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.
No Andy, just trying to give people equal representation in the Senate. It’s not a left or right issue. Los Angeles County alone has almost 3x the population of all of those states combined.
The U.S. was founded on the concept of a relatively weak federal government and strong states rights other than our individual constitutional rights. Or at minimum to balance state and ferderal power. It was specifically NOT designed to grant lots of power to slim majorities at the national level to run things as they see fit, but in fact to have several “veto” points along the way.
While of course it was later changed to allow direct voting for Senators, they used to be appointed by the states. So unlike your claim of too much power for the states, I claim the centralized Federal government has too much power now. Your desired change would only grant it even more.
It clearly doesn’t even occur to you that because of their numbers those people in L.A. county and in CA - in the form of their representation in the House - *already* have huge sway over the way people in those “smaller” physically big but more sparsely populated states live.
And it *surely* doesn’t occur to you that CA has about 3 additional seats in the House because of the huge number of illegal aliens in the state. Even if most of them don’t vote, per Census count rules they give California citizens a greater say in Congress than the citizens of most other states.
But shockingly - shockingly! - you don’t suggest addressing that inequity.
But then again, I stand with the Browncoats against them that formed the Alliance in Firefly, and with the Rebels and not the Galactic Empire in Star Wars, so I don’t try to hide my cards.
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.
I was not opining on the relative legitimacy of the Dakota territory's split into five states of low population. Indeed, most of the 13 original states were over a century old by the time the constitution was ratified. I was merely pointing out that equal suffrage of states in the Senate was a compromise made to undo the confederation that guaranteed strong state sovereignty. This compromise most certainly would have been irrelevant by the 1880-1890s when South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, and Idaho formed out of the Dakota territory. These states depended heavily on federal support before and after statehood.
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.
Exactly.
States don’t deserve rights. All that matters is national political power for leftists.
No Andy, just trying to give people equal representation in the Senate. It’s not a left or right issue. Los Angeles County alone has almost 3x the population of all of those states combined.
Then IMO you have the completely wrong objective.
The U.S. was founded on the concept of a relatively weak federal government and strong states rights other than our individual constitutional rights. Or at minimum to balance state and ferderal power. It was specifically NOT designed to grant lots of power to slim majorities at the national level to run things as they see fit, but in fact to have several “veto” points along the way.
While of course it was later changed to allow direct voting for Senators, they used to be appointed by the states. So unlike your claim of too much power for the states, I claim the centralized Federal government has too much power now. Your desired change would only grant it even more.
It clearly doesn’t even occur to you that because of their numbers those people in L.A. county and in CA - in the form of their representation in the House - *already* have huge sway over the way people in those “smaller” physically big but more sparsely populated states live.
And it *surely* doesn’t occur to you that CA has about 3 additional seats in the House because of the huge number of illegal aliens in the state. Even if most of them don’t vote, per Census count rules they give California citizens a greater say in Congress than the citizens of most other states.
But shockingly - shockingly! - you don’t suggest addressing that inequity.
But then again, I stand with the Browncoats against them that formed the Alliance in Firefly, and with the Rebels and not the Galactic Empire in Star Wars, so I don’t try to hide my cards.
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.
Correct.
Mob rule based on slim majorities is the only fair way to run a large country.
It’s only fair for leftist city dwelling mobs to dictate to the bitter clingers, the basket of deplorables what they can and cannot do and say.
Checks and balances are unAmerican. Whenever we leftists have majorities we should be able to do much more than Kinge George ever could.
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.
Dude, why are you letting facts get in the way of a good leftist story?
The only rules that are fair are ones that ensure leftists attain, retain and can execute political power.
I was not opining on the relative legitimacy of the Dakota territory's split into five states of low population. Indeed, most of the 13 original states were over a century old by the time the constitution was ratified. I was merely pointing out that equal suffrage of states in the Senate was a compromise made to undo the confederation that guaranteed strong state sovereignty. This compromise most certainly would have been irrelevant by the 1880-1890s when South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, and Idaho formed out of the Dakota territory. These states depended heavily on federal support before and after statehood.
“And that, more often than not, they came to be for the express purpose of politics.”
Pretty good story overall.
You have evidence to back up this mega claim you threw in casually at the end??
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.
I’m genuinely curious: under what definition of “efficient” might some states be “more efficiently combined”?
A tiny number fewer of government workers?
A few less Senate campaigns to be funded?
I don’t really understand that claim (where I do understand that some might be better off split).