Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski
the senate even with the seats distributed between the states based upon population is not representative. LA and the Bay Area control x% of the house seats in Cali but 100% of the senate seats. We should give LA/SF control of 10 senate seats even though that mean 30 or 40% of the state is not represented (as they are not now but maybe represented by the Montanas of the Union?). We’ve created these meaningless state lines, and those boundaries have nothing to do with where is population.
|
This is the problem with distributing Senate Seats based on population - should they go to the states or should they go to roughly equal sized districts? So if California has 6 senators they apportion them instead of electing them all statewide.
Given the size of those districts, they'll all be urban dominated, just by different cities. Fundamentally, rural America doesn't count for much anymore in population, GDP or anything else, except for voting power. And the pork they get from that may be all that keeps rural America afloat.
I'd note the urban areas on the coasts are doing just fine despite having to support the rural areas financially.
