Is it fair NewYorkCity has 8/19's of a Senator&8 states with same pop have 16?

[billbuckhead]

New York city and the combination of Alaska, Wyoming, South and North Dakota, Idaho, Vermont, Montana and Maine each have around 8 million people and yet the small state voters get 35 times more representation than New York city residents. New York State has 19 million people.

Isn't this taxation without representation? The ultimate in gerrymandering combined the ultimate in voter suppression?

And to add insult to injury, the nation's capital, Washington D.C., has more population than several of these states and has no representation whatsover. And what about Puerto Rico and California?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. it is a wacked out question. there is a larger issue to deal with.

there were smaller states, vs. larger ones when mommy england was making war and influencing people all around the globe.
that there is a difference in population was acceptable to them, at least as to the senate.
The house, however, was to be representative. We lost that after WWI. Today, you have HUGE populations represented by one congresscritter. Why the magic number of 435? Why not double, even triple it? 1,000 reps for 300,000,000 is still too few, but better than what we have now. BEtter yet, we'd bankrupt today's lobbyists in trying to buy off so many new members of the house.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

2. Umm...

OK, are you seriously suggesting that the Great Compromise was a bad idea? What's your alternative?

[billbuckhead]

6. Maybe we should add 50 more states?

Maybe no state should be over 5 million or so?

[John Q. Citizen]

9. If wishes were fishes, we'd have a fish fry.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

14. You gonna pay for that? n/t

[billbuckhead]

17. I bet right now the people of New Orleans wished they had a little more clout

If Americans won't be fair with each other, how can foreigners believe in our brand of democracy?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

19. You want to make New Orleans its own state, then?

How about Topeka?

[billbuckhead]

21. Why not the 50 largest urban areas

Metro New Orleans would be a great state. San Francisco? How about Silicon vally as a state? Atlanta is politically reversed from the rest of Georgia as are most cities.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

63. Why not?

Umm... because it's unconstitutional.

[Retired AF Dem]

68. The city state idea was tried several hundred years ago

in Europe. It didnt work then. What makes you think it could work now?

[ChazII]

31. New York has 27

LA has 7 so who has more clout?

[mitchtv]

3. what annoys me is the number of voters it takes for each elector

in Calif compared to the amount it takes in Wyoming. THAT is unfair.

[Rabrrrrrr]

4. That's why we also have congressmen

Every state gets two votes in the senate; every state gets a number of votes proportionate to their population in congress.

Puerto Rico gets no vote because its not a state; and it should not have a vote. Same with DC, though I do feel sorry for the people there, that they don't get any votes - I should they should be allowed to have votes. But, on the other hand, they aren't a state, and the system was set up so that they couldn't be and wouldn't have a vote, and it is a system that makes sense.

[bullimiami]

5. new york has population oriented representation in the house.

the senate was designed to give each state an equal say regardless of population.
so i agree, its not a good question.

[John Q. Citizen]

7. No, appropriations bills start in the house, where New York State enjoys

much more representation than many other states, as does NYC.

Read up on your US history to find out why.

PS

Puerto Rico isn't a state. Neither is New York city.

[lumberjack_jeff]

8. Do you work for Gallup? Push poll much?

It's called the great compromise. Look it up. It ain't exactly a new invention.

[billbuckhead]

11. Isn't this "democratic underground"? I asked if it was fair?

Can't we change to a more representative and democratic system? Aren't we supposed to be for democracy? Aren't our soldiers dying to bring "democracy" to Iraq?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

20. Define "democracy."

You appear to think that democracy equates to majority rule.

[billbuckhead]

24. Government based on the will of the people

The early American colonists actually had representation in the British Parliament, it just didn't amount to much. Kind of how California was extorted by Enron and the Feds just laughed.

[lumberjack_jeff]

30. Isn't this "The United States"?

No, we can't change to a more representative and democratic system. The residents of the smaller states do not want to be run roughshod over by the larger ones.

In the choice between somewhat disproportionate influence by the residents of smaller states and no influence whatsover, I'd pick the former.

[ChazII]

10. Are you referring to the House?

http://www.house.gov/house/MemStateSearch.shtml
Living in a small state, population wise I don't want a more populous state contoling my state. Wyoming and Alaska only have one rep.

[wuushew]

12. What a poorly worded poll

what you really should be asking is a yes or no on the merits of having a Senate.

Additonally the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are not states and as such perhaps warrant a seperate thread.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

15. Given the bullshit that's gone on in the House over the past six years...

...I'm awed that anybody would consider the Senate a bad idea.

[billbuckhead]

16. I'm talking about lack of representation.Most voters are screwed by this system

It's long past time for progressive small "d"democrats to start thinking outside the box about the lack of representation for most voters in the present government. We would scorn such a system if China or Russia promoted it? Isn't it obvious that it invites corruption by corporations.

[Bucky]

58. screwn

Two kinds of unfairnes in this world. The kind you can fix and the kind you gotta learn to live with.
Representation in the US Senate is the latter.

[melnjones]

13. Um...ever taken a government class? nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

18. The existence of the House and Senate was a compromise between

the large states, which wanted representation by population, and the small states, which wanted equal representation for all states.

The electoral vote situation is worse. North Dakota, which has about 700,000 people, gets 3 electoral votes, while Minnesota, with 5.9 million, has 12 votes.

Each electoral vote in North Dakota represents 233,000 people. Each electoral vote in Minnesota represents 492,000 people.

I'd be all for separating major cities from their states and giving them their own senators and representatives.

[Red Zelda]

22. Don't ask

maybe Utah should divide into four states and add more Repuke senators. And maybe tiny New England states like RI, CT and CT should just have two senators for the group.
Happy now????

[billbuckhead]

23. That's pretty much what we have now

Democrats keep winning the national vote and it doesn't seem to matter. Maybe this is part of the rerason so few people vote in America.

[wuushew]

25. Red state population is growing faster than traditional blue areas

please consider that

[billbuckhead]

27. I bet minority population is growing far faster than red states

[ChazII]

57. True but

keep in mind that it is blue staters that are moving to the red states. My point being that a few more election cycles and some of those red states won't be red. J.D Heyworth was replaced by Democrat Harry Mitchell. great maps, wuushwe.:yourock:

[hedgehog]

65. So you're suggesting that the Democratic Party should be in control

even if more people vote for the Republicans?

[Golden Raisin]

26. Well for starters NYC is not a state.

I live in NYC and there are some days when I wish we would secede from NY State and the incongruity and unfairness of the tail (Albany) wagging the very large dog (NYC).

[billbuckhead]

29. West Virginia didn't used to be a state. Why not West Maryland?

Why not 3 Ohios? 3 Pennsylvanias? East Tennessee already think's it's a state. East St Louis and West Memphis could be reunited with their other parts.

In all seriousness, urban voters are being screwed over big time and it's proof of a deep unfairness in the American system.

[-..__...]

32. That sounds vaguely secessionist.

That was tried before.

Didn't work out to well now did it?

And just how are urban dwellers being screwed over "big time"?

[billbuckhead]

37. Taxation without representation

That version of secession was also tried before.

[tabasco]

62. Create West Maryland and get two more puke Senators.

Got any more clever suggestions?

[Critters2]

73. I live in downstate Illinois, and wish Chicago could secede

No matter how my area votes in state matters, we lose to Chicago. We have a governor from Chicago who won't live in the Governor's Mansion, because he won't move downstate. I say it's time to give Chicago the autonomy it so richly deserves.

I'm guessing the same tensions exist in any state dominated by one large city.

[-..__...]

28. The system is fine and fair as it is.

No need to fix something that ain't broke.

[billbuckhead]

36. What planet do you live on? THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SYSTEM IS FUBAR

Election after election the will of the majority is thwarted and the voting system totally lacks accountablity.

The USA has the highest prison population of advanced nations.

The USA has huge deficits with much of it financed by poor nations we trade with.

The USA, alone of advanced nations has no national healthcare system while simultaneously having the highest healthcare costs per capita

The USA is 39th in education spending (% of GDP)

The USA must invade other nations for their resources and to prop up a weakening currency

The USA has the highest murder rate of advanced nations, even higher than third world India

The USA is now rated 53rd in freedom of the press<http://news.netscape.com/story/2006/10/29/us-plunges-to-53rd-place-in-worldwide-press-freedom-index/>

The USA spends more on military than the whole rest of the world put together.

The USA is 65th in voter turnout

That't just my top 10

[-..__...]

40. What planet do you live on?

Your original post was critical of our system of representation (as spelled out in the US Constitution).

None of what you list has anything to do with that.

How we elect our Representatives isn't the problem, it's whom we elect that's the problem.

[billbuckhead]

42. Process=results They are inexorably related

How we pick our candidates is leading to a series of terrible Republican and DINO presidents who have bankrupted the nation morally, financially and creatively.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

55. It could be argued...

...that the distribution of representatives is part of the problem. To my mind that's the one area where there could be some reasonable debate.

[MadHound]

33. Yes, but NYC has what

A dozen House reps for the city proper, and 19 for the greater NYC area. That's the way a bicameral leglislative system works. If you had proportional representation in both the House and Senate, the you could dominate issues of national policy at the expense of smaller states. This way neither dominates, and a balance is set. Rather well done by our founding fathers I would say.

[-..__...]

34. I wouldn't be surprised if the OP preferred it that way.

[billbuckhead]

38. Who gives a freep about fairness to states? What about fairness to people?

We reapportion states, why not some reapportionment at the nation level? Why is state reapportionment good but national reapportionment bad?

[MadHound]

54. Have you ever taken a US government class, any civics, anything?

States get reaportioned according to population all the time, in the House. At one time New York State had over forty houses reps, but due to population factors, that number has dropped. In other states, that number has gone up. All based on population, all part of the House. Yes the Senate number remains constant at two per state. This is to retain fairness to the small states. Or let better phrase that for your consumption, fairness to the people who live in relatively unpopulated states.

Again, this is how our governmental system was designed. It doesn't give an advantage to underpopulated states, for while they have two Senators like all the rest, they have only one or two House reps. It doesn't give an advantage to large states either, for while they may have only two Senators, they still have 19 reps representing a small, but densely populated section of their state.

And guess what, some of those NYC area Represenatives only represent a population of 30,000 people in thier district. Out here in Missour, my district is composed of 300,000 people.

You are wanting to use your immense population to dominate national politics in both houses of Congress. Sorry, but that's not going to happen, our founding fathers set up our government precisely in the way that they did in order to prevent such domination. As it is now, we have a nicely balanced system, where neither large nor small states are able to dominate Congress. And that is the way it should be. I would be pissed as hell if NY got extra Senators simply due to their large size, it would mean that NYC politics would have more influence in this country, and frankly NYC politics is not the be all and end all of this country. Most people in NYC have no clue as to where their food comes from, thus the agricultural bills would get blown out of the water due to sheer ignornance.

So stop your whining. You have, between both Houses of Congress, all the representation you need or should have.

[billbuckhead]

70. You never answered the fairness of redistricting at state level and

not at the national level.

[BeFree]

35. Doesn't feel fair

But that's how it's been since they cranked up the thing.

What we need to do is spend the time and money to get the best candidates in the small states. Over time we could easily control the senate.

Two dems from Alaska. Idaho, Montana, etc. That's how you work within the system and get real change. Its called the "50 State Strategy."

[billbuckhead]

39. Big corporations just buy off those small state voters

West Virginia and western state mining interests. Banking interests in Delaware. Alaska and the oil companies

[rockymountaindem]

53. Yeah, and Wall Street has *no* influence over NY elections

:sarcasm:

Just which special interest bought my vote for Colorado Governor? Which one bought my vote for the Democratic House candidate in CO-5? Who bought all the votes for Salazar (I was too young for that election)?

Yep... the special interests all get to play havoc with the small states because we're a bunch of easily-fooled yocals. I'd write more but I gotta go watch Texaco Star Theater. Hey, do they have the Dumont Network in the big city yet?

[Sapphire Blue]

41. What is "8/19's of a Senator"?

[billbuckhead]

43. 8 million New York City residents vs 19 million New York state representatives

Hence 8/19

[Sapphire Blue]

46. That still doesn't explain what "8/19's of a Senator" is. And are you saying that...

... the New York legislature has 19 million state representatives?

And what in the world do the 8 million NYC residents have to do w/a fraction of a senator?

My head is spinning.

[Sapphire Blue]

49. And which states have 16 senators? Maybe I should just say "Good night, Gracie."

Because one of us isn't making any sense. In the event that it's me, "Good night, Gracie." :hi:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

56. You should like you just want to abolish the Senate altogether.

If you want proportional representation, like the House, then what's the point of a bicameral legislature?

[billbuckhead]

61. That might be acceptable if the electoral college changed as well

[Critters2]

75. Abolishing the Senate would be acceptable?!

:wtf:

[Blue_In_AK]

44. Granted, BUT...

The entire state of Alaska has only ONE representative, the insufferable Mr. Pork, "Bridges to Nowhere," Don Young. My guess is New York City has several representatives all to itself.

[0rganism]

45. What we *should* do is have more house seats

Having the states-equal senate was the great compromise that enabled a union of the former colonies in the first place. Let's not mess with it.

House districts, on the other hand, have not kept up with population growth. We just need to repeal Public Law 62-5 (which caps house membership at 435, as of 1911). We can do a lot better than 1 rep per 690,000 people, without getting anywhere close to the constitutional house maximum of 1 rep per 30,000. I'd say 1 rep for every 200,000 people would make things a lot more lively, restore representation to the levels of 1911, and do quite a bit to remedy the electoral inequities you pointed out. Of course, the house chamber would need to be expanded somewhat....

[NuttyFluffers]

48. i actually love this idea.

i also believe that it is the House that people should really get all interested in. that's where all sorts of stuff happens, seats change fast, citizens can access easier to petition, etc. the senate was designed for calcification -- and for a reason. it was designed to be the principle of preservation to the house's principle of dynanism.

by the way, states still reserve the right to divide themselves up. so if some states feel the need for more senate representation, then by all means divvy away. i myself like how california is and feel no real need to divide up now.

[0rganism]

50. Imagine a house of 1500 representatives!

Triple the pleasure, triple the fun...

[NuttyFluffers]

51. they might crowd out the lobbyists!

can you imagine a "poor, poor" corporation or extra-national lobbying group having to spend 3x as much money to curry favor! :D

edit: and the grassroots would still be viable w/ triple the attendance. remember, each person only has to worry about 3 people -- their 2 senators and their 1 (count it, 1) congressperson.

[0rganism]

52. those poor lobbyists... whatever will they do?

And just think of all that amazing gerrymandering the republican-held statehouses have carefully crafted over the last 20 years. Instantly obsolete! :D

[Selatius]

67. Actually, I would say House seats should be awarded based upon proportional representation

Gerrymandering is a legacy of shame for America, and it's time we adopt a system that empowers poor people and Blacks and other minorities, not disempowers them with gerrymandered districts for the sake of rich politicians who don't give a damn for the common people. In proportional representation, each state only has one district, represented by multiple seats awarded based upon the percentage each party won.

The two big changes are:

1. The poor and minorities get better representation.
2. The two-party system is uprooted in favor of a multi-party system in the House like is seen in Spain or France or Germany or Switzerland and others.

Another reform I recommend is instituting mandatory public financing of all federal election campaigns. If you accept private cash from any source, then you ought to be prosecuted for bribery. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court says this is protected free speech grounds, and so the only avenue here is to introduce a constitutional amendment stating explicitly that the 1st Amendment does not apply to the ability to give money to politicians.

[NuttyFluffers]

47. we're not a democracy. we're a democratically-elected secular constitutional republic.

never was, though possibly may in the future. but that'd require ditching the senate and rewriting whole main articles of the constitution. remember the Great Comprimise? in fact, before a few amendments from the Progressive Era (1890s-1920s), the only democratic part to the process was the election of your House Representative. it was put there for a reason. change was supposed to be excruciatingly slow through this system in order to foster stability. tyranny of the majority, and mob rule, was always a concern. this was left in place in order to ensure dialogue between the conflicting peoples -- even if neither wants it. not a perfect system, but it definitely is a useful check to balance power.

[ThomWV]

59. This Post Actually Pisses Me Off

Because it shows that the poster has no conception of how our Government works and more importantly why it was designed by the founding fathers to work the way it does. He or she doesn't seem to understand how this gives the small states power equal to the large ones, and that the scheme is a reflection of the common thread of protection of the underdog that is the basis of all our freedoms.

Just plain pisses me off. What kind of education system do we have that would leave a person who can read and write (obvious on its face) but wasn't taught a god damned thing about freedom and how it is obtained and held.

[billbuckhead]

60. Our governments NOT working! It's freaking broken, is unfair and needs changed

I trust "We the people" more than an obsolete Constitution. The people voted for Al Gore and we got the "w"orst president in history. Our system "elected" a President so bad, he is to presidents what OJ Simpson is to husbands. If you think this system is working for the average person then you're out of touch with reality.

Don't want to bust your bubble, but New York City, the State of New York, California, etc are far more important to the world than West Virginia.

[Richard Steele]

64. Maybe you should move to a state that has 16 Senators, then.

Good luck with that.

[hedgehog]

66. The poster is suggesting it's time for a change.

Remember the Rotten Boroughs in 19th Century England? Small villages under the control of a single person had the same representation and voting strength as entire cities such as London or Manchester. Right now, Republican strength in the Senate is greatly exaggerated compared to the actual number of votes given to Democrats in more populous states. These days, our Congress critters base their votes more on party than on geography. Having two Senators per state came from a time when pork barrel legislation was far more important.

It makes sense to have two parts of the Legislature even if representation was better distributed. The House has a fast turnover which allows people to change their government quickly. The Senate takes six years to turn over, which serves as a brake on reacting to the heat of the moment. It's good to have a balance.

[Swede]

69. It is the United STATES.

Isn't population for the House.

[BlooInBloo]

71. The stupid it BURNS!!!!

[ISUGRADIA]

72. Isn't this taxation without representation?

No, this is why all taxation bills have to start in the House and cannot in the Senate.

[billbuckhead]

74. Yeah, it's working REALLY well! If you're rich or get paid not to grow crops

Big states tax dollars end up in small states

[ISUGRADIA]

77. The colonies had no representatives in parliament

that was "taxation without represenataion"

[dysfunctional press]

76. it's called the united STATES, not the united cities...

btw- did you ever take a civics class in high school...?

you do understand that ALL states have the same number of senators (2), and that the number of congressmen in the house of representatives from each state is based on population...?

one question for you- how many house reps are there whose districts include any part of nyc?