electoral10-1100
Source: Fake is the New Real

Hat tip GovBeat

Category: Data Analysis, Digital Media

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

7 Responses to “What If All 50 States Had = Populations?”

  1. agronox says:

    Fun map, but I really wish I could zoom in on the Northeast a little.

  2. romerjt says:

    That would alleviate the problem of 5 smallest states with a population of about 4M total having the same representation in the Senate as the 5 largest states with about 140M. Wonder if the founding fathers saw that coming?

  3. RW says:

    This seems to come up from time to time but frankly its rather trivial:

    The Constitution would not have been ratified if the Federalist faction and its allies remained unsatisfied never mind the fears of small states that they could be overwhelmed so a second legislative body based on state identity rather than population count had to happen.

    This is one of many reasons the filibuster never made sense: The ‘minority’ was already protected by the Senate’s very existence; the Senate is inherently a blocking body.

    Rearranging state borders to create a body where each state is balanced by population would certainly remove any need for a Senate but since it would also constitute an attempt to reverse the entire sociopolitical history of the US while voiding several sections in the Constitution I rather think the exercise is sufficiently meaningless to not even be thought of as a waste of time. JMO

    • Chad says:

      The Senate is the only reason we are dodging the tyranny of the minority extremists from the House’s gerrymandered districts. The Senate still has it’s problems, but the House makes them look positively rational.

  4. romerjt says:

    I understand the Great Compromise and need of States to represented in the Senate but the time the smallest state was 14% of the largest. Today the population of WY is 1.5%. of the population of CA. The smallest state (DE) was still 8% of the total population, today (WY) it is about 2 tenths of 1% (.002%) of the total population. That would have been the equivalent of granting a colonial population of about 5500 people 2 senators. I just wonder if they were faced with these levels of imbalance trivial and if they would have made the same choices.

    • RW says:

      I doubt they were easy choices but with growing resistance to a distant monarchy and union, even a federalist union, as the goal there was no reason not to make the same choices. I doubt state population was the overriding value when it came down to it; e.g., Kentucky was around 0.2% of the total population and Tennessee less than that (est colonies pops)

      Don’t think population differential is the critical issue now either. Personally I’d like to see gerrymandering curtailed in some way even if it isn’t forbidden altogether but what I’d really like to see is a practical way to expand the size of the House; ISTR we are now at roughly 1 congressperson = 700,000 citizens and that strikes me as awfully granular for adequate representation.

  5. romerjt says:

    I understand the Great Compromise and need of States to represented in the Senate but at the time the smallest state was 14% of the largest. Today the population of WY is 1.5%. the population of CA. The smallest state (DE) was still 8% of the total population, today (WY) it is about 2 tenths of 1% (.002%) of the total population. That would have been the equivalent of granting a colonial population of about 5500 people 2 senators. I just wonder if they would have thought these imbalances trivial and if they would have made the same choices.