A little....Louisiana for instance is generally considered a solid red state, but that's over the last 5 elections - we went for Clinton twice. Same for Georgia, Kentucky and Tennessee. That's another 44 votes. Still nearly a 2-1 advantage for the Dems.
It should be by population per state. Not congressional district which have been gerrymandered to ensure certain parties retain power.
Senators serve a different role and I see no reason, particularly regarding population, why any state should have more than another. And let's face it, if CA got more, they'd only be Democrats. Exactly.
Of course you can't, because that is what's in your best interest, I'm interested in what the majority of people in this country want. Especially when it comes to things like marijuana legalization.
Number of districts. It doesn't make a rats ass if they are drawn like an ink blot or cookie monster or who is captured by the boundaries. More districts = more ec votes.
Today but you know I ain't staying here. What does a state need more Senators for? Really....be specific. What benefit would it add and compare it to the financial burden. Their job isn't intended to be a body of populations, only nation states. Every state deserves an equal vote in legislation. It would be entirely unrepresentative to have a block of Democratic senators force national legislation that represents only a handful of states. The House covers the population angle. No need for the Senate to do so. "The equality of representation in the Senate is another point, which, being evidently the result of compromise between the opposite pretensions of the large and the small States, does not call for much discussion. If indeed it be right, that among a people thoroughly incorporated into one nation, every district ought to have a PROPORTIONAL share in the government, and that among independent and sovereign States, bound together by a simple league, the parties, however unequal in size, ought to have an EQUAL share in the common councils, it does not appear to be without some reason that in a compound republic, partaking both of the national and federal character, the government ought to be founded on a mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation..... In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty. So far the equality ought to be no less acceptable to the large than to the small States; since they are not less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic." Checks and balances....they matter.
Thinking that 39 million people's voices in California means the same as 1 million people's voices is Rhode Island is silly as shit. No wonder we can't ever get shi done in America. And for the record if the majority of Americans wanted abortion to be illegal, guess what, it should be.
When it comes to a seat at THAT table it's how it should be. And you gave me zero reasons why the country would benefit from your concept. That's why we have States. Otherwise, let's eliminate all the borders and just have one big union.
