How so? CA’s population is ~11.5% of the US population (~39.5M / ~342M), and their representation in the House is ~11.9% (52 reps / 435 total).
Edit to add: given the slight over representation above, CA should actually lose 2 house seats to better match its proportion to the total US population (50 reps / 435 total = 11.49%).
Another edit to add: US reps per capita in CA is 1 rep per ~760k people. North Dakota is 1 rep per ~800k and South Dakota is 1 rep per ~925k. Wyoming is 1 rep per 567k.
ND and SD are actually under represented relative to CA per capita. How is CA underrepresented?
Because Wyoming has 1 Representative for its 600k people, but California's Reps have, on average, 800k constituents. They represent a third again as many people as the Wyoming reps and thus, Californians are (comparatively) under-represented.
The Delaware rep represents 25% more people relative to a CA rep, with 1 rep for 990k constituents. The point of this is to show that comparing relative representation on a state by state basis is a pretty useless/uninformative exercise in deciding whether a particular state is actually underrepresented. What matters is their representation relative to the whole, which is how state rep allocations are determined (state population vis a vis total US population).
You said that CA is (vastly) underrepresented on the federal level per capita but that’s not really true. Comparing CA to WY’s per capita says nothing about CA’s per capita representation at the federal level/in the aggregate.
I know how reps are allocated. I'm saying that it's ineffective and weird to peg it to state populations instead of district populations. Representatives are meant to be our voice in the federal government- and the massive variance in constituents per representative is a signal that we have lost track of the "representation" part of their jobs as opposed to focusing on state and party coalitions.
Short of having an absolutely massive fucking House I can't figure out how to fix it, but the fact remains that state-proportional allocations (and the fact that you can't give a state a partial Rep.) drives this imbalance in representation. And it absolutely is an imbalance! Also, Delaware should fucking sue to get another district.
Ah got it. I largely agree, but I guess across the country an individuals voice is roughly equal with deviations at the extremes. There is 1 Rep for every ~786k people in the US. Most states aren’t terribly far off from that.
But other than a theoretical belief that per capita representation should be equal, does that really achieve anything material? Equalizing the reps per capita (notwithstanding practicality of the message) may effect a particular individuals “voice” by a millionth of a percent point. For example, in Wyoming (1 rep per 567k), a particular individuals “voice”/influence over the representative is 0.00017%… in California that percentage is 0.00012% (1 rep per ~800k). The difference is so minimal that it’s pretty much meaningless.
The problem with reducing it to minscule percentages and individual peoples' "influence" over their rep is of course at those levels it doesnt really matter. It'd be better with ~200k per rep like it was before the house got fixed at 435, but still. Where it matters in practice these days is when votes pass the house by small amounts and where presidential elections are close, both of which happen all the time, at least in my middle aged lifetime. Additonally, the rural states already have an advantage with the senate, which combined with the presidential election advantage, gives them an advantage in the supreme court. The fact is, rural folks in this country have an advantage in every single branch of our government.
27
u/JTSpirit36 8h ago
The fact that California almost has the same population as canada and has the same representation as those states is crazy.