My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

April 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30    

« The Guardian tells Soviet nuclear-attack story well, but isn’t it time The Guardian explained what it means by ‘rightwing’? | Main | Poll: 70% of Americans believe Democratic senators hurt troop morale »

November 26, 2005



Actually, Texas has the option to split into 5 states, and it is already approved by Congress (though it may be unconstitutional). It was part of the deal to get them to give up sovereignty in the 1800's. Here's why they, like other large states would not want to split up.

The 5 states would gain power in the Senate, but no longer have the same goals. Their representation would not change in the House, but again, they would have 5 different goals. Old Texas would likely not benefit.

And I totally agree with your 'empty wilderness would be protected' rationale. In fact, over time there would be a roadless, electricity-less, uninhabited 'empty wilderness' spanning from Montana to South Dakota. Protected... and empty.

We also agree that it is not Demacratic, but I've already told you why I think that's a good thing.

Let me try again to make my point from your last article. No Senator from Florida is trying to get loans approved to people to develop northern Nevada, are there? No Senator from Massachusetts is trying to get roads built in Arizona. No, only local Senators care about that. with only 1 Senator for all of AK,ID,WY,ND, and SD, nothing would be built there, no roads laid, no TVA style electricity projects. Hence, barren wasteland.

JJ said:

Why is Wilmington any more important than Altoona or Johnstown. I know its not a zero-sum game, but sometimes it does seem as if the low population states get more than their share.

This is exactly why the current Senatorial makeup is good. The low population states are the low per capita earning states as well (excluding Alaska). Being poor, they need more help that do the richer more populous states. And poor states will never become rich states because of their geography and environment.

States like Mississippi and Alabama have other issues that could be resolved to make their people better off. But not states like Idaho and Utah. They need a little extra and will always need it. Having 2 Senators helps them get it, if only just a little.

It's like giving a louder voice to our crippled states. You are not against helping the crippled, are you? (my attempt at giving this a liberal spin :))

Frank Warner

You don't need roads, sewers and electric lines where there are no people. You're pushing something no one needs, at the price of representative democracy.

If people want to move to wilderness, that's their choice. Almost no one decides to move to any state based on the number of senators anyway. If enough people move to a formerly empty area, they'll pay for their roads, sewers and electric lines.

Most of that is paid for by state and local funds anyway, and if people really need federal help, they still would have at least one senator and a House member to go to.

And New Hampshire, Vermont, Delaware, Hawaii and Alaska aren't poor per capita. I doubt even that the people of Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota have particularly low per capita income.

And even if they did, under my proposals for equal representation in the U.S. Senate, they would have EQUAL representation, and so would truly poor states.

Idaho and Utah are not the smallest of the small states, and they also are not poor.

Even with proportional representation, we still would help the poor, wherever they are. We just would end the undemocratic heaping of extra political power to some voters and the stealing of power from others.

We aren't born equal economically or socially. But each American is born with a right to political equality. The U.S. Senate deprives us of that right.

jj mollo

I'm sure there are more poor people in Pennsylvania than in Delaware.

The comments to this entry are closed.