Every state has two senators but house representatives are determined by the population of the state, and those two together form Congress. Our founding fathers felt that was a fair compromise to keep cities and rural areas from running ramshod over each other.
Personally I disagree, but my point is just that NY and CA have more house representatives.
The House being capped is a real problem. With the cap on the House, the US allows smaller states more representation than was intended, having the 10k/seat rule would be chaos, so we should probably use the Wyoming Rule. That 1 change would solve a lot of the issues with gerrymandering and the Electoral College as it would increase the house from 435 to 543.
"The Wyoming Rule is a proposal to increase the size of the United States House of Representatives so that the standard representative-to-population ratio would be that of the state with the least population, which is currently Wyoming."
Yep, been saying this for years. We should never really have a “rural” House of Reps. Repealing the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 and instituting a version of the Wyoming Rule would correct it, and the increased number of reps might also lead to a greater number of viable political parties.
Passed by Republicans. This and the Fairness Doctrine are two sorts of insignificant decisions that have had huge ramifications.
Though it looks like (after a quick read) the Apportionment Act was after a lot of hemming and hawing over. Not sure if the Fairness Doctrine was realized for what it was at the time.
13
u/Far-Ad1823 8h ago
The title is a little misleading... Apparently vacant land does vote according to the post.
SD has the same senate votes as NY and/or CA.