• freddydunningkruger@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Except CA isn’t fairly represented in the House either. CA would need 68 representatives just to have the same representation as Wyoming.

    And say, shouldn’t the states that have a huge economy and bring in more tax dollars have more of a say than the red welfare states that suck up those tax dollars? Just sayin…

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      I disagree with the economy part. Fuck that. Your value isn’t described by how much wealth you generate.

      Republicans are (or were) hypocritical with their talk of fiscal responsibility while representing states that take in more money than they give back. This should be pointed out if they ever return to that argument. This isn’t to say poor people from republican states (or anywhere else) are less valuable though. It’s only hypocrisy that’s wrong, not trying to help lower income people that’s wrong.

    • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      And say, shouldn’t the states that have a huge economy and bring in more tax dollars have more of a say than the red welfare states that suck up those tax dollars?

      By that logic, a rich person should have more say in government?

    • uis@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      shouldn’t the states that have a huge economy and bring in more tax dollars have more of a say

      Wtf, dude? Can you make something even more american-sounding?

    • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      CA would need 68 representatives just to have the same representation as Wyoming.

      Every state is guaranteed one representative, and then otherwise by population. Wyoming has one representative.

      • BaldManGoomba@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Exactly and then based on that number what we SHOULD do is do proportionality based on that in the most even way possible. But then the issue is states like delaware with almost double Wyoming population would still be unequal since they would still get 1 representative but would be more fair for California. Congress shouldn’t have a capped number. Every population of Wyoming size should have one representative in Congress this would give California 68

        • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          How about selecting reps independently from home state in a national election. Every million people get to send someone from anywhere. The dakotas can share one

        • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          The number should have been capped smaller. As it is, there are too many representatives; it’s already impossibly hard to get anything through congress. If you want to make gridlock even worse, then sure, add more people.