Actually, four states. There’s a “+” shaped border that divides the Dakotas, Montana, and Wyoming.
The four states between them have barely 3 million citizens. That’s 1% of America, and would entitle the four to have one Senator, if the Senate were rep-by-pop. They have EIGHT.
There are also 3 million Americans in Puerto Rico, and they have… NONE.
And the notion of them ever becoming a 51st state is such a political joke that Greenland, Canada, and Venezuela are “jokingly” put ahead of it in line.
Of course, we Canadians know we’d remain a “territory” (i.e. a colony, no legal difference), just like Puerto Rico.
The American system is so undemocratic this way, that the USA wouldn’t qualify for EU membership - like Belarus, it isn’t democratic enough.
It's basically a story of early gerrymandering then, interesting, but not surprised.
Canada's Senate (while not elected) at least gives seats per region and not per province (although some constitute a region) which somewhat lessens this minority power nationally.
I've often thought that the number seats divided by total amount of the vote was a far more fair style of representation. It's definitely not fair that a disproportionate amount of rural states get to dictate policy for the entire country.
The equal representation of the states is an artifact of the difficult effort to turn a confederation of very different states into a federal system. Confederations are much weaker - laws apply to states not people, confederation governments have limited enforcement mechanisms (fines levied on states), and near absolute sovereignty of states requires unanimity to pass laws. Switching to a federal system would have substantially weakened state sovereignty. It was not just Southern states that were worried about its implications, but New England and Appalachia, both of which flirted with secession a half a century before the South. Equal representation in the Senate was a compromise to give every state's veto over all legislation. 228 years later, the equal suffrage of the Senate principle may seem archaic, but even the post-WW2 EU preserved much more sovereignty of its member states than the federal US.
Interesting post. I hit subscribe .I really enjoyed and recommend Mark Stein's, "How the States Got Their Shapes" for someone interested in this topic.
I don't have it in front of me as a reference, but I remember his book minimized the partisan politics of the creation of the Dakotas, and emphasized that Congress prioritized uniform geographic size and shape on newly admitted states at this time. Maybe this is another reason why splitting the Dakotas was an easy sell? The Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma are all 3 degrees latitude in height.
As long as we're talking politics though, manipulation of state borders for national partisan gain could be much, much worse. When Texas was annexed into the United States it was allowed to break in to as many as five separate states. Obviously, this didn't happen, but the law is still on the books. The Republican Texas legislature could conceivably gerrymander five new Republican leaning states out of Texas and hold the Senate forever.
I wonder whether some states would re-think their borders if we didn’t have the “equal representation for each state” rule for the Senate (which is, sadly, the one rule in the Constitution that can’t be changed by amendment). Some states might be more efficiently combined; others might be better off split. But we’ll never know.
Actually, four states. There’s a “+” shaped border that divides the Dakotas, Montana, and Wyoming.
The four states between them have barely 3 million citizens. That’s 1% of America, and would entitle the four to have one Senator, if the Senate were rep-by-pop. They have EIGHT.
There are also 3 million Americans in Puerto Rico, and they have… NONE.
And the notion of them ever becoming a 51st state is such a political joke that Greenland, Canada, and Venezuela are “jokingly” put ahead of it in line.
Of course, we Canadians know we’d remain a “territory” (i.e. a colony, no legal difference), just like Puerto Rico.
The American system is so undemocratic this way, that the USA wouldn’t qualify for EU membership - like Belarus, it isn’t democratic enough.
Wyoming, Montana, The Dakotas should be merged into one state. Heck maybe even throw in Idaho. That would clean up the Senate quickly.
It's basically a story of early gerrymandering then, interesting, but not surprised.
Canada's Senate (while not elected) at least gives seats per region and not per province (although some constitute a region) which somewhat lessens this minority power nationally.
I've often thought that the number seats divided by total amount of the vote was a far more fair style of representation. It's definitely not fair that a disproportionate amount of rural states get to dictate policy for the entire country.
The equal representation of the states is an artifact of the difficult effort to turn a confederation of very different states into a federal system. Confederations are much weaker - laws apply to states not people, confederation governments have limited enforcement mechanisms (fines levied on states), and near absolute sovereignty of states requires unanimity to pass laws. Switching to a federal system would have substantially weakened state sovereignty. It was not just Southern states that were worried about its implications, but New England and Appalachia, both of which flirted with secession a half a century before the South. Equal representation in the Senate was a compromise to give every state's veto over all legislation. 228 years later, the equal suffrage of the Senate principle may seem archaic, but even the post-WW2 EU preserved much more sovereignty of its member states than the federal US.
Interesting post. I hit subscribe .I really enjoyed and recommend Mark Stein's, "How the States Got Their Shapes" for someone interested in this topic.
I don't have it in front of me as a reference, but I remember his book minimized the partisan politics of the creation of the Dakotas, and emphasized that Congress prioritized uniform geographic size and shape on newly admitted states at this time. Maybe this is another reason why splitting the Dakotas was an easy sell? The Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma are all 3 degrees latitude in height.
As long as we're talking politics though, manipulation of state borders for national partisan gain could be much, much worse. When Texas was annexed into the United States it was allowed to break in to as many as five separate states. Obviously, this didn't happen, but the law is still on the books. The Republican Texas legislature could conceivably gerrymander five new Republican leaning states out of Texas and hold the Senate forever.
Back in the 70’s, Minneapolis liked to call itself the Minneapple, the small sister of the Big Apple and cultural center of the Great Northland.
The local paper held a competition for what the state should be called.
My favorite response was East Dakota.
I wonder whether some states would re-think their borders if we didn’t have the “equal representation for each state” rule for the Senate (which is, sadly, the one rule in the Constitution that can’t be changed by amendment). Some states might be more efficiently combined; others might be better off split. But we’ll never know.