People who have never been to L.A. really have no idea how insanely huge it is. Driving to my apartment from the start of city (before you even get to L.A. county) and having the city just keep going and going and going for two hours and not because of traffic jams is something you have to experience to truly understand.
I mean that's why we also have representatives that match the population.
Unfortunately no because in 1929 the House of Representatives got capped at 435. For example, a Congressman from California represented ~~494,709 people while one from New Hampshire represented 3,448 people in the year 2020.~~ Those must have been state congress numbers or something, idk, real numbers would be 750k cali and 700k NH, probably better examples out there for large differences.
Edit: these numbers are not for federal congressmen, clearly. Correction made.
NH only has 2 congresspeople, so one per 700,000
Yeah I must have used a bad source, might have been state congress numbers.
Maybe time for a Port of Oakland tea party but with... Oh wait.. we don't need imports from the rest of the country and should just stop paying taxes without representation or something
I'm not an advocate of secession under normal circuimstances, what with the looming threat of WWIII if ever the power scale tipped against the USA, but it's especially a bad idea when California is covered in fire.
Every state still gets at least one. Even if the population is 584,000
Even that is capped though, so the smaller states are still vastly overrepresented. Living in LA means your vote is only represented at ~1/100th as much as the least populated areas. Because even the least populated areas still get a representative, but the populated areas are capped on how many they can have.
But the power differential between large population states and small population states matters a lot. Ain't much national news coverage of Vermont's or North Dakota's senators or representatives. But a California, Texas, New York, politician can get major news reporter's ears in a heartbeat. Low population density state politicians either need some unique point to make or be batshit crazy to garner attention. And when was the last time a viable presidential candidate came from one of those low population states? Let alone actually achieved office? On the national stage, no one cares much about what happens in Montana or Minnesota.
While I agree that California needs more members in the House, there is also a limit to just how much the House can expand before the whole thing becomes so unwieldy that it stops to function at all. Perhaps those large population states should be broken up into smaller population states to make a more manageable system of representation. But, I suspect California's lack of representation per person will be be solved by the untenable living conditions they have created for themselves soon enough.
Not much coverage of Vermont's senators? Did you miss all the Bernie Sanders coverage even when he's not running for president?
Well, there's one. But just one. And it can be argued that Bernie, due to being a failed presidential candidate, has earned some national notoriety thanks to Hilary Clinton.
How much national coverage does the senator's from Nebraska and South Dakota get? Or Montana? Anybody heard from Oklahoma lately? Does anyone care what happens those states?