After "wow!" my second thought is: LA County has a population of about 10 million and California a population of 40 million. So, if we divide our two US senators accordingly, LA is represented by 0.5 senators. Or a half a senator for 10 million people. At the other extreme, Wyoming has a population of about 600,000; that is, one senator per 300,000 people. Looks like the citizen of Wyoming has 66 times the representation of the citizen of LA County.
What I think you mean is that, on a per capita basis, LA County residents are fairly represented in the House. What I mean is that LA County residents are screwed in the Senate. No other country on earth has such a system. I'll guess the senators that yesterday blocked legislation affirming Roe represent less than 25% of the US population. But, I can't say I've done the math.
Actually, I read not too terribly long ago that Wyoming has, on average, the wealthiest population in the US. So, yes, to the extent wealthy rural "aristocrats" can affect tax policy benefiting themselves, at the expense of the poor, working poor and working class, we should pity the LA County resident. LA has a population of about 60,000 homeless people. Rich, rural conservatives have been instrumental in blocking social programs, such as social housing initiatives. These folks are no friends of the rural poor either.
I just checked. Wyoming ranks 32nd in state per-capita income. What you may be misremembering is that Wyoming has a disproportionately high number of billionaires.
Thank you. I stand corrected. Most billionaires per capita, if I'm reading this correctly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_the_number_of_billionaires
Wyoming has 5 billionares, 2.5/senator, 5/representative
California has 189 billionares, 94.5/ senator, 3.6 per representative. 5th highest per capita income.
LA County has 26 billionaires. 13/senator, 1.9 per LA County US representative
With 268,136 millionaire households, Los Angeles County has the largest number of millionaires among the counties in the U.S. The County has 23% of California's millionaire households and 3% of those in the country
I'd hardly argue there's wealth equality in California. Only that the US Senate, long the bastion of wealth-heavy conservatism, with its rural-state players, is not going to very effectively govern for the urban poor, or those 60,000 homeless in LA County--especially given vastly disproportionate representation. Do the Senators and Congresspeople of California do a much better job of it? Yes, but marginally so. The House is a more promising institution because it's a fundamentally more democratic institution than the Senate where progressive legislation is serially "killed in the cradle." If you like the way the game is being played, there's "nothing to see here." But, given we are on a runaway Gini train, with all signs pointing to increasing social instability, maybe we should be concerned.
I'd be much happier if the California population was reduced to 600,000, like Wyoming. Then we'd have two senators and one representative and lot more peace around here! Sadly, so many threaten to leave, but so few actually go.
Let’s consider half of the population to start. In 2040, nine states will be home to half of the country’s population, according to the Weldon Cooper Center: California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, New York, North Carolina, Ohio Pennsylvania and Texas. Between them, they will be represented by less than a quarter of the Senate.
Census data stretching back to 1790, though, shows that the most-populous states making up half of the country’s population have always been represented by only about a fifth of the available Senate seats. That includes 2016.
In 2016, the 25 most-populous states were home to 83.6 percent of the country. In 1790, the most populous half of states were home to 82.2 percent of the population.
The system is designed that way. The House of Representatives has the power of the purse to compensate for the Senate's disproportionate representation. You'll also notice that because they have so many House members, the largest states have the most opportunities to chair key committees, as well as to staff them. The single representative from Wyoming has far more limited committee positions, and leadership positions, open to them. Or, consider that over the last 80 years (since Pearl Harbor), the House Speaker has been from a state _not_ in the top 14 in population (2022 rankings) only twice: Oklahoma (1971-1977) and Wisconsin (2015-2019). And since Wisconsin is the 20th-most populated state, it's not much of an exception.
Mind blowing. Wow...
ReplyDeleteDoes each state get equal representation in government ?
ReplyDeleteAfter "wow!" my second thought is: LA County has a population of about 10 million and California a population of 40 million. So, if we divide our two US senators accordingly, LA is represented by 0.5 senators. Or a half a senator for 10 million people. At the other extreme, Wyoming has a population of about 600,000; that is, one senator per 300,000 people. Looks like the citizen of Wyoming has 66 times the representation of the citizen of LA County.
ReplyDeleteI'm bothered by how many people don't understand the purpose of the Senate.
DeleteWhat I think you mean is that, on a per capita basis, LA County residents are fairly represented in the House. What I mean is that LA County residents are screwed in the Senate. No other country on earth has such a system. I'll guess the senators that yesterday blocked legislation affirming Roe represent less than 25% of the US population. But, I can't say I've done the math.
DeleteI'll spare a moment to pity the poor downtrodden LA residents suffering at the hands of those foul Wyoming aristocrats
DeleteActually, I read not too terribly long ago that Wyoming has, on average, the wealthiest population in the US. So, yes, to the extent wealthy rural "aristocrats" can affect tax policy benefiting themselves, at the expense of the poor, working poor and working class, we should pity the LA County resident. LA has a population of about 60,000 homeless people. Rich, rural conservatives have been instrumental in blocking social programs, such as social housing initiatives. These folks are no friends of the rural poor either.
DeleteI just checked. Wyoming ranks 32nd in state per-capita income. What you may be misremembering is that Wyoming has a disproportionately high number of billionaires.
DeleteLA is of course bereft of rich people, financial institutions, media conglomerates, and tech firms
DeleteThank you. I stand corrected. Most billionaires per capita, if I'm reading this correctly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_the_number_of_billionaires
DeleteFWIW
DeleteWyoming has 5 billionares, 2.5/senator, 5/representative
California has 189 billionares, 94.5/ senator, 3.6 per representative. 5th highest per capita income.
LA County has 26 billionaires. 13/senator, 1.9 per LA County US representative
With 268,136 millionaire households, Los Angeles County has the largest number of millionaires among the counties in the U.S. The County has 23% of California's millionaire households and 3% of those in the country
I'd hardly argue there's wealth equality in California. Only that the US Senate, long the bastion of wealth-heavy conservatism, with its rural-state players, is not going to very effectively govern for the urban poor, or those 60,000 homeless in LA County--especially given vastly disproportionate representation. Do the Senators and Congresspeople of California do a much better job of it? Yes, but marginally so. The House is a more promising institution because it's a fundamentally more democratic institution than the Senate where progressive legislation is serially "killed in the cradle." If you like the way the game is being played, there's "nothing to see here." But, given we are on a runaway Gini train, with all signs pointing to increasing social instability, maybe we should be concerned.
DeleteCould be time to limit the US Senate's to role one more like the House of Lords. I'm sure that'll happen any day now!
Deleteyou mean than?
ReplyDeleteI did. Some days I click "publish" without poofreading. Fixed. Tx.
DeleteOn behalf of the blue areas, we all respectfully request that the people currently residing in the red area please remain there.
ReplyDeleteI'd be much happier if the California population was reduced to 600,000, like Wyoming. Then we'd have two senators and one representative and lot more peace around here! Sadly, so many threaten to leave, but so few actually go.
DeleteThe lede: By 2040, two-thirds of Americans will be represented by 30 percent of the Senate
ReplyDeletehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/28/by-2040-two-thirds-of-americans-will-be-represented-by-30-percent-of-the-senate/
This will be very problematic for the country. Our system was not designed to work under these conditions.
Yes it was.
DeleteCan you tell me why you think this problematic??
DeleteFrom the source cited by Matt:
DeleteLet’s consider half of the population to start. In 2040, nine states will be home to half of the country’s population, according to the Weldon Cooper Center: California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, New York, North Carolina, Ohio Pennsylvania and Texas. Between them, they will be represented by less than a quarter of the Senate.
Census data stretching back to 1790, though, shows that the most-populous states making up half of the country’s population have always been represented by only about a fifth of the available Senate seats. That includes 2016.
In 2016, the 25 most-populous states were home to 83.6 percent of the country. In 1790, the most populous half of states were home to 82.2 percent of the population.
Delete“Our system was designed to work under minority rule” say conservatives whenever the majority doesn’t vote their way.
DeleteThe system is designed that way. The House of Representatives has the power of the purse to compensate for the Senate's disproportionate representation. You'll also notice that because they have so many House members, the largest states have the most opportunities to chair key committees, as well as to staff them. The single representative from Wyoming has far more limited committee positions, and leadership positions, open to them. Or, consider that over the last 80 years (since Pearl Harbor), the House Speaker has been from a state _not_ in the top 14 in population (2022 rankings) only twice: Oklahoma (1971-1977) and Wisconsin (2015-2019). And since
ReplyDeleteWisconsin is the 20th-most populated state, it's not much of an exception.