Quote:
Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary
The fourth biggest economy is a big thing in terms of incomes taxes and revenue going into the US economy.
A better question is why does your hypothetical even matter? Because that is not the case that California's economy is the size of Wyoming.
It's certainly your prerogative to think that Delaware or Wyoming's 1.4 M combined population should have the same number of Senators as California 40 million.
If the Union was being formed today, I highly doubt it would take on this level disparity, thus the notion of it being "outdated".
Curious why you don't think its outdated? When the Senate has become a major bottle for legislation and especially for SCOTUS appointments.
|
I happen to enjoy divided government, and I'm happy when there's a major bottleneck for legislation. I don't think we need more of it.
When the Senate and the presidency are divided, we typically get more mainstream SCOTUS appointments, although there hasn't been one of these in over 30 years. Rehnquist and Kennedy were both cut from this particular cloth.
California's economy shouldn't matter a hill of beans when it comes to apportionment, in my opinion. I believe more strongly in an egalitarian system of apportionment based on population. Although, I'm sure there's a reasonable argument you can make in favor of apportionment weighted by per capita GDP. People who pay more in taxes ought to matter more at the ballot box? I hadn't considered it, but my initial reaction is to oppose it.