1024
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Hylactor@sopuli.xyz 26 points 2 months ago

California - population 39 million 0.000000128205128 votes per capita

Alaska - population 734 thousand - 0.00000408719 votes per capita

[-] MattMatt@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago

So Alaskans count ~3x as much as Californians.

[-] rishabh@discuss.tchncs.de 15 points 2 months ago

If the numbers are correct, it would mean about 30 times more influence, not 3

[-] Fox@pawb.social 2 points 2 months ago

Good thing the number for California is not correct...

[-] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 2 months ago

This is because California just blows the curve. If California either didn't exist or was chopped into a few pieces the numbers would look dramatically better. Likewise for merging the Dakotas or Montana and Wyoming on the other end.

The method used to apportion the House is designed to minimize the average difference in Representatives/capita between states.

But yeah, any system in which California exists and states like Alaska or Wyoming have any meaningful power at all is going to result in California being under represented per capita.

This is functionally the same as someone in the EU complaining that Germany doesn't have remotely enough power and Luxembourg and Malta have far too much, except that the EU parliament doesn't have as broad power as Congress and you can leave the EU.

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

The method used to apportion the House is designed to minimize the average difference in Representatives/capita between states.

That broke in 1929 when they capped the house.

[-] Fox@pawb.social 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Your math for California is off by a factor of ten. California's per-capita electoral votes would be 0.00000141025

There's a minimum representation of votes (3) for statehood. In Alaska's case there are a large number of natives who are directly affected by policy at the federal level. The state is also very important strategically for defense and energy production.

[-] Kbobabob@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

In Alaska's case there are a large number of natives who are directly affected by policy at the federal level. The state is also very important strategically for defense and energy production.

Can anyone explain how this would be relevant?

[-] Fox@pawb.social 2 points 2 months ago

Well you're replying to me, so I'll take a crack at it. The whole purpose of the federal government is to represent the states, and the intention of the electoral colleges is to balance their interests. If the national popular vote was the only thing that mattered, there would be almost no reason for candidates to care about policy issues that uniquely affect states with smaller populations like Alaska.

this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2024
1024 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19240 readers
2893 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS