- Joined
- Oct 22, 2012
- Messages
- 32,516
- Reaction score
- 5,321
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
I did because that is exactly what he is wanting. He wants a state which has far more people to have more power than a state with less people instead of the states being on equal footing when being represented. His claim of Wyoming having 70% more power than California ignores the fact that the 70% "increase in power" in actuality just puts Wyoming on direct equal footing with California, preventing California from dictating what happens in Wyoming. Two VERY different states with VERY different cultures and needs and wants.
How can you have a "representative democracy" when the reps from your state have less power than some other state that just happens to have more people? The word "representative" is about representing what the people in their particular state needs/wants. This cannot be done if you have some other states representative over riding your states representative just because they have more people. That would make it to where California is representing Wyoming also.
CA has 53 representatives in the house
WY has 1 representative in the house