Hillary vs Bernie coming down to the wire in Iowa, Cruz wins over Trump

[werepossum]

I don't think that the first state a primary is held in has such enormous influence that starting in a large state would mean only those backed by the establishment or billionaires would win. It does give that state greater influence, but that's the whole point. As we have it now the entire first month of the primary season where numerous candidates already drop out due to their poor showing takes place in states where the combined population is smaller than Pennsylvania.

So basically I just don't see how the advantages to better funded candidates are so great that they eclipse the problems with giving tiny states such an outsized role in selecting candidates. Why is it we have spent $90 billion or so on corn subsidies over the last 10 years but California has huge unfunded infrastructure needs? The Iowa caucuses certainly don't help. Considering the vast array of electoral advantages that small states enjoy for reasons that really don't make any sense in modern America anyway it's hard for me to accept an argument for furthering them.

Another way to look at that would be to wonder why such a wealthy state can't handle its own infrastructure needs.

 

[fskimospy]

Another way to look at that would be to wonder why such a wealthy state can't handle its own infrastructure needs.

Well that would indeed be a way to look at it, it would just be a stupid way. Federal infrastructure spending is supposed to be allocated by need and return on investment.

 

[Bowfinger]

Isn't that kind of backward? Small states have limited media. Seems to me that a well-funded candidate could swamp the airwaves and thus crowd out the poorly funded candidates.

No, because success in Iowa doesn't require a huge ad campaign. Ads are important, but they aren't dominant. Success here requires getting out and meeting voters, introducing yourself and your ideas face to face. It's not a cheap process either, but it's much less expensive than just saturating the airwaves as you would in a large state, or a Super-Tuesday-sized event.

 

[irishScott]

I do want every state, actually. Small states already have innumerable electoral advantages over larger ones and their interests frequently diverge significantly from those of larger states. I don't think the argument for permanently codifying yet another small state electoral advantage into our presidential selection system is a good idea.

Or put more succinctly, I don't think that it's a good idea to base our electoral system on the price of media markets. Every state deserves an equal chance to have its priorities come first. Or hell, just have a national primary day.

The issue is larger states go the way of the big cities, which are often not representative of the state as a whole. Those small-state advantages you dislike are needed to ensure we don't become the United Cities of America and have a massive abuse-of-the-majority problem. We arguably already have such issues in Presidential elections.

Yes this means that a vote in a larger state means less than a vote in a smaller state, but the trade-off is more equal representation among cultures. Believe it or not there's a large chunk of the population that has no desire to live in or be governed by a big city.

 

[werepossum]

Well that would indeed be a way to look at it, it would just be a stupid way. Federal infrastructure spending is supposed to be allocated by need and return on investment.

lol Okay, so why does such a wealthy state have such need? (For purposes of this conversation we'll pretend that is a different question.) Certainly a LOT more people per mile of road or phone line or water pipe in California; its population density is over ten times that of Iowa. Individual income is higher, corporate income is much higher, and everyone's taxes are higher in California. So why does California need first crack at political graft to get its house in order?

No, because success in Iowa doesn't require a huge ad campaign. Ads are important, but they aren't dominant. Success here requires getting out and meeting voters, introducing yourself and your ideas face to face. It's not a cheap process either, but it's much less expensive than just saturating the airwaves as you would in a large state, or a Super-Tuesday-sized event.

I wonder how true that is. Cruz, Rubio, Bush and Trump were probably the big spenders, whereas Huckabee and Santorum and O'Malley were the people most relying on the ground game.

WaPo thinks not. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...68764e-b935-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html

Although evidently it isn't spending either. http://www.ibtimes.com/political-ca...ers-lose-big-jeb-bush-spent-2888-vote-2289563
Bush spent a whopping $2,888 per vote.

 

[werepossum]

The issue is larger states go the way of the big cities, which are often not representative of the state as a whole. Those small-state advantages you dislike are needed to ensure we don't become the United Cities of America and have a massive abuse-of-the-majority problem. We arguably already have such issues in Presidential elections.

Yes this means that a vote in a larger state means less than a vote in a smaller state, but the trade-off is more equal representation among cultures. Believe it or not there's a large chunk of the population that has no desire to live in or be governed by a big city.

Rats or people, when something is crowded together they get mean and stupid.

 

[fskimospy]

lol Okay, so why does such a wealthy state have such need? (For purposes of this conversation we'll pretend that is a different question.) Certainly a LOT more people per mile of road or phone line or water pipe in California; its population density is over ten times that of Iowa. Individual income is higher, corporate income is much higher, and everyone's taxes are higher in California. So why does California need first crack at political graft to get its house in order?


I wonder how true that is. Cruz, Rubio, Bush and Trump were probably the big spenders, whereas Huckabee and Santorum and O'Malley were the people most relying on the ground game.

WaPo thinks not. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...68764e-b935-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html

Although evidently it isn't spending either. http://www.ibtimes.com/political-ca...ers-lose-big-jeb-bush-spent-2888-vote-2289563
Bush spent a whopping $2,888 per vote.

California is doing just fine. It's pretty telling that you interpreted my call for less political graft by small states to mean increased political graft by big states though, haha. California would have more money for infrastructure if we wasted less on farm subsidies. If you rotate the primary calendar then you're more likely to allow each state to highlight its priorities.

Then again, conservatives always did love big government subsidies so long as they don't go to those gross liberals in the scary cities.

 

[fskimospy]

The issue is larger states go the way of the big cities, which are often not representative of the state as a whole. Those small-state advantages you dislike are needed to ensure we don't become the United Cities of America and have a massive abuse-of-the-majority problem. We arguably already have such issues in Presidential elections.

Yes this means that a vote in a larger state means less than a vote in a smaller state, but the trade-off is more equal representation among cultures. Believe it or not there's a large chunk of the population that has no desire to live in or be governed by a big city.

You realize that states generally go the way of big cities because this is where the majority of their population lives, right? Can you maybe explain why a state reflecting the view of the majority of its citizens is a problem? We aren't taking constitutional rights here, we are talking basic governance. I guess conservatives really are concerned with minority rights so long as they are the minority, haha.

As for the small state big state divide, small states already get wildly disproportionate representation in the senate, moderately disproportionate representation in the house and electors college. In addition, even within large states suburban and rural areas get disproportionate representation in both the state and federal representatives due to the tightly packed demographics of cities.

When is enough enough? Just how many handicaps so low population areas need?

 

[werepossum]

California is doing just fine. It's pretty telling that you interpreted my call for less political graft by small states to mean increased political graft by big states though, haha. California would have more money for infrastructure if we wasted less on farm subsidies. If you rotate the primary calendar then you're more likely to allow each state to highlight its priorities.

Then again, conservatives always did love big government subsidies so long as they don't go to those gross liberals in the scary cities.

Yeah, that's clearly what it was, a call for less political graft by small states.

I don't think that the first state a primary is held in has such enormous influence that starting in a large state would mean only those backed by the establishment or billionaires would win. It does give that state greater influence, but that's the whole point. As we have it now the entire first month of the primary season where numerous candidates already drop out due to their poor showing takes place in states where the combined population is smaller than Pennsylvania.

So basically I just don't see how the advantages to better funded candidates are so great that they eclipse the problems with giving tiny states such an outsized role in selecting candidates. Why is it we have spent $90 billion or so on corn subsidies over the last 10 years but California has huge unfunded infrastructure needs? The Iowa caucuses certainly don't help. Considering the vast array of electoral advantages that small states enjoy for reasons that really don't make any sense in modern America anyway it's hard for me to accept an argument for furthering them.

Weird how California's "huge unfunded infrastructure needs" snuck into that call for less political graft by small states, eh? Almost seems like it's a call to transfer graft away from small states to bigger, more deserving states.

As far as return on investment, I'm not a huge fan of using corn for fuel but it's worth pointing out that every state uses that fuel made cheaper by those subsidies. (Although my own preference would be to let the fuel be market value, with the added bonus that we'd use less of it.) Also worth pointing out that the main alternative to ethanol is MTBE, which is why I preferentially burn pure gasoline in my bike but ethanol in my trucks. So those subsidies, while I don't particularly like them philosophically, are not purely for political benefit.

 

[Bowfinger]

I wonder how true that is. Cruz, Rubio, Bush and Trump were probably the big spenders, whereas Huckabee and Santorum and O'Malley were the people most relying on the ground game.

WaPo thinks not. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...68764e-b935-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html

Although evidently it isn't spending either. http://www.ibtimes.com/political-ca...ers-lose-big-jeb-bush-spent-2888-vote-2289563
Bush spent a whopping $2,888 per vote.

Yes, I can see how the Internet and social media would change the rules a bit; quite a bit with younger voters. It's also not enough just to spend time in Iowa. You and your ideas have to resonate with voters. They have to look into your eyes and see someone worth their trust.

None of which explains Ted Cruz. I can only guess some sort of a deal with the devil. That's probably why evangelicals like Cruz so much.

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah, that's clearly what it was, a call for less political graft by small states.

Weird how California's "huge unfunded infrastructure needs" snuck into that call for less political graft by small states, eh? Almost seems like it's a call to transfer graft away from small states to bigger, more deserving states.

Lol. Only in your mind would a call to give every state an equal shot at having the first primary be viewed as an attempt to oppress the poor small states.

If you don't think the small states are more deserving then you should have no problem letting every state have its turn. (Or eliminate 'turns' entirely with a national primary.) Somehow my guess is you won't be on board with that. Why? Because you want more money to keep going towards the 'more deserving', also known as people you culturally identify with.

As far as return on investment, I'm not a huge fan of using corn for fuel but it's worth pointing out that every state uses that fuel made cheaper by those subsidies. (Although my own preference would be to let the fuel be market value, with the added bonus that we'd use less of it.) Also worth pointing out that the main alternative to ethanol is MTBE, which is why I preferentially burn pure gasoline in my bike but ethanol in my trucks. So those subsidies, while I don't particularly like them philosophically, are not purely for political benefit.

Where exactly do you think the money to 'make fuel cheaper for every state' comes from? Those exact same states. If our goal was to make fuel cheaper we could do so in innumerable less wasteful ways. It is a net drain on the economy to line the pockets of wealthy people.

It's not even a low return on investment problem, it's an actively harmful policy from an economics perspective.

 

[werepossum]

Yes, I can see how the Internet and social media would change the rules a bit; quite a bit with younger voters. It's also not enough just to spend time in Iowa. You and your ideas have to resonate with voters. They have to look into your eyes and see someone worth their trust.

None of which explains Ted Cruz. I can only guess some sort of a deal with the devil. That's probably why evangelicals like Cruz so much.

I suppose Cruz had the magical combination of ground game and money - although Iowa always likes the evangelicals.

Lol. Only in your mind would a call to give every state an equal shot at having the first primary be viewed as an attempt to oppress the poor small states.

If you don't think the small states are more deserving then you should have no problem letting every state have its turn. (Or eliminate 'turns' entirely with a national primary.) Somehow my guess is you won't be on board with that. Why? Because you want more money to keep going towards the 'more deserving', also known as people you culturally identify with.

Where exactly do you think the money to 'make fuel cheaper for every state' comes from? Those exact same states. If our goal was to make fuel cheaper we could do so in innumerable less wasteful ways. It is a net drain on the economy to line the pockets of wealthy people.

It's not even a low return on investment problem, it's an actively harmful policy from an economics perspective.

Not an attempt to oppress the small states, just an attempt to get more for big states.

I agree that every small state should have its day first. But I agree with Bowfinger that it should be limited to small states. I don't like a national primary, although I'd be fine with perhaps three to five national primary days. If we did that though, couldn't really arrange it by size. It would have to be arranged by rotating order, and the number in each group would have to be roughly equal to avoid multiplying our existing subsidy extravaganza. Rotating one or a few leading primaries without limiting it to small states might be devastating, since it would take a hell of a lot of subsidies to win New York or California. The problem with one national primary would be that the well funded candidates and the media-favored candidates would win almost every time, as they would be the only candidates most people even knew were running. It's also worth pointing out that small states include Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maine, and Hawaii - all states with whom I identify much less strongly than, say, Georgia or North Carolina. Of the smallest ten, only Wyoming, Montana, the Dakotas and especially New Hampshire are really in my sphere of comfort, so I'd be breaking even. But then, I'd be perfectly comfortable in rural counties, small towns, and medium cities in any of the smallest ten - or the biggest ten. Except Hawaii and maybe California.

I would not disagree about the subsidies since they mostly go to big agra-business. I was just pointing out that they do have national value beyond buying votes. I dislike subsidies, but I also dislike MTBE.

 

[irishScott]

You realize that states generally go the way of big cities because this is where the majority of their population lives, right? Can you maybe explain why a state reflecting the view of the majority of its citizens is a problem? We aren't taking constitutional rights here, we are talking basic governance. I guess conservatives really are concerned with minority rights so long as they are the minority, haha.

As for the small state big state divide, small states already get wildly disproportionate representation in the senate, moderately disproportionate representation in the house and electors college. In addition, even within large states suburban and rural areas get disproportionate representation in both the state and federal representatives due to the tightly packed demographics of cities.

When is enough enough? Just how many handicaps so low population areas need?

Can you explain why a few million people living in one spot should be allowed to dictate the lives of people living tens or hundreds of miles away, living in different circumstances with different ideas, needs and wants? Because you're advocating in that direction. The "wild" levels of over-representation are needed at all levels and should not be chipped away. If the small states and less populated areas are artificially over-represented, I'd argue that the big cities are naturally over-represented. Without artificial balance we'd politically devolve into city-states with effectively disenfranchised rural and suburban populations, just as without artificial balance our economy devolves into monopolies. Valuable ideas and perspectives would be drowned out and we'd be a lesser country for it.

Of course if you don't view the ideas of rural people and suburbanites as valuable then obviously it makes sense to give cities more power. But don't mistake furthering your personal causes for some ultimate "fairness". You're simply advocating for individual fairness over fairness of ideas.

And to match your snark: I thought liberals were all about standing up for minorities, unless the minority is white I guess. Or disagrees with them.


Also, this "conservative" is currently voting for Sanders in the Virginia primary.

 

[werepossum]

Can you explain why a few million people living in one spot should be allowed to dictate the lives of people living tens or hundreds of miles away, living in different circumstances with different ideas, needs and wants? Because you're advocating in that direction. The "wild" levels of over-representation are needed at all levels and should not be chipped away. If the small states and less populated areas are artificially over-represented, I'd argue that the big cities are naturally over-represented. Without artificial balance we'd politically devolve into city-states with effectively disenfranchised rural and suburban populations, just as without artificial balance our economy devolves into monopolies. Valuable ideas and perspectives would be drowned out and we'd be a lesser country for it.

Of course if you don't view the ideas of rural people and suburbanites as valuable then obviously it makes sense to give cities more power. But don't mistake furthering your personal causes for some ultimate "fairness". You're simply advocating for individual fairness over fairness of ideas.

And to match your snark: I thought liberals were all about standing up for minorities, unless the minority is white I guess. Or disagrees with them.

Also, this "conservative" is currently voting for Sanders in the Virginia primary.

Well said.

 

[fskimospy]

Can you explain why a few million people living in one spot should be allowed to dictate the lives of people living tens or hundreds of miles away, living in different circumstances with different ideas, needs and wants? Because you're advocating in that direction.

Can you explain why far smaller numbers of people should be able to dictate the lives of millions of people? Because that's what you're advocating for. Do you not see that you're doing the same thing but without even the justification that all people's votes should be worth the same?

The "wild" levels of over-representation are needed at all levels and should not be chipped away. If the small states and less populated areas are artificially over-represented, I'd argue that the big cities are naturally over-represented.

Can you explain what you mean by 'naturally over represented? It seems you mean they have more people in them. How does that mean they are excessively represented?

Without artificial balance we'd politically devolve into city-states with effectively disenfranchised rural and suburban populations, just as without artificial balance our economy devolves into monopolies. Valuable ideas and perspectives would be drowned out and we'd be a lesser country for it.

Plenty of other countries do not artificially over represent rural areas at their national level. Can you explain why they have not devolved into city states?

Of course if you don't view the ideas of rural people and suburbanites as valuable then obviously it makes sense to give cities more power. But don't mistake furthering your personal causes for some ultimate "fairness". You're simply advocating for individual fairness over fairness of ideas.

Of course I view them as valuable, I just don't view them as MORE valuable. Someone's ideas are not special based on the distance between houses in their neighborhood.

And to match your snark: I thought liberals were all about standing up for minorities, unless the minority is white I guess. Or disagrees with them.

You should have read more closely. I view minority rights of all people to be important, but I don't view the ability to disproportionately dominate public policy based on geography to be a right. Maybe you do?

Also, this "conservative" is currently voting for Sanders in the Virginia primary.

That's pretty interesting!

 

[mysticjbyrd]

Elections should be popular vote.

 

[Phokus]

LMAO

 

[irishScott]

Can you explain why far smaller numbers of people should be able to dictate the lives of millions of people? Because that's what you're advocating for. Do you not see that you're doing the same thing but without even the justification that all people's votes should be worth the same?

I don't think they should be able to "dictate", I think cultural regions should be balanced and allowed substantial self-government. Under our current system I think the big cities still have a significant edge over other populations. So naturally I'm against giving them more power. Ultimately I want a large diversity of competing ideas in government at all levels.

Can you explain what you mean by 'naturally over represented? It seems you mean they have more people in them. How does that mean they are excessively represented?

Their disproportionately high populations means that one culture or genre of cultures has millions more voters than another. It's no secret that large cities almost always lean left. That naturally gives the leftist platforms millions and millions more supporters than competing platforms. Hence leftist ideas have disproportionate levels of support, whether they rationally deserve them or not.

Plenty of other countries do not artificially over represent rural areas at their national level. Can you explain why they have not devolved into city states?

Such as? I don't feel like conducting an analysis of every Democracy on Earth.

But to use the UK as an example, the House of Commons constituencies are mandated to be roughly equal in population and no larger than 13,000 sq km (with some exceptions). As a result the local cultural divisions within large cities are allowed to represent themselves.

It's not a perfect check on city-statehood, but it's better than nothing. If you compare that election map to a population density map it's clear that Labour's power base is in the big cities and somewhat disproportionately empowered because of that. The UK also has the House of Lords to provide a check independent of population density.

Contrast that to the US system, where the (as of 2013) 42,922 registered Republicans in San Francisco might as well not even vote. And you can say the same for Democrat minorities in Red states. Our current county/district system is far too coarse if individually fair representation is the goal. Let alone fair cultural representation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_San_Francisco

Of course I view them as valuable, I just don't view them as MORE valuable. Someone's ideas are not special based on the distance between houses in their neighborhood.

Sweet! Then we fundamentally agree. Although I'd like to point out that there usually are some differences in mentality between people who want a house/lawn/car and people who want to live in a city apartment. There are even more when you contrast to people who like small towns/farms.

You should have read more closely. I view minority rights of all people to be important, but I don't view the ability to disproportionately dominate public policy based on geography to be a right. Maybe you do?

I'd rather not base policy on geography either. I'd like to find some way of producing a cultural map of the US, updated annually, and base things on that. But seeing as how that's never going to happen geography is a better approximation than nothing.

I'd also say "dominate" is too strong a word for the current power levels of rural and suburban areas in the US. Didn't we elect Obama twice? Clinton twice? Didn't the Democrats take congress in Bush's second term? Didn't Obamacare get passed despite every Republican opposing it? Doesn't Sanders poll higher than Trump nationally? Sure we also elected Bush twice, but I'd say the left is plenty powerful.

 

[Jhhnn]

Can you explain why a few million people living in one spot should be allowed to dictate the lives of people living tens or hundreds of miles away, living in different circumstances with different ideas, needs and wants? Because you're advocating in that direction. The "wild" levels of over-representation are needed at all levels and should not be chipped away. If the small states and less populated areas are artificially over-represented, I'd argue that the big cities are naturally over-represented. Without artificial balance we'd politically devolve into city-states with effectively disenfranchised rural and suburban populations, just as without artificial balance our economy devolves into monopolies. Valuable ideas and perspectives would be drowned out and we'd be a lesser country for it.

Of course if you don't view the ideas of rural people and suburbanites as valuable then obviously it makes sense to give cities more power. But don't mistake furthering your personal causes for some ultimate "fairness". You're simply advocating for individual fairness over fairness of ideas.

And to match your snark: I thought liberals were all about standing up for minorities, unless the minority is white I guess. Or disagrees with them.


Also, this "conservative" is currently voting for Sanders in the Virginia primary.

You're arguing that some citizens should be more equal because they live further apart.

You're also invoking the same sort of persecution complex we see in the Bundy Militia.

The degree of big gubmint interference in the lives of rural folk is no greater than for city folk, often a lot less. Here in the West, small town & rural dwellers often have the advantage of much easier access to government lands for hunting, fishing, hiking & etc. In CO, many aren't required to have their vehicles emission tested & often pay lower taxes in general. State & federal subsidies & grants allow them to make more money & to have better schools, roads & sanitation systems than they could muster on their own. They get a lot of other stuff, too, like national defense they seem to love & couldn't possibly afford w/o urbanites. There's a whole package of stuff that rural dwellers manage to overlook when they're getting their oppression complex going- safer pesticides, herbicides, food, water, drugs & cosmetics just to name a few.

 

[glenn1]

You're arguing that some citizens should be more equal because they live further apart.

You're also invoking the same sort of persecution complex we see in the Bundy Militia.

The degree of big gubmint interference in the lives of rural folk is no greater than for city folk, often a lot less. Here in the West, small town & rural dwellers often have the advantage of much easier access to government lands for hunting, fishing, hiking & etc. In CO, many aren't required to have their vehicles emission tested & often pay lower taxes in general. State & federal subsidies & grants allow them to make more money & to have better schools, roads & sanitation systems than they could muster on their own. They get a lot of other stuff, too, like national defense they seem to love & couldn't possibly afford w/o urbanites. There's a whole package of stuff that rural dwellers manage to overlook when they're getting their oppression complex going- safer pesticides, herbicides, food, water, drugs & cosmetics just to name a few.

If you guys stopped ignoring the Tenth Amendment to suit your own purposes then a lot of these complaints would go away. But no, we can't have federalism and city folk doing what they want in the city and suburban/rural folks doing what they want; gotta ensure the backwards savages are civilized for their own good.

 

[Jhhnn]

If you guys stopped ignoring the Tenth Amendment to suit your own purposes then a lot of these complaints would go away. But no, we can't have federalism and city folk doing what they want in the city and suburban/rural folks doing what they want; gotta ensure the backwards savages are civilized for their own good.

The Bundy boys were spouting the same sort of thing last time I checked.

Tenthers are twits who want to turn the clock back 100 years or so, back to the days of the company store.

 

[compuwiz1]

I heard the Bern wants a recount.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I heard the Bern wants a recount.

"Sanders campaign senior campaign adviser Tad Devine has told the AP that the Sanders campaign has no interest in challenging the caucus results in Iowa, which means that Hillary Clinton has officially won the Hawkeye State."

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02...caucus-results-hillary-clinton-wins-iowa.html

 

[nickqt]

If you guys stopped ignoring the Tenth Amendment to suit your own purposes then a lot of these complaints would go away. But no, we can't have federalism and city folk doing what they want in the city and suburban/rural folks doing what they want; gotta ensure the backwards savages are civilized for their own good.

The US Constitution is essentially the bedrock or foundation, providing the most limited of rights, of which states are free to add rights if they so please. It doesn't allow states the ability to weasel their way out of the US Constitution being the law of the land. If the US Constitution is interpreted to give rights, then states may not take those rights away, or abridge them.

Just calling some law "religious liberty for da peoples!" that goes against a right protected by the US Constitution doesn't fly, 10th Amendment or not.

 

[mect]

Can you explain why far smaller numbers of people should be able to dictate the lives of millions of people? Because that's what you're advocating for. Do you not see that you're doing the same thing but without even the justification that all people's votes should be worth the same?

Can you explain what you mean by 'naturally over represented? It seems you mean they have more people in them. How does that mean they are excessively represented?

Plenty of other countries do not artificially over represent rural areas at their national level. Can you explain why they have not devolved into city states?

Of course I view them as valuable, I just don't view them as MORE valuable. Someone's ideas are not special based on the distance between houses in their neighborhood.

You should have read more closely. I view minority rights of all people to be important, but I don't view the ability to disproportionately dominate public policy based on geography to be a right. Maybe you do?

That's pretty interesting!

The problem is that you appear to be equating representation with influence. It is possible to have greater representation but less actual power on a per capita level. This is the exact reason why we have the numbers of representatives we have in both the House and Senate, to try to strike a balance. Even if rural districts have greater per capita representation, they still can have very little per capita influence because their representation may not be enough to be significant when it comes to votes. You seem to be suggesting that legislation is divied out based on representation. 10% representation nets you essentially nothing if you are opposed by 90%, so it doesn't really make that much of a difference if that 10% is for 5% of the population. Now I'm not saying it should be 50/50, but there is definitely merit to what others are saying here.

For example with the small states vs big states going first in the primaries. Do you think the primaries would ever be decided by a small state going first in the primaries? I doubt it. The big states would still have the majority of the influence. On the other hand, if the big states go first, this can lead to the small states having no influence on the primaries. I don't think anyone is advocating that small states should have a greater proportion of influence than their population. We just recognize that representation and influence are not the same thing. In order to achieve equal relative influence, a minority population needs greater per capita representation. Definitely the challenge is figuring out where we strike that balance.