-
Wyoming Area: 253,335 km2
-
United Kingdom area: 244,376 km2
-
Wyoming population: 576,851 (2020)
-
Glasgow urban area population: 632,350 (2020)
Wyoming Area: 253,335 km2
United Kingdom area: 244,376 km2
Wyoming population: 576,851 (2020)
Glasgow urban area population: 632,350 (2020)
And they get 2 senators and 3 electoral votes…sigh…
Removed by mod
Since COVID, Migration from large, expensive coastal cities to sparsely populated rural states is one of the greatest opportunity to permanently flip representation. Idaho was the largest percentage population gainer in the US since COVID and almost all of it coming from CA, OR, WA. Were this to continue you’d probably be looking at a blue state in an election cycle or two. I think this is one of the reasons, long with insane sadism, that Rs are trying to push such radical agendas t state levels–to scare moderates and progressives from moving there. Wyoming could be permablue with one year of concentrated migration.
Even states like Texas, thought of as Red stronghold are not that disproportionately voted Red; 2020 was a difference of 600k votes. 100k net Californians(only CA!) were moving to Texas a year during the pandemic, if you add in other states we might actually see it flip in a few cycles, though the radical agenda being pushed is going to kill those numbers perhaps. Very curious to see 2024 shifts.
Spent ALL day driving rural Mississippi and Alamba and has the same thoughts about WFH. I’m happy where I’m at, but what if I wanted to move or retire to one of the picturesque small towns in Alabama? How many people have done exactly that?
Same reason I may take my wife back to the Philippines when we retire. Money spends different when an apartment is $150/mo. and a loaf of bread is $.15.
A lot of the people leaving those states left them for a reason though
deleted by creator
Disproportionate representation can be kind of a bummer for the under represented folks. Get rid of the senate and remove the cap on the house!
Sadly that will never happen (peacefully) because the smaller states would never vote to reduce their own power. That’s not even considering it would require a constitutional amendment, which is notoriously hard to pass.
Senate, yes. House, no.
The House used to regularly increase in size and has only been at 435 seats since 1911 and capped at that size since 1929. This is changeable through normal law making.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-the-house-got-stuck-at-435-seats/
Oh 100% a pipe dream, yeah, but it would be so rad
Puerto Rico is six times as populous and gets none
Don’t territories get 1 non-voting representative (effectively 0)?
Removed by mod
They passed three pro-statehood referendums since 2012. It doesn’t seem to matter. Presumably, if they passed a pro-independence referendum, it wouldn’t happen either.
It helps that many of them don’t pay federal income tax (though they do pay other taxes)
Actually 52% in favor of statehood as of 2020. Sentiment seems to be shifting.
My problem is that my vote has far less weight than someone in that state. Wasn’t that implied?
Square miles of farmland shouldn’t have votes, people should.
Removed by mod
I know how the system works. I’m not disputing it. I’m saying the status quo is bad, not that it’s false.
Pointing out it’s “basic civics” that that’s how it works currently, and using that to sneak in the huge claim that it’s also “basic civics” that a popular vote “would be inappropriate”. If that was intentional, it was clever.
The house of representatives is unjust in its uneven, disproportionate, and meager representation. Is that what you wanted to hear?
“But that’s how it currently works! Why don’t you understand that?!”
— that person, probably
deleted by creator