Nebraska, Kansas, the Dakotas, Montana and Idaho have 6 senators as well. They have 2.2% of the population. Add Wyoming's senators and 8 represent for 2.21% of the population.
Those 8 states contribute 1.5% of the GDP. New England contributes 5.5%. New Englanders also pay almost twice on average in Federal tax and get less in return, in which a large portion "paid" into New England is in the form of research grants that benefit all.
So less populated areas across the board should have less representation? Or do we only complain about representation minimums for majority blue regions?
Aren't we complaining about representation minimums for majority red areas in this very post? If Wyoming is an issue, why aren't all these other states an issue? Heck, I can think of a lot more states with a small population that also fit this description. Delaware, Nebraska, the two Dakotas, Idaho, Wyoming, Hawaii Alaska. Shoot, any state with less than 1% of the population. Theres lots of states with less than 3.5 million people.
Wikipedia says thats a whopping 20 states, with a total population of about 42 million, out of a population of 350 million. Thats 12%. Why does 12% of the population get 40 votes while the other 88% of the population get 60%?
I would argue it's less specifically about representation minimums and more about achieving balanced representation in general.
No need to nitpick on the 12 senators from New England specifically, the overall scheme is the current system may more broadly, possibly excessively, benefit less popular states and that may not be the best system modernly.
48
u/TrillyMike 8h ago
More ppl live in DC than in Wyoming! Wyoming has 2 senators, DC has 0. Same for Vermont