• AbidanYre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    The number of votes per state would go up based on the population of each state, not a straight multiply by x.

    • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      They wouldn’t though, the people in charge of changing this would not allow states like California and New York to dominate the process, which they would if it were based purely on population.

      • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Literally no one has ever suggested doing it the way you keep suggesting.

        It would be something like the Wyoming rule because just scaling the house by an arbitrary value is asinine.

        There is no reason to have arbitrary lines determine the vote rather than people.

        • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          The problem is the people proposing the change and the people in charge of implementing the change are two different groups of people. ;)

          You think, for a minute, the people responsible for blocking Merrick Garland from getting a Supreme Court hearing, are going to give states like California even an inch more power in Presidential elections, well… you have a greater faith in humanity than I do.

          The only reason they haven’t changed the congressional makeup is because they haven’t (yet) figured out how to empower low population red states at the expense of high population blue states.