Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

andthedevilissix t1_j1jg2ck wrote

Reply to comment by mr_jim_lahey in A population density map of Washington by Pecners

Imagine a future where the major population areas are in favor of a populist Trump-style government and we had decided that senate positions should be population-based like the house. WA has remained pretty liberal, but because WA has a low population compared to Trumpist CA and NY (and the rest of the east coast), WA and other liberal states essentially have no say nationally. Do you think the population of WA would benefit from such an arrangement?

Things can change rapidly, it may seem far fetched to imagine a future where a populist rightwing government becomes wildly popular in the big cities - but I'm sure that many people living in the Weimar Republic also thought it'd be pretty far fetched.

−1

mr_jim_lahey t1_j1k02bh wrote

I like how you ask us to hypothetically imagine a thing that already happened except at least in your hypothetical the president would have won the popular vote instead of losing it by 8 million

1

andthedevilissix t1_j1k910m wrote

Truly think about it a bit more, though. The president doesn't make the laws which is why I'm concentrating on senate representation. Having each state with 2 senators makes sure that states can look out for their own interests rather than be subsumed by larger states. If the very large states like California and NY etc all became very Trumpian, and we had a Senate that was population-based, would you feel like Washington had much input?

This is important because people in Washington have different needs, priorities, and concerns than people in New Mexico...right down to natural resource management.

It may help to think of US states the same way that you'd think of individual EU countries.

−1

mr_jim_lahey t1_j1kphij wrote

The problem you're talking about already exists, we live in a tyranny of the minority of Republican states' population. You seem to be oblivious to this.

3