive funding from the state anyone, so all in all it's worse I guess.

Here any school above the middle school level is under direct control of the state (or private) so there are the same chances for everyone after that.

The lower levels have to be funded by local entities though, so you need money.
A fix for that would be horizontal equalization payments. In the US from what I gathered you mainly have grants and vertical transfers (federal -> state, state -> local entitities). We have some of that too but there's more:
here an average fiscal power is calculated and there are horizontal transfers of money to help weaker states, and weaker municipalities inside a state (the intercommunal transfers happen only within the state). Plus an equalization that considers factors such as % of rural territory and stuff, because it's obvious that a huge municipality in a tight valley with low population will spend a lot of money in infrastructure while having less income.

This would help pay for schools and avoid a centralization towards the urban centers.

 

[Craig234]

The real challenge we face is not this - though there is an injustice in the overrepresentation of small states - rather, it's gerrymandering.

The fact that in the 2012 election a million more voters voted in House elections - supposedly the one representing the people most closely - for Democrats, but Republicans got 33 more seats, is an example of the violation of democracy this gerrymandering causes. And it has a huge result in blocking 'the will of the people' from passing the laws they wanted to.

Many Republicans want to extend the wrong by using the same thing for the presidency.

If that was in place in 2012, Romney would have won with his 5 million fewer votes.

 

[waggy]

It's a cool idea. I don't think it's necessary. Though, I wonder - for those of us in upstate NY who are ruled by NYC politics, I wonder if we'd have representation? The NYC wields enormous power over the more rural counties. My own school district looked at state aid to schools - for an identical sized district on Long Island - almost the same number of students, they are a much more affluent area - property taxes raise a lot more money than property taxes out here. So, they raise their taxes 2% (which is the limit, by state law), and they raise 100's of thousands more dollars for school funding. Meanwhile, they also get a LOT more money from the state - schools out here are cutting programs left and right, while those other areas can afford more and more.

that would be my question.

The map list where i live in the chicago part.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The real challenge we face is not this - though there is an injustice in the overrepresentation of small states - rather, it's gerrymandering.

The fact that in the 2012 election a million more voters voted in House elections - supposedly the one representing the people most closely - for Democrats, but Republicans got 33 more seats, is an example of the violation of democracy this gerrymandering causes. And it has a huge result in blocking 'the will of the people' from passing the laws they wanted to.

Many Republicans want to extend the wrong by using the same thing for the presidency.

If that was in place in 2012, Romney would have won with his 5 million fewer votes.

More list the distribution of voters with the districts.

Over concentration of voters in the urban areas.
Even if there is a 60/40 split; massing 80% of one party into an area that only 50% should fit (+20% overkill) allows an adjustment of 55% in other areas (40% + 15% due to overkill).

So instead of a 2-0 return; you have a 1-1 return.

As to the gerrymandering example; that is a responsibility of the state government; elected by the voters of the state.
So using the 60/40 split; apparently enough of the 60% are happy with the way things worked out.

Tough luck for those that do not think that local voters should decide their fate.

 

[zinfamous]

that would be my question.

The map list where i live in the chicago part.

That part is called: Gary.

 

[herm0016]

The real challenge we face is not this - though there is an injustice in the overrepresentation of small states - rather, it's gerrymandering.

The fact that in the 2012 election a million more voters voted in House elections - supposedly the one representing the people most closely - for Democrats, but Republicans got 33 more seats, is an example of the violation of democracy this gerrymandering causes. And it has a huge result in blocking 'the will of the people' from passing the laws they wanted to.

Many Republicans want to extend the wrong by using the same thing for the presidency.

If that was in place in 2012, Romney would have won with his 5 million fewer votes.

i would say that this is more a result of republicins representing much less dense states like wyoming and the dakotas, vs areas like LA in california, that have more people per square mile than some other entire states.

1 million votes total is not very much anyway.
what is your solution?
to make the voice or rural america even less relevent?

 

[Craig234]

i would say that this is more a result of republicins representing much less dense states like wyoming and the dakotas, vs areas like LA in california, that have more people per square mile than some other entire states.

1 million votes total is not very much anyway.
what is your solution?
to make the voice or rural america even less relevent?

Here's the problem - you describe it as "even less" relevant, as if they're already unfairly underrepresented, when the opposite is the case.

Wyoming has under a million people (last I checked) and my state California like 40 million people. So they have 40 times the representation per person we do.

There's an idea of 'one voter, one note', not 'hey I'm in a special state so one voter, 40 votes'.

(Some people in) the rural places think they're entitled to 'equality' as a group with the 'city folk' no matter how many fewer of them there are.

If there are 200 million city folk for 20 million rural folk, the city folk SHOULD have a lot more political power.

Just like the 3/5 slavery compromise, the overrepresentation of small states is an anachronistic, unjust violation of democracy.

But people feel entitled.

None of this is about gerrymandering, though, which is the issue I said I'm especially concerned about.

 

[herm0016]

55 vs 3

its 4x more per person not 40x more. You can plainly see the power of population centers in this country. We in Wyoming produce a lot of things that the population centers need, and are expected to sit down and shut up most of the time. We are continuously bombarded by people from the population centers that do not understand issues we face, such as the wild horse population, grazing rights, and energy production.
Examples that seem to get a lot of support from non-rural America:
1. action against wild horse roundups: wild horses are not native, and are nearly an invasive specie that pushes out native populations of deer, elk, antelope and compete with what grazing rights are left.
2. wind power: people come here to tell us that our wind farms are doing damage to the environment. We are not even in their backyard! They are preventing us from moving to better energy production, they love to prevent us from using our other resources to support out state also.

and we are not one of your "welfare states" (flawed logic, another thread).

Population centers do have a lot of political power, and they should. I was not arguing that point. also, all power is not political.
Power in society comes from large groups that have the same ideas. Many of those ideas about places like where I live are fundamentally flawed by emotion and pretty pictures of horses running in the desert.

 

[Craig234]

its 4x more per person not 40x more.

Wyoming has under 600k people. CA has 38 million. So it's more than 40x per person.

One voter, one vote.

Every group of voters can make the case that there's something oh so important about them and they're a small group and they won't be heard as a minority.

It's not fair to pick one of those groups and say 'ya, you get special treatment'.

If there are 1000 city people and 100 country people, the 1000 are entitled to their 1000 votes no matter how much the 100 country claim the city people don't appreciate them.

Votes are not assigned by 'well, we don't have that many farmers, so you get 20 votes each'.

The protection for the minority in a democracy is always an issue, but it done by guaranteeing individual rights, not giving some people less representation.

Bottom line, it's just unfair and excuses why to keep it by those who like those groups having more power.