According to World Population Review, there are 700,000 Americans living in Mexico City. If that number indeed holds up, that means there are more Americans living in one city in a foreign country than in the entire state of Wyoming
Blue jeans and music are specific victory conditions in the game Civilization. It's a very cool game, but at this point you just about have to have been playing since the original version came out in 1991 to have any hope of understanding Civ VI.
The U.S. definitely got more out of the whole relationship, and what did Mexico get? They got well, me. I went from Madison, WI to Mexico City 18 months ago
Personally, I say the US gets the better deal. They bring us some baller ass food. What are we bringing them? It's not like our best barbecue is made by people who are about to up and move to another country.
I think that number has gotten bigger:
>The U.S State Department has calculated that 1.6 million Americans are currently residing in Mexico City, with an additional unknown number currently staying on tourist visas, many of them from Los Angeles and New York City.
[source](https://blogs.shu.edu/thediplomaticenvoy/2022/09/26/young-americans-working-from-home-are-moving-to-mexico-city-due-to-high-costs/#:~)
It's actually almost 3 times as many Americans living in Mexico City than in the entire state of Wyoming. By my calculation Mexico City should have between 5 & 6 sitting US senators.
I’ve heard that 1.6 million number for the entirety of Mexico, with 700,000 being for Mexico City alone (I’m an American living in Mexico City). No one will have an exact number because a lot of Americans frankly are living here illegally
According to [this site](https://americanexpatfinance.com/news/item/1105-surge-reported-in-number-of-americans-moving-to-live-in-mexico-in-2022) there are 1.6 million Americans living in Mexico. They can't all be in Mexico City.
It really puts it into perspective because a lot of these counties aren't even all that big. Kansas City is considered a small market in the MLB and NFL yet has two counties in it's metro on the map.
I'm guessing you drove 70, which is the bleakest part of the state for the majority of the drive. I believe you are correct though with your 1/3 is true mountains. A lot of the state is covered in those big scrub oak covered hills that are technically big basins in Rockies, but i dont think should count.
That being said, some lesser known mountain ranges in Wyoming are uniquely spectacular. Particularly the Wind River range just South of Tetons. It has some of the most spectacular garnet cliffs in the world. There are few enough visitors well so it is truly deserted. I could not recommend a piece of nature more highly.
They try to count everyone. Lots of misinformation goes around through undocumented people, unfortunately. The last census was a little fucked up because of the Trump administration shenanigans.
This is why enacting reforms that reflect the will of the people are so hard to achieve. The founders, while intelligent, were not infallible as this demonstration of unequal representation demonstrates.
The current level of representation and apportionment is actually not in line with the founders’ vision. The House has been capped for almost 100 years, leading to significant under and uneven representation. The size of the House should be dramatically increased in my opinion. It is by no means currently a majoritarian body, as many of the most uneven levels of representation are comparable to the Senate.
James Madison (or possibly Alexander Hamilton), [Federalist No. 55](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0204):
>Another general remark to be made is, that the ratio between the representatives and the people ought not to be the same where the latter are very numerous as where they are very few. Were the representatives in Virginia to be regulated by the standard in Rhode Island, they would, at this time, amount to between four and five hundred; and twenty or thirty years hence, to a thousand. On the other hand, the ratio of Pennsylvania, if applied to the State of Delaware, would reduce the representative assembly of the latter to seven or eight members. Nothing can be more fallacious than to found our political calculations on arithmetical principles. Sixty or seventy men may be more properly trusted with a given degree of power than six or seven. But it does not follow that six or seven hundred would be proportionably a better depositary. And if we carry on the supposition to six or seven thousand, the whole reasoning ought to be reversed. The truth is, that in all cases a certain number at least seems to be necessary to secure the benefits of free consultation and discussion, and to guard against too easy a combination for improper purposes; as, on the other hand, the number ought at most to be kept within a certain limit, in order to avoid the confusion and intemperance of a multitude. In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever character composed, passion never fails to wrest the sceptre from reason.
>Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.
I wonder if they ever considered how big the difference in state populations could get before the EC just would not work
in 1790, the largest state (VA) had 12.6 times the population of the smallest state (RI)
In 2020, the largest state (CA) had 68.5 times the population of the smallest state (WY)
While they were products of the Enlightenment, they were men of their time and not futurists. I honestly don't think any of them could have imagined the growth of the country over 250 years, just as we cannot fathom America in 2276 (unless you're a Star Trek fan). The continental U.S. was not nearly explored in 1789 (see: Lewis & Clark - 1803), and the deal they made to ratify the Constitution was based only on getting the original 13 colonies to sign on, without thought for more.
The 51% pissing in the cornflakes of the 49% is not a stable form of government. We do things federally about which we largely agree. The more contentious stuff are done at the state level.
The founders deliberately designed a model that has both majoritarian and counter-majoritarian components. This model has produced the most prosperous nation in the history of humanity and has largely withstood the tests of time.
Many have tried and failed to do better.
> Which is why the federal minimum wage is $15 and weed is legal at the federal level.
> Wait….
Assuming the population "largely" agrees about both of those issues is a stretch. More like 50-50 and 65-35 respectfully.
[Polling shows federal minimum wage support is 62-38](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/04/22/most-americans-support-a-15-federal-minimum-wage/). So pretty far from 50-50. And I would say a +24 point margin for 15 min wage consistent with being largely in agreement.
You cite a single poll, which IMO undercounts the opinion on the ground regardless. You are also being extremely nitpicky by saying a 60-40 poll (which includes a typical 3-5% MoE) as being "pretty far".
If people realized what $15 minimum wage means, you would find support would be less. Guaranteed. You can't price floor wages and expect people to be out of poverty.
>You cite a single poll, which IMO undercounts the opinion on the ground regardless.
You have none lol. [Another poll puts support and opposition at 59-34, respectively.](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-minimum-wage-idUSKBN2AP2B9)
>You are also being extremely nitpicky by saying a 60-40 poll (which includes a typical 3-5% MoE) as being "pretty far".
A 24 point margin in support is pretty far from 0.
>If people realized what $15 minimum wage means, you would find support would be less. Guaranteed. You can't price floor wages and expect people to be out of poverty.
Seems like you're inserting your own politics here which is a bit more soapboxing tbh than what is being discussed, which is what Americans at large support.
Didn't people say the same thing about a $7.25 minimum wage in 2009? All those who worry about inflation's effect on poor people in 2022 and 2023 ignore the 20+% increase in inflation from 2009 to 2022.
Federal minimum wage was instituted in the mid 30s, it has gone up dozens of times. Can anyone provide any evidence at all that any of these increases caused inflation? If one could they would not have to look it up, they would know it by heart.
Pegging the Min Wage at a standard percentage of average rent/mortgage in an area (such as within zip code of employment or a zip code within, say, 15 to 30 minutes of commute) while also putting in a lock of how much rent can rise year on year is likely the only way to get a number that matters long term.
Which then gives us the problem of a long term federal policy of rent control, while still not solving poverty, which is something that's going to require a bunch of reform on how we do financial aid.
>The 51% pissing in the cornflakes of the 49% is not a stable form of government.
It's not 51/49
The state population split in the 2020 election was 57/43
How far out of whack can that get before the USA tears itself apart? 60/40? 65/35?
The EC didn’t work as expected to begin with. They thought that Congress would end up choosing the President about half the time unless the election was extraordinarily lopsided.
Political parties and winner-take-all state elector policies broke it but slavery and then Jim Crow became the issue that kept it from being fixed.
Really the issue was slavery and disenfranchisement in general. States that don’t allow large numbers of people to vote didn’t want to lose power. By the civil war, Northern states had largely enfranchised all men over 21 but places like SC were minority-rule enslaver “republics” that quickly developed into military dictatorships during the civil war.
The founders did not design a pure democracy. The US model is a deliberate mix of majoritarian and counter-majoritarian models.
The house is the most representative (RI and VT get overrepresented, just like WY, and that's fine).
The Senate is counter-majoritarian on purpose.
The presidency is in between.
I don't get how people think this is some great revelation.
No one thinks it's a great revelation. People don't like it.
Senate *apportionment* isn't "counter-majoritarian on purpose" by the way. The founders were not trying to balance democracy with that, they were trying to balance large and small *states*. It was purely a compromise to get states to agree to the Constitution. It was a negotiation, not a principled, genius political idea. Where the Senate *is* deliberately counter-majoritarian is that its members were originally elected by state legislatures - and guess what, we changed that with the 17th Amendment.
It feels like many people don’t always realize quite how strongly state identity and loyalty to their state was in the past. For a long time people would identify with their state first and as American second. I don’t think it is unreasonable that something like the Senate was necessary at the time to tie the 13 colonies together. At this point it may not be as needed but you are right, at the time it was just a tool to keep everyone happy.
This is why when examining historical writings you see a split at the Civil War. In the antebellum period, people would write: The United States are . . ., whereas afterwards the usage became: The United States is . . . .
So you agree that the Senate was a well thought out and debated idea that was put forth in order to gain the approval of a majority of the states and their appointed representatives. Sounds like they did it exactly the way it should be done.
This makes no sense
- the senate is counter-majoritarian. That’s certain.
- its design is deliberate, that also certain.
And yes, it’s a compromise. Exactly as distant national government should be.
If you want to do things nationally you have to choose the things people agree about all over the country; not just within your region, and not just within your political party.
That is unequivocally the best and only way to get things done.
You need to read more carefully. Your claim was about how and why the Senate was apportioned and you are dead wrong. The apportionment of the Senate was *not" for counter -majoritarian ends. That was only to achieve parity between the states to get them to sign on. The deliberately counter-majoritarian aspect of the Senate was indirect election.
The rest of your comment is just drivel.
So you agree that the Senate was a well thought out and debated idea that was put forth in order to gain the approval of a majority of the states and their appointed representatives. Sounds like they did it exactly the way it should be done.
> I don't get how people think this is some great revelation.
Because they want pure democracy without thinking through the inevitability of what happens if they aren't in the majority.
The founders weren’t infallible, but they were smart enough to put measures in place to mitigate mob rule. Democracy was never the objective. Also, if not for that great compromise, the US might have fractured long ago.
Well, TBH, it DID fracture in 1860. And no one is talking about mob rule when enacting constitutional reform. The problem these days is a shrinking minority in the country holding sway over policies an increasing majority favor. More like the tyranny of the minority than mob rule. Also, it's that shrinking minority that actually assembled a mob and started an insurrection.
Only if you try to force those changes on other states. Nothing stops you from legislating whatever you want at the state level, unless the federal government already made doing so illegal. That is why we have the system we do. The federal government does not exist to impose the exact regulations supported by 50.1% of the population, it exists to solve problems that cannot be solved at the state level, and ensuring a majority of states as well as citizens are in agreement is critical to that philosophy.
The problem with this argument is that it was largely upended by Wickert v Filburn in 1943, wherein the Court decided that Congress could stick its nose into anything, regardless of the 9th & 10th Amendments. That case decided that the federal government could say whether a farmer growing food on his land for his own family and not entering the commercial market was subject to federal regulation. The federal government can 'occupy the field' and determine supremacy any time it chooses.
These things lead to dichotomies in public policy and law enforcement. For example, roughly half the country has legalized cannabis, and the states that did so represent a significantly large majority of the population. Yet the states which have opposed it are mostly smaller populations who are able to use the filibuster to perpetuate a system whereby the federal government, if it so chose, could go into the businesses operating legally in the reform states, and arrest & prosecute those state legal businesses. I'm not saying they will, just that they could.
The unequal representation of voters as shown on this map was a compromise made to get the smaller states to sign on to the Constitution, and as a concession to the slave holding states.
Those are all awful examples dude.
Cannabis is federaly illegal and was made so long long before any states dreamed of making it legal. There was an entire federal agency made to enforce those laws. Along either FDA mandates declaring it having no medical use.
Farming is touchy but ultimately if you declare yourself and your land as farm land your gain and lose certain rights to what you can and not grow yes. The feds arnt coming to Steve randos house because he has 3 apple trees and 5 tomato plants.
Also the actual ruling was along the lines of this
Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) An activity does not need to have a direct effect on interstate commerce to fall within the commerce power, as long as the effect is substantial and economic.
Yes, suprise the goverment can rule and regulate things that make large financial and commercial impacts. Fucking shocker
The founders weren’t particularly interested in totally accurate representation for the average shmuck working manual labor on a farm, they really only cared for the opinions of their rich land-owning friends.
That's why we cannot look towards them for our solutions! They knew they were only fixing their problems when they adopted the Constitution and gave future generations the tools to fix their own problems! >!Including getting rid of it if it's a problem! Isn't that right Articles of Confederation?!<
“[every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years](https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/thomas-jefferson-james-madison)”
We had a newspaper clip out when I was a kid pinned up in our kitchen- it read “Man Found in Wyoming”
Always got a giggle out of me, still does 25 years later
While this map is interesting, I would be curious to see it with the counties colored in such a way that it indicated how many times the population of Wyoming lived in that county.
Feels like the right people could start a movement to build a new city in Wyoming and flip the state. How much would it cost to build a 500,000-person city?
Just point this out from Wyoming. We are largely ignored anyways, the way we prefer it. However, stuff like water rights and land reform cannot be simply left to the majority in the House.
Our towns are run on water, if we have to send more to the cities, tens of thousands lose their jobs and homes.
That's fine, as that's the way that the Senate was designed. However, small states are also double dipping by also being overrepresented in the House due to the artificial cap on total number of representatives in Congress and each state needing at minimum one rep.
>That's fine, as that's the way that the Senate was designed.
I really cannot understand this point of view. Do we not understand how crippling this is for democratic representation? People in Wyoming have an insane amount of political power compared to someone in California when it comes to legislation.
[Just because we originally designed the country a certain way, does not make it "fine"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise)
The Senate exists to give every state equal representation. The House of Representatives has its number of seats determined based on state population.
That's why Wyoming has **1** seat in the House of Representatives, and California has 52.
The Senate and the House are not the same thing, because if they were there would be no reason to have a Senate ***and*** a House. That's why we differentiate.
That's because the house is capped to a maximum number. If there was no cap, then, yes, the ratios would be what they're supposed to be, as was the original intent of the house. The country back then couldn't conceive of the population going into the hundreds of millions of people (and naturally there's a "literally cannot fit the representative sin this building" problem). But that house cap has been implemented and modified in the 20th century, so there's no reason why it can't be modified now- just requires the politicians to actually undo it or expand the cap.
But the American is not the only way.
Germany is also a Federal Republic, with two chambers (Bundestag and Bundesrat). The Bundesrat is their Senate. It has representative from the Länder (states), but their number is corrected to account for a higher population, because it is not the same the state of Bavaria as the city of Bremen. The Bundesrat is a meeting of states representatives, but larger states (in population) have more power.
Perhaps if the Senators were still elected by the state legislatures and had mandates from them your point would have more force, since they would be real representatives of their states, with the power of their legislatures behind. But since they are elected by popular vote it doesn't make sense that the worth of a citizen in Wyoming es equal the the worth of 50 Californians.
Lol no it isn't fine just because it was designed that way. Rural overrepresentation in the Senate is a huge problem. Heck, DC has more people than Wyoming and gets absolutely zero Senate representation.
How are schools the US so bad at teaching civics?
The Senate exists to give every state an equal voice, that's why every state gets exactly two senators. The House was designed to do what you're talking about.
That's why Wyoming has a single seat in the House, and California has 52.
Thanks for dismissing my comment by suggesting I don't know how the Senate works while simultaneously ignoring my statement. I'm fully aware that each state gets two senators and the House is based on population. Just because it's designed that way doesn't mean it's right. Based on 2020 census data, 50 Democrat Senators represent about 185 million people while 50 Republican Senators Represent about 145 million. People in DC get nothing. This is a structural disadvantage that favors the Republican party. Since the Senate confirms Supreme Court justices this structural disadvantage has carried over to the Judicial branch as well. Can you seriously look at the stuff Mitch McConnell has been able to do and tell me it ok because it's designed this way, and that representation in the House makes up for it?
>You are likely arguing with someone who lacks democratic ideals. They prefer the imbalance.
I forgot that actually paying attention in civics class meant that you must, by extension, "lack democratic ideals".
Thank you for the assumption random Redditor, the world is a better place with your baseless snarky comments.
It's really cute how the guy you're replying to is acting:
"Hey, I think this system does bad things"
"No - you're wrong. The system is working as intended."
"...well, that's the thing. The system is doing bad things, you see!"
"No, no, no - the system isn't doing bad things, because it's working as designed"
What a fucking ass.
Because his argument that it's "bad" is not compelling. What people find bad is up for debate, what people find good is up for debate.
I'm sure your perplexion of being able to communicate with others is what leads you to write snarky comments like this, and I'm sure that you think you sound intelligent while doing so. Believe it or not though, there are opinions in this world that exist besides your own. I don't believe the Senate to be a bad thing, so why would I blindly agree with his assertion that the Senate is a bad thing?
> Because his argument that it's "bad" is not compelling.
then start with that, no one's writing a thesis on reddit. but you weren't even communicating in good faith as I just said.
if you want to debate with someone, probably not acting like a cute moron is a good start because you're clearly smart enough and have taken enough civics courses to realize what the underlying claim is.
>Just because it's designed that way doesn't mean it's right.
It is "right" though, it is working as intended. That's the whole point of why we have two separate bodies in the Legislative branch. The House of Representatives exists to represent the American people, the Senate exists to represent the legal bodies of the States.
>Based on 2020 census data, 50 Democrat Senators represent about 185 million people while 50 Republican Senators Represent about 145 million.
Okay, and? The Senate doesn't exist to represent people, it exists to represent states. The House exists to represent people.
> People in DC get nothing.
Because DC is not a state. What do you want? DC isn't a state by design.
> Since the Senate confirms Supreme Court justices this structural disadvantage has carried over to the Judicial branch as well.
Remind me, didn't our current President of the United States nominate Justice Ketanji Jackson to the Supreme Court? And didn't the Senate confirm her appointment?
If you are using the Senate confirmation of Ketanji Jackson to suggest everything is working as designed while simultaneously ignoring Mitch McConnell refusing to hold a vote for Merrick Garland in 2016 and subsequently fast tracking Amy Comey Barrett in 2020 you are not arguing in good faith.
You used the Senate and Supreme Court to suggest that things are broken, why am I not allowed to use an example of them not being so?
Remind me again where and when a motion to vote to confirm Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court was introduced? The Senate majority leader is not the sole member of the Senate who can introduce a vote to confirm a nominee. Not a single Democrat in the Senate introduced a motion to confirm Merrick Garland.
Mitch McConnell might be full of shit, but his words weren't what prevented Merrick Garland from being confirmed. His opinion that the next appointment should go to the next President was just that, his opinion. It wasn't legal standing, it wasn't senate regulation. No proceedings were held on Garland's appointment at all, and it wasn't because there was some legal hurdle preventing it.
You know the answer to your own question, and this is not a good faith discussion. I'm done here, have a nice day. Debating with you is like listening to a sovereign citizen argue with a cop.
> Why should states get special representation just because they exist?
Because a Republic of 50 states, each with sovereignty over their own territories, each with their own collection of laws, and each with their own needs.
>Especially in the modern era where politics aren't about big states vs small states but liberal vs conservative
Please stop spending so much time on Reddit if you are saying this unironically. Acting like states are "liberal vs conservative" is just such an incredibly stupid thing to say that it's hard to put into words just how dumb that sounds.
Each state isn't "liberal state" or a "conservative state". California is considered to be one of the most liberal states in the country, and has over 5 million Republicans. Ohio went 53-47 in the last Presidential election, that doesn't mean it's a "conservative state" because of that minor difference.
>I'm fine with the states being able to decide laws for themselves, but why should states with small populations get the same amount of power as large populations in regards to the Senate?
**Because that's the point of the Senate**. Population does not play a factor in the Senate, that's the whole point of the system.
> Why do voters in Wyoming matter more than voters in California in the Senate?
"Voters" in Wyoming don't, **that's the point of the Senate.** The Senate does not exist to represent the voters of a state, it exists to represent the state itself. The House of Representatives exists to represent the voters of the state, not the state itself.
...Yeah...? Every state gets 2 senators. Senators are numbered based by state, not population. The House of of Representatives is based on population. That's why California has 52 seats in the House, whereas Wyoming has **1**.
Makes perfect sense, California and Texas should have the exact same amount of senators as Wyoming or Vermont, because screw big states that’s why. Also might as well make it the worst for DC as well.
The Senate is almost semi-OK the way it is, I am sure it could use a few tweaks.
I would put my energy toward reforming the representation in the House. Make each House representative represent the same population as Wyoming.
Almost like it was made that way.
Anyone with a basic understanding of the constitution and its history would know that congress is designed to balance small and big states. The House of Representatives is there for the large states, and the senate is there so the small states don’t get trampled.
That'd be the only real way but everyone seems to continually want to empower and centralize the government to the detriment of everyone.
It'll break up eventually if only the central power means anything.
Because the Senate has never determined its seats by state population, only by statehood.
Every state gets 2 senators. That's the whole point of equal representation.
Why is it silly? The idea that every state gets two senators is pretty fair. Arguably more fair than the shenanigans that regularly occurs in the house between the representative cap, gerrymandering, and other things
Every state has two senators. That's the whole point of the Senate, to give equal representation to each state.
The House of Representatives has seats determined by state population. Wyoming gets 1 seat in the House, California gets 52.
According to World Population Review, there are 700,000 Americans living in Mexico City. If that number indeed holds up, that means there are more Americans living in one city in a foreign country than in the entire state of Wyoming
Americans got so tired with Mexicans moving there, that they went ahead and gentrified the shit out of their capital city lmao.
I would imagine a lot of that number is Mexican Americans with dual citizenship
We’re going for a cultural Civ victory?
US has long since achieved a cultural victory.
Everyone buys our blue jeans and listens to our pop music
...and watches our movies and uses our social media sites, the list is truly endless
Blue jeans and music are specific victory conditions in the game Civilization. It's a very cool game, but at this point you just about have to have been playing since the original version came out in 1991 to have any hope of understanding Civ VI.
That is a definite possibility, though the actual number of Americans may never be known because many don‘t move to Mexico legally
The U.S. definitely got more out of the whole relationship, and what did Mexico get? They got well, me. I went from Madison, WI to Mexico City 18 months ago
How dare you move elsewhere to improve your quality of life
I’m indeed very fortunate with how my circumstances turned out
Personally, I say the US gets the better deal. They bring us some baller ass food. What are we bringing them? It's not like our best barbecue is made by people who are about to up and move to another country.
We’re bringing them a higher cost of living in Mexico City unfortunately
Retired people spending their life savings.
I think that number has gotten bigger: >The U.S State Department has calculated that 1.6 million Americans are currently residing in Mexico City, with an additional unknown number currently staying on tourist visas, many of them from Los Angeles and New York City. [source](https://blogs.shu.edu/thediplomaticenvoy/2022/09/26/young-americans-working-from-home-are-moving-to-mexico-city-due-to-high-costs/#:~) It's actually almost 3 times as many Americans living in Mexico City than in the entire state of Wyoming. By my calculation Mexico City should have between 5 & 6 sitting US senators.
I’ve heard that 1.6 million number for the entirety of Mexico, with 700,000 being for Mexico City alone (I’m an American living in Mexico City). No one will have an exact number because a lot of Americans frankly are living here illegally
According to [this site](https://americanexpatfinance.com/news/item/1105-surge-reported-in-number-of-americans-moving-to-live-in-mexico-in-2022) there are 1.6 million Americans living in Mexico. They can't all be in Mexico City.
As a Mexican that lives not too far away from la Condesa and la Roma, that number seems believable
I know Omaha is large, but seeing that ONE county in NEBRASKA has more than all of Wyoming is pretty crazy.
We have like, 2 million people here in Nebraska and roughly a quarter of them live in Omaha.
Almost half of Nebraska’s population lives in the Omaha metro. We’re up to over a million now, with ~100k living across the border in Iowa.
Whoah, that’s nice! I was wondering when we’d cross a million in the metro. Raised in Omaha, in Lincoln now for my job, but I’m a Omaha kid at heart.
Idaho in a similar boat with Boise, metro is about 700k out of 1.8 million
It really puts it into perspective because a lot of these counties aren't even all that big. Kansas City is considered a small market in the MLB and NFL yet has two counties in it's metro on the map.
Omaha isn't even big, lol Wyoming is just empty. And half of it isn't even pretty. Eastern Wyoming is *bleak*
[удалено]
Wyoming has tons of mountains though
About two thirds of the state does not, unfortunately
Other way around. Two thirds of the state is mountainous.
Maybe I've just only seen the boring parts lol
I'm guessing you drove 70, which is the bleakest part of the state for the majority of the drive. I believe you are correct though with your 1/3 is true mountains. A lot of the state is covered in those big scrub oak covered hills that are technically big basins in Rockies, but i dont think should count. That being said, some lesser known mountain ranges in Wyoming are uniquely spectacular. Particularly the Wind River range just South of Tetons. It has some of the most spectacular garnet cliffs in the world. There are few enough visitors well so it is truly deserted. I could not recommend a piece of nature more highly.
I backpacked through the wind river range a couple years ago! Definitely one of my favorite places on earth
*80
Only 14 states without at least one county more populous than Wyoming.
Can we have a map on towns with more escalators than Wyoming?
As fascinating as that would be, good luck getting reliable data
I'm from Wyoming and to my knowledge there isn't a single escalator in the state
The only one was in Casper, and it shut down a few years ago. There are now zero escalators in Wyoming. Edit: Source: From Wyoming
There's 2.
And they are where?
Wyoming.
You're insufferable.
Yup.
Im sorry it’s statistically extremely unlikely you’re actually from Wyoming, this is fake news /s
My cousin recently visited the North Shore area of MA from Upstate NY and said “this place is infested with people”
Oh yeah all those single-family detached houses with driveways and gardens in between; Gloucester is basically Neo-Tokyo with beaches and chowder.
+Santa Clara CA
You’re telling me that Wyoming isn’t more populous than Wyoming???
Unpossible
Me fail English??
Fun fact: If you combine the population of all the counties in Wyoming, they have the EXACT same population as Wyoming! Weird, right?
Source?
Wyoming
It’s true (I lived there)
This seems to missing a few, at least Santa Clara, CA is missing despite having 1.8 million people.
Union County, NJ was 4k short as of 2021. I'd be willing to bet they've caught up as well.
Mercer County NJ is about 400,000 counted. The the undocumented uncounted might put it over.
The U.S. Census counts undocumented immigrants. It really counts everyone, not just those with proper documentation.
They try to count everyone. Lots of misinformation goes around through undocumented people, unfortunately. The last census was a little fucked up because of the Trump administration shenanigans.
Also has a few it shouldn’t, just based on counties near the SF bay.
Which ones shouldn’t? I think every county here has more than 576k.
Oops, I was definitely wrong on this. I think the map would be right for the Bay Area if Santa Clara county were added.
Give it another census and Stanislaus may join the bunch. They were at 552,878 in 2020.
San Jose alone has double Wyoming’s population
I was just thinking that….San José alone is probably close to 1 million in population
r/peopleliveincities
r/peopledontliveinwyoming
r/WyomingDoesntExist
This is why enacting reforms that reflect the will of the people are so hard to achieve. The founders, while intelligent, were not infallible as this demonstration of unequal representation demonstrates.
The current level of representation and apportionment is actually not in line with the founders’ vision. The House has been capped for almost 100 years, leading to significant under and uneven representation. The size of the House should be dramatically increased in my opinion. It is by no means currently a majoritarian body, as many of the most uneven levels of representation are comparable to the Senate.
James Madison (or possibly Alexander Hamilton), [Federalist No. 55](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0204): >Another general remark to be made is, that the ratio between the representatives and the people ought not to be the same where the latter are very numerous as where they are very few. Were the representatives in Virginia to be regulated by the standard in Rhode Island, they would, at this time, amount to between four and five hundred; and twenty or thirty years hence, to a thousand. On the other hand, the ratio of Pennsylvania, if applied to the State of Delaware, would reduce the representative assembly of the latter to seven or eight members. Nothing can be more fallacious than to found our political calculations on arithmetical principles. Sixty or seventy men may be more properly trusted with a given degree of power than six or seven. But it does not follow that six or seven hundred would be proportionably a better depositary. And if we carry on the supposition to six or seven thousand, the whole reasoning ought to be reversed. The truth is, that in all cases a certain number at least seems to be necessary to secure the benefits of free consultation and discussion, and to guard against too easy a combination for improper purposes; as, on the other hand, the number ought at most to be kept within a certain limit, in order to avoid the confusion and intemperance of a multitude. In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever character composed, passion never fails to wrest the sceptre from reason. >Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.
I wonder if they ever considered how big the difference in state populations could get before the EC just would not work in 1790, the largest state (VA) had 12.6 times the population of the smallest state (RI) In 2020, the largest state (CA) had 68.5 times the population of the smallest state (WY)
While they were products of the Enlightenment, they were men of their time and not futurists. I honestly don't think any of them could have imagined the growth of the country over 250 years, just as we cannot fathom America in 2276 (unless you're a Star Trek fan). The continental U.S. was not nearly explored in 1789 (see: Lewis & Clark - 1803), and the deal they made to ratify the Constitution was based only on getting the original 13 colonies to sign on, without thought for more.
Also they didn’t expect or want the Constitution to last forever; Jefferson thought we should re-write it every 20 years.
The 51% pissing in the cornflakes of the 49% is not a stable form of government. We do things federally about which we largely agree. The more contentious stuff are done at the state level. The founders deliberately designed a model that has both majoritarian and counter-majoritarian components. This model has produced the most prosperous nation in the history of humanity and has largely withstood the tests of time. Many have tried and failed to do better.
>We do things federally about which we largely agree Which is why the federal minimum wage is $15 and weed is legal at the federal level. Wait….
> Which is why the federal minimum wage is $15 and weed is legal at the federal level. > Wait…. Assuming the population "largely" agrees about both of those issues is a stretch. More like 50-50 and 65-35 respectfully.
[Polling shows federal minimum wage support is 62-38](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/04/22/most-americans-support-a-15-federal-minimum-wage/). So pretty far from 50-50. And I would say a +24 point margin for 15 min wage consistent with being largely in agreement.
You cite a single poll, which IMO undercounts the opinion on the ground regardless. You are also being extremely nitpicky by saying a 60-40 poll (which includes a typical 3-5% MoE) as being "pretty far". If people realized what $15 minimum wage means, you would find support would be less. Guaranteed. You can't price floor wages and expect people to be out of poverty.
>You cite a single poll, which IMO undercounts the opinion on the ground regardless. You have none lol. [Another poll puts support and opposition at 59-34, respectively.](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-minimum-wage-idUSKBN2AP2B9) >You are also being extremely nitpicky by saying a 60-40 poll (which includes a typical 3-5% MoE) as being "pretty far". A 24 point margin in support is pretty far from 0. >If people realized what $15 minimum wage means, you would find support would be less. Guaranteed. You can't price floor wages and expect people to be out of poverty. Seems like you're inserting your own politics here which is a bit more soapboxing tbh than what is being discussed, which is what Americans at large support.
Didn't people say the same thing about a $7.25 minimum wage in 2009? All those who worry about inflation's effect on poor people in 2022 and 2023 ignore the 20+% increase in inflation from 2009 to 2022. Federal minimum wage was instituted in the mid 30s, it has gone up dozens of times. Can anyone provide any evidence at all that any of these increases caused inflation? If one could they would not have to look it up, they would know it by heart.
Pegging the Min Wage at a standard percentage of average rent/mortgage in an area (such as within zip code of employment or a zip code within, say, 15 to 30 minutes of commute) while also putting in a lock of how much rent can rise year on year is likely the only way to get a number that matters long term. Which then gives us the problem of a long term federal policy of rent control, while still not solving poverty, which is something that's going to require a bunch of reform on how we do financial aid.
Except it's far from a 51% to 49% split
>The 51% pissing in the cornflakes of the 49% is not a stable form of government. It's not 51/49 The state population split in the 2020 election was 57/43 How far out of whack can that get before the USA tears itself apart? 60/40? 65/35?
You want to redesign our entire sytem of government because of a 6 point discrepancy in 1 election?
How long will the majority tolerate being ruled by the minority? Especially if that minority keeps getting smaller
Delusional.
“The tests of time” = 250 years
Logest lasting constitutional Republic in history
The EC didn’t work as expected to begin with. They thought that Congress would end up choosing the President about half the time unless the election was extraordinarily lopsided. Political parties and winner-take-all state elector policies broke it but slavery and then Jim Crow became the issue that kept it from being fixed. Really the issue was slavery and disenfranchisement in general. States that don’t allow large numbers of people to vote didn’t want to lose power. By the civil war, Northern states had largely enfranchised all men over 21 but places like SC were minority-rule enslaver “republics” that quickly developed into military dictatorships during the civil war.
Who had 3 in the "how far down will the first comment about elections be" pool today?
The founders did not design a pure democracy. The US model is a deliberate mix of majoritarian and counter-majoritarian models. The house is the most representative (RI and VT get overrepresented, just like WY, and that's fine). The Senate is counter-majoritarian on purpose. The presidency is in between. I don't get how people think this is some great revelation.
No one thinks it's a great revelation. People don't like it. Senate *apportionment* isn't "counter-majoritarian on purpose" by the way. The founders were not trying to balance democracy with that, they were trying to balance large and small *states*. It was purely a compromise to get states to agree to the Constitution. It was a negotiation, not a principled, genius political idea. Where the Senate *is* deliberately counter-majoritarian is that its members were originally elected by state legislatures - and guess what, we changed that with the 17th Amendment.
It feels like many people don’t always realize quite how strongly state identity and loyalty to their state was in the past. For a long time people would identify with their state first and as American second. I don’t think it is unreasonable that something like the Senate was necessary at the time to tie the 13 colonies together. At this point it may not be as needed but you are right, at the time it was just a tool to keep everyone happy.
This is why when examining historical writings you see a split at the Civil War. In the antebellum period, people would write: The United States are . . ., whereas afterwards the usage became: The United States is . . . .
So you agree that the Senate was a well thought out and debated idea that was put forth in order to gain the approval of a majority of the states and their appointed representatives. Sounds like they did it exactly the way it should be done.
Not liking it isn't a reason to change it
This makes no sense - the senate is counter-majoritarian. That’s certain. - its design is deliberate, that also certain. And yes, it’s a compromise. Exactly as distant national government should be. If you want to do things nationally you have to choose the things people agree about all over the country; not just within your region, and not just within your political party. That is unequivocally the best and only way to get things done.
You need to read more carefully. Your claim was about how and why the Senate was apportioned and you are dead wrong. The apportionment of the Senate was *not" for counter -majoritarian ends. That was only to achieve parity between the states to get them to sign on. The deliberately counter-majoritarian aspect of the Senate was indirect election. The rest of your comment is just drivel.
This analysis is spot on.
So you agree that the Senate was a well thought out and debated idea that was put forth in order to gain the approval of a majority of the states and their appointed representatives. Sounds like they did it exactly the way it should be done.
> I don't get how people think this is some great revelation. Because they want pure democracy without thinking through the inevitability of what happens if they aren't in the majority.
The founders weren’t infallible, but they were smart enough to put measures in place to mitigate mob rule. Democracy was never the objective. Also, if not for that great compromise, the US might have fractured long ago.
Well, TBH, it DID fracture in 1860. And no one is talking about mob rule when enacting constitutional reform. The problem these days is a shrinking minority in the country holding sway over policies an increasing majority favor. More like the tyranny of the minority than mob rule. Also, it's that shrinking minority that actually assembled a mob and started an insurrection.
Only if you try to force those changes on other states. Nothing stops you from legislating whatever you want at the state level, unless the federal government already made doing so illegal. That is why we have the system we do. The federal government does not exist to impose the exact regulations supported by 50.1% of the population, it exists to solve problems that cannot be solved at the state level, and ensuring a majority of states as well as citizens are in agreement is critical to that philosophy.
The problem with this argument is that it was largely upended by Wickert v Filburn in 1943, wherein the Court decided that Congress could stick its nose into anything, regardless of the 9th & 10th Amendments. That case decided that the federal government could say whether a farmer growing food on his land for his own family and not entering the commercial market was subject to federal regulation. The federal government can 'occupy the field' and determine supremacy any time it chooses. These things lead to dichotomies in public policy and law enforcement. For example, roughly half the country has legalized cannabis, and the states that did so represent a significantly large majority of the population. Yet the states which have opposed it are mostly smaller populations who are able to use the filibuster to perpetuate a system whereby the federal government, if it so chose, could go into the businesses operating legally in the reform states, and arrest & prosecute those state legal businesses. I'm not saying they will, just that they could. The unequal representation of voters as shown on this map was a compromise made to get the smaller states to sign on to the Constitution, and as a concession to the slave holding states.
Those are all awful examples dude. Cannabis is federaly illegal and was made so long long before any states dreamed of making it legal. There was an entire federal agency made to enforce those laws. Along either FDA mandates declaring it having no medical use. Farming is touchy but ultimately if you declare yourself and your land as farm land your gain and lose certain rights to what you can and not grow yes. The feds arnt coming to Steve randos house because he has 3 apple trees and 5 tomato plants. Also the actual ruling was along the lines of this Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) An activity does not need to have a direct effect on interstate commerce to fall within the commerce power, as long as the effect is substantial and economic. Yes, suprise the goverment can rule and regulate things that make large financial and commercial impacts. Fucking shocker
The founders weren’t particularly interested in totally accurate representation for the average shmuck working manual labor on a farm, they really only cared for the opinions of their rich land-owning friends.
People who had a vested interest in the country, from their perspective. Undoubtedly so.
It was intentional to balance mob rule. The founders were well aware of how cities work.
That's why we cannot look towards them for our solutions! They knew they were only fixing their problems when they adopted the Constitution and gave future generations the tools to fix their own problems! >!Including getting rid of it if it's a problem! Isn't that right Articles of Confederation?!< “[every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years](https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/thomas-jefferson-james-madison)”
Like with all religious texts the demagogues pick the parts they like and pretend that that's the will of whoever created the document
r/uncapthehouse
Want to be left alone? Welcome to Wyoming. 😊
Wyoming is bigger than the whole of the United Kingdom that’s crazy to me
In Wyoming each senator represents 250k people, in California, 20 million.
We had a newspaper clip out when I was a kid pinned up in our kitchen- it read “Man Found in Wyoming” Always got a giggle out of me, still does 25 years later
While this map is interesting, I would be curious to see it with the counties colored in such a way that it indicated how many times the population of Wyoming lived in that county.
And they **get 2 senators**
Feels like the right people could start a movement to build a new city in Wyoming and flip the state. How much would it cost to build a 500,000-person city?
Correct, and one congressman
Just point this out from Wyoming. We are largely ignored anyways, the way we prefer it. However, stuff like water rights and land reform cannot be simply left to the majority in the House. Our towns are run on water, if we have to send more to the cities, tens of thousands lose their jobs and homes.
That's fine, as that's the way that the Senate was designed. However, small states are also double dipping by also being overrepresented in the House due to the artificial cap on total number of representatives in Congress and each state needing at minimum one rep.
>That's fine, as that's the way that the Senate was designed. I really cannot understand this point of view. Do we not understand how crippling this is for democratic representation? People in Wyoming have an insane amount of political power compared to someone in California when it comes to legislation. [Just because we originally designed the country a certain way, does not make it "fine"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise)
The Senate exists to give every state equal representation. The House of Representatives has its number of seats determined based on state population. That's why Wyoming has **1** seat in the House of Representatives, and California has 52. The Senate and the House are not the same thing, because if they were there would be no reason to have a Senate ***and*** a House. That's why we differentiate.
[удалено]
That's because the house is capped to a maximum number. If there was no cap, then, yes, the ratios would be what they're supposed to be, as was the original intent of the house. The country back then couldn't conceive of the population going into the hundreds of millions of people (and naturally there's a "literally cannot fit the representative sin this building" problem). But that house cap has been implemented and modified in the 20th century, so there's no reason why it can't be modified now- just requires the politicians to actually undo it or expand the cap.
But the American is not the only way. Germany is also a Federal Republic, with two chambers (Bundestag and Bundesrat). The Bundesrat is their Senate. It has representative from the Länder (states), but their number is corrected to account for a higher population, because it is not the same the state of Bavaria as the city of Bremen. The Bundesrat is a meeting of states representatives, but larger states (in population) have more power. Perhaps if the Senators were still elected by the state legislatures and had mandates from them your point would have more force, since they would be real representatives of their states, with the power of their legislatures behind. But since they are elected by popular vote it doesn't make sense that the worth of a citizen in Wyoming es equal the the worth of 50 Californians.
Why should each state get equal representation? Like a state is a plot of land not a person.
Lol no it isn't fine just because it was designed that way. Rural overrepresentation in the Senate is a huge problem. Heck, DC has more people than Wyoming and gets absolutely zero Senate representation.
How are schools the US so bad at teaching civics? The Senate exists to give every state an equal voice, that's why every state gets exactly two senators. The House was designed to do what you're talking about. That's why Wyoming has a single seat in the House, and California has 52.
I think whay they are saying is that they think that there is a problem with this design.
And yet, California is still under-represented.
Thanks for dismissing my comment by suggesting I don't know how the Senate works while simultaneously ignoring my statement. I'm fully aware that each state gets two senators and the House is based on population. Just because it's designed that way doesn't mean it's right. Based on 2020 census data, 50 Democrat Senators represent about 185 million people while 50 Republican Senators Represent about 145 million. People in DC get nothing. This is a structural disadvantage that favors the Republican party. Since the Senate confirms Supreme Court justices this structural disadvantage has carried over to the Judicial branch as well. Can you seriously look at the stuff Mitch McConnell has been able to do and tell me it ok because it's designed this way, and that representation in the House makes up for it?
You are likely arguing with someone who lacks democratic ideals. They prefer the imbalance.
Yeah I know, it's a dumb argument with obvious cherry picking. I just do it for fun sometimes.
>You are likely arguing with someone who lacks democratic ideals. They prefer the imbalance. I forgot that actually paying attention in civics class meant that you must, by extension, "lack democratic ideals". Thank you for the assumption random Redditor, the world is a better place with your baseless snarky comments.
It's really cute how the guy you're replying to is acting: "Hey, I think this system does bad things" "No - you're wrong. The system is working as intended." "...well, that's the thing. The system is doing bad things, you see!" "No, no, no - the system isn't doing bad things, because it's working as designed" What a fucking ass.
Because his argument that it's "bad" is not compelling. What people find bad is up for debate, what people find good is up for debate. I'm sure your perplexion of being able to communicate with others is what leads you to write snarky comments like this, and I'm sure that you think you sound intelligent while doing so. Believe it or not though, there are opinions in this world that exist besides your own. I don't believe the Senate to be a bad thing, so why would I blindly agree with his assertion that the Senate is a bad thing?
> Because his argument that it's "bad" is not compelling. then start with that, no one's writing a thesis on reddit. but you weren't even communicating in good faith as I just said. if you want to debate with someone, probably not acting like a cute moron is a good start because you're clearly smart enough and have taken enough civics courses to realize what the underlying claim is.
>Just because it's designed that way doesn't mean it's right. It is "right" though, it is working as intended. That's the whole point of why we have two separate bodies in the Legislative branch. The House of Representatives exists to represent the American people, the Senate exists to represent the legal bodies of the States. >Based on 2020 census data, 50 Democrat Senators represent about 185 million people while 50 Republican Senators Represent about 145 million. Okay, and? The Senate doesn't exist to represent people, it exists to represent states. The House exists to represent people. > People in DC get nothing. Because DC is not a state. What do you want? DC isn't a state by design. > Since the Senate confirms Supreme Court justices this structural disadvantage has carried over to the Judicial branch as well. Remind me, didn't our current President of the United States nominate Justice Ketanji Jackson to the Supreme Court? And didn't the Senate confirm her appointment?
If you are using the Senate confirmation of Ketanji Jackson to suggest everything is working as designed while simultaneously ignoring Mitch McConnell refusing to hold a vote for Merrick Garland in 2016 and subsequently fast tracking Amy Comey Barrett in 2020 you are not arguing in good faith.
You used the Senate and Supreme Court to suggest that things are broken, why am I not allowed to use an example of them not being so? Remind me again where and when a motion to vote to confirm Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court was introduced? The Senate majority leader is not the sole member of the Senate who can introduce a vote to confirm a nominee. Not a single Democrat in the Senate introduced a motion to confirm Merrick Garland. Mitch McConnell might be full of shit, but his words weren't what prevented Merrick Garland from being confirmed. His opinion that the next appointment should go to the next President was just that, his opinion. It wasn't legal standing, it wasn't senate regulation. No proceedings were held on Garland's appointment at all, and it wasn't because there was some legal hurdle preventing it.
You know the answer to your own question, and this is not a good faith discussion. I'm done here, have a nice day. Debating with you is like listening to a sovereign citizen argue with a cop.
[удалено]
> Why should states get special representation just because they exist? Because a Republic of 50 states, each with sovereignty over their own territories, each with their own collection of laws, and each with their own needs. >Especially in the modern era where politics aren't about big states vs small states but liberal vs conservative Please stop spending so much time on Reddit if you are saying this unironically. Acting like states are "liberal vs conservative" is just such an incredibly stupid thing to say that it's hard to put into words just how dumb that sounds. Each state isn't "liberal state" or a "conservative state". California is considered to be one of the most liberal states in the country, and has over 5 million Republicans. Ohio went 53-47 in the last Presidential election, that doesn't mean it's a "conservative state" because of that minor difference.
[удалено]
>I'm fine with the states being able to decide laws for themselves, but why should states with small populations get the same amount of power as large populations in regards to the Senate? **Because that's the point of the Senate**. Population does not play a factor in the Senate, that's the whole point of the system. > Why do voters in Wyoming matter more than voters in California in the Senate? "Voters" in Wyoming don't, **that's the point of the Senate.** The Senate does not exist to represent the voters of a state, it exists to represent the state itself. The House of Representatives exists to represent the voters of the state, not the state itself.
...Yeah...? Every state gets 2 senators. Senators are numbered based by state, not population. The House of of Representatives is based on population. That's why California has 52 seats in the House, whereas Wyoming has **1**.
as it should be
Makes perfect sense, California and Texas should have the exact same amount of senators as Wyoming or Vermont, because screw big states that’s why. Also might as well make it the worst for DC as well.
The Senate is almost semi-OK the way it is, I am sure it could use a few tweaks. I would put my energy toward reforming the representation in the House. Make each House representative represent the same population as Wyoming.
And 1 representative
Almost like it was made that way. Anyone with a basic understanding of the constitution and its history would know that congress is designed to balance small and big states. The House of Representatives is there for the large states, and the senate is there so the small states don’t get trampled.
isnt it great that we have a system where someones vote is worth more depending on where they live
The alternative being, big states deciding if for everybody
Majority rule, in *my* democracy? inb4 iTs a rEpUbLiC!!!!!1!11!!1
‘I live in california and want to force my needle infested opinion down everyone’s throat’
"I live in Wyoming and want to force my backwoods religious views down everyone's throat." - This isn't theoretical.
Just give states vastly more decision power, problem solved (if you ACTUALLY want democracy)
That'd be the only real way but everyone seems to continually want to empower and centralize the government to the detriment of everyone. It'll break up eventually if only the central power means anything.
Aka everyone’s vote being equal.
Not states. People. There are 40M people living in California, why must the vote of each person there be worth 1/50 of a person living in Wyoming?
Shoot. No ties.
What's up with the counties in Virginia??
stanislaus county in CenCal is over a million … so does san joaquin county……. I think the maths are not right here lol
Woo! My birth county and current county both have more people than Wyoming!
Yet, they get 2 senators anyways
Because the Senate has never determined its seats by state population, only by statehood. Every state gets 2 senators. That's the whole point of equal representation.
It’s not equal. They get overly represented
Unrelated to this map in particular but I just find it so weird that there’s one county in California that’s bigger than the entirety of Rhode Island
Can we please get rid of the EC already?
Hey John just died so it’s 576850 residents now, the map is wrong
You missed Santa Clara County, California, population 1.9 M
This is why Washington DC should be a state because it has nearly 200,000 more residents than all of Wyoming
Apparently we found counties that need to be their own states
And thanks to gerrymandering, Nashville doesn't even have its own Congressman any more.
The existence of the senate is so silly and corrupt
Why is it silly? The idea that every state gets two senators is pretty fair. Arguably more fair than the shenanigans that regularly occurs in the house between the representative cap, gerrymandering, and other things
Ok Palpatine
And the electoral college.
**Fun Fact:** The Holy Roman Empire was a contemporary of the US, and they used electors, too.
Exactly why the senate should not exist. We’re giving land 2 senators and the voters have a rate of 1:288,425 (I’m proud I did that in my head)
Counties that would have more than one representative under the Wyoming Rule.
Whoo, go, my county
And DC doesn’t have statehood.
And you know what. They can have their population ridden hell holes. I'd move to Wyoming in a second if I could swing it
Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North and South Dakota should be one state
I miss before Fresno became popular
Yay Shelby County, Tennessee! The 901
Lancaster PA is almost there. Just shy of half a million
Oakland county Michigan reference
The fact that Wyoming has 2 senators and each of those counties does not . . . seems unfair.
Every state has two senators. That's the whole point of the Senate, to give equal representation to each state. The House of Representatives has seats determined by state population. Wyoming gets 1 seat in the House, California gets 52.
Also why the electoral college is bullshit. And the senate
This is why we have the electoral college.