And yes, if your choice is between your job or your relationship to the Republic, you should choose the Republic. Apparently some people would choose "Give me Liberty... but only if I don't get a paycut."
so... you expect people to be ready to die, in order to cast a ballot?
And yes, if your choice is between your job or your relationship to the Republic, you should choose the Republic. Apparently some people would choose "Give me Liberty... but only if I don't get a paycut."
so... you expect people to be ready to die, in order to cast a ballot?
Yes, going to cast your vote into a ballot is a very dangerous action, the urns are surrounded by ravenous beasts and gluttonous monsters, ready to devour you in a moment's notice. Your family might even starve, out of the blue, if you go voting. We should also take into account the likely event of pigs flying, having a heart attack mid-flight, and crushing you as they fall.
And yes, if your choice is between your job or your relationship to the Republic, you should choose the Republic. Apparently some people would choose "Give me Liberty... but only if I don't get a paycut."
so... you expect people to be ready to die, in order to cast a ballot?
Yes, going to cast your vote into a ballot is a very dangerous action, the urns are surrounded by ravenous beasts and gluttonous monsters, ready to devour you in a moment's notice. Your family might even starve, out of the blue, if you go voting. We should also take into account the likely event of pigs flying, having a heart attack mid-flight, and crushing you as they fall.
You were the one who brought up the quote about Liberty and Death. Where were you going with that, exactly?
Alternative way of looking at the problem: we should base the number of people in Congress on economics, not population. It isn't often exactly that rich people get to just buy politicians and elections. But it is the case that the number of people who actually donate to politicians is itself something like 0.1% of the population. Politicians are looking to hear from their electorate and to represent them. But they've only got so much time. They take time to listent to that 0.1% and that's about all the time they've got. Maybe we just need a lot more politicians, to greatly increase the amount of man-hours available to listent to constituents, and dilute the effect that money can have on monopolozing this time. Tying seats to economics would mean that every extra dollar that might go to buying off a politician only makes that dollar less effective at buying off enough politicians. It would force them to spend at least as much time reading those letters you can write to them, because in the end it is the #people, not the dollars, that elect them.
Ultimately, you need money to run and stay in government. And only the smallest sliver of the US donates. And since politicians are almost constantly running to stay in office, they are most concerned with the wants and needs of the tinniest sliver of the US because those are the people who's opinions really matter to them.
It's not even conscious. These are the people with access to the politicians, so these are the views they think about the most, without even meaning to.
I don't think it's just income that's the problem.
There are 23 members of Congress under the age of 40. There are none under the age of 30. 26% of the adult population is under 40. 4% of Congress is under 40. A little over 5% of the population is over 70, about 17% of Congress is over 70.
Around 18% of Congress is female.
About 17% of Congress isn't currently married. About 60% of the general population isn't.
There is one openly Atheist Congressperson, and six "decline to state," so a little over 1%, versus between 6% and 15% of the population. 7% of Congress is Jewish, versus about 1.5% of the general population. Most of the rest of the Atheists are represented by Protestants and Catholics.
85% of Congress is white, versus about 70% of the general population.
And while I couldn't find numbers, I would be shocked if there were even one member of Congress that didn't own their own home, versus a third of the general population.
The age demographics are a little unfair. You have to be 30 to be in the Senate, so they rarely have 29-year-olds, and while the House lets you in at 25, that's still not much time to start building a political career. And with that age restriction, the older brackets get a big boost percentage-wise, though part of that is also because being in Congress isn't necessarily a demanding lifestyle (plus it's prestigious), so people in their sixties and seventies and such feel much less inclined to retire.
The age demographics are a little unfair. You have to be 30 to be in the Senate, so they rarely have 29-year-olds, and while the House lets you in at 25, that's still not much time to start building a political career. And with that age restriction, the older brackets get a big boost percentage-wise, though part of that is also because being in Congress isn't necessarily a demanding lifestyle (plus it's prestigious), so people in their sixties and seventies and such feel much less inclined to retire.
If I'm old enough to be drafted, I should be old enough to serve in Congress.
There is really no reason for the age minimums established by the Constitution, other than to give entrenched power an advantage over upstarts and grassroots movements.
Congress, by definition, cannot be unrepresentative, as it is elected through the sovereign will of the people.
I'll admit it's the most messy branch of government, but that's what you should expect from a democratic institution
Even if you ignore the extra-constitutional systemic issues (which are fucking enormous), this isn't anywhere close to true.
The Senate, as implemented by the Constitution, is entirely unrepresentative.
I'm willing to concede the Senate is an outdated relic. The aristocratical part of our government is already being fulfilled very satisfactorily by the Judiciary.
Congress, by definition, cannot be unrepresentative, as it is elected through the sovereign will of the people.
I'll admit it's the most messy branch of government, but that's what you should expect from a democratic institution
This assume everyone votes. If one person voted then congress just represents that guy's interest. So congress can be very much unrepresentative.
People who do not vote are only fit to be beasts of burden; the Republic sleeps better without having to listen their ghoulish nonsense.
"Some people don't deserve to be represented." Whoops.
Yes. If they do not exercise their political rights they do not deserve these political rights at the first place.
And if their managers do not allow them to take the time off work to vote, then they should just have been born wealthy, the lazy welfare cheats.
National holiday for voting.
And in the mean time, people should just risk getting fired in an environment where there are four applicants for every job?
Yes.
Uh huh. I wonder, do you have a job?
No.
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Wait wait wait, aren't employers required to give you time off to vote? And even if not, you can vote early all over the place now (or is that not standard nationally yet? It's a damn useful thing in Florida)
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Wait wait wait, aren't employers required to give you time off to vote?
Yes. But since when do businesses care about breaking the law to increase profits?
And even if not, you can vote early all over the place now (or is that not standard nationally yet? It's a damn useful thing in Florida)
It's not standard, and the states that Republicans took control of in 2010 are busy restricting the right to vote anyway. Stringent voter ID laws, less early voting, shutting down DMVs in left-leaning areas, etc.
And even if not, you can vote early all over the place now (or is that not standard nationally yet? It's a damn useful thing in Florida)
It's not standard, and the states that Republicans took control of in 2010 are busy restricting the right to vote anyway. Stringent voter ID laws, less early voting, shutting down DMVs in left-leaning areas, etc.
We actually had a pretty scary thread on this issue, specifically. I don't remember seeing anything about shutting down DMVs, but I'm willing to take Cap's word on it.
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Wait wait wait, aren't employers required to give you time off to vote?
Yes. But since when do businesses care about breaking the law to increase profits?
And even if not, you can vote early all over the place now (or is that not standard nationally yet? It's a damn useful thing in Florida)
It's not standard, and the states that Republicans took control of in 2010 are busy restricting the right to vote anyway. Stringent voter ID laws, less early voting, shutting down DMVs in left-leaning areas, etc.
Fuck those laws. Bill Nelson's bringing that up to the courts in Florida. Here's hoping it actually gets overturned.
Rick Scott promised to cut all the programs to save money. To his credit, he cut all the programs, but he's had to defend himself and his office from so many lawsuits because of his probably illegal shit that the money saved is negligible.
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
And even if not, you can vote early all over the place now (or is that not standard nationally yet? It's a damn useful thing in Florida)
It's not standard, and the states that Republicans took control of in 2010 are busy restricting the right to vote anyway. Stringent voter ID laws, less early voting, shutting down DMVs in left-leaning areas, etc.
We actually had a pretty scary thread on this issue, specifically. I don't remember seeing anything about shutting down DMVs, but I'm willing to take Cap's word on it.
I've heard whispers about it, so I'm fairly certain it's a thing.
Congress, by definition, cannot be unrepresentative, as it is elected through the sovereign will of the people.
I'll admit it's the most messy branch of government, but that's what you should expect from a democratic institution
Even if you ignore the extra-constitutional systemic issues (which are fucking enormous), this isn't anywhere close to true.
The Senate, as implemented by the Constitution, is entirely unrepresentative.
I'm willing to concede the Senate is an outdated relic. The aristocratical part of our government is already being fulfilled very satisfactorily by the Judiciary.
Yes, why don't we take a look at the supposedly representative House, then.
Wyoming has 563,000 people, and one House rep. California has 37,000,000 and 53 House reps. This means one vote in Wyoming is worth 125% of what a vote in California is worth. But that's okay, because Wyoming is 99% white, so they deserve the extra representation, right?
Of course, Washington D.C., which is 50% black, has a population larger than that of Wyoming's, and yet Wyoming has over a billion percent of the voting Congressional representation of D.C. (in that they have voting Congressional representation). Coincidence? I think not.
Not to mention the fact that currently, we are shipping young, black men from urban districts to rural districts against their will, counting them in the population of the rural district, then forbidding them from voting. So, the people who allegedly represent them have no reason whatsoever to listen to them. Talk about unrepresentative.
The California-Wyoming thing is just about the difficulty of apportionment when a state is close to the population for a single district. It has nothing to do with racial bias.
Congress, by definition, cannot be unrepresentative, as it is elected through the sovereign will of the people.
I'll admit it's the most messy branch of government, but that's what you should expect from a democratic institution
Even if you ignore the extra-constitutional systemic issues (which are fucking enormous), this isn't anywhere close to true.
The Senate, as implemented by the Constitution, is entirely unrepresentative.
I'm willing to concede the Senate is an outdated relic. The aristocratical part of our government is already being fulfilled very satisfactorily by the Judiciary.
Yes, why don't we take a look at the supposedly representative House, then.
Wyoming has 563,000 people, and one House rep. California has 37,000,000 and 53 House reps. This means one vote in Wyoming is worth 125% of what a vote in California is worth. But that's okay, because Wyoming is 99% white, so they deserve the extra representation, right?
Of course, Washington D.C., which is 50% black, has a population larger than that of Wyoming's, and yet Wyoming has over a billion percent of the voting Congressional representation of D.C. (in that they have voting Congressional representation). Coincidence? I think not.
Not to mention the fact that currently, we are shipping young, black men from urban districts to rural districts against their will, counting them in the population of the rural district, then forbidding them from voting. So, the people who allegedly represent them have no reason whatsoever to listen to them. Talk about unrepresentative.
Not to nit pick, well actually, only to nit pick; a billion times zero is still zero.
I think we should either let the Observing Member from DC vote in the House or split the city up, send its parts back to Virginia and Maryland, and keep the bit with all the monuments as our "capital".
The age demographics are a little unfair. You have to be 30 to be in the Senate, so they rarely have 29-year-olds, and while the House lets you in at 25, that's still not much time to start building a political career. And with that age restriction, the older brackets get a big boost percentage-wise, though part of that is also because being in Congress isn't necessarily a demanding lifestyle (plus it's prestigious), so people in their sixties and seventies and such feel much less inclined to retire.
If I'm old enough to be drafted, I should be old enough to serve in Congress.
There is really no reason for the age minimums established by the Constitution, other than to give entrenched power an advantage over upstarts and grassroots movements.
Yeah, but it's not like that would change anything. I have a hard time imagining how an 18 year old could possibly get elected, unless maybe they come from an immensely wealthy and powerful political family like the Kennedy's. Which would not really be much of an improvement on the current system.
The California-Wyoming thing is just about the difficulty of apportionment when a state is close to the population for a single district. It has nothing to do with racial bias.
Something tells me the apportionment thing would be discussed a lot more if the demographics of Wyoming and D.C. were reversed.
Congress, by definition, cannot be unrepresentative, as it is elected through the sovereign will of the people.
I'll admit it's the most messy branch of government, but that's what you should expect from a democratic institution
Even if you ignore the extra-constitutional systemic issues (which are fucking enormous), this isn't anywhere close to true.
The Senate, as implemented by the Constitution, is entirely unrepresentative.
I'm willing to concede the Senate is an outdated relic. The aristocratical part of our government is already being fulfilled very satisfactorily by the Judiciary.
Yes, why don't we take a look at the supposedly representative House, then.
Wyoming has 563,000 people, and one House rep. California has 37,000,000 and 53 House reps. This means one vote in Wyoming is worth 125% of what a vote in California is worth. But that's okay, because Wyoming is 99% white, so they deserve the extra representation, right?
Of course, Washington D.C., which is 50% black, has a population larger than that of Wyoming's, and yet Wyoming has over a billion percent of the voting Congressional representation of D.C. (in that they have voting Congressional representation). Coincidence? I think not.
Not to mention the fact that currently, we are shipping young, black men from urban districts to rural districts against their will, counting them in the population of the rural district, then forbidding them from voting. So, the people who allegedly represent them have no reason whatsoever to listen to them. Talk about unrepresentative.
Not to nit pick, well actually, only to nit pick; a billion times zero is still zero.
I think we should either let the Observing Member from DC vote in the House or split the city up, send its parts back to Virginia and Maryland, and keep the bit with all the monuments as our "capital".
I'm not sure what exactly you're nit-picking...? What did I say that was wrong?
And I think we should just make D.C. a state. It wouldn't even be the least-populous state.
The age demographics are a little unfair. You have to be 30 to be in the Senate, so they rarely have 29-year-olds, and while the House lets you in at 25, that's still not much time to start building a political career. And with that age restriction, the older brackets get a big boost percentage-wise, though part of that is also because being in Congress isn't necessarily a demanding lifestyle (plus it's prestigious), so people in their sixties and seventies and such feel much less inclined to retire.
If I'm old enough to be drafted, I should be old enough to serve in Congress.
There is really no reason for the age minimums established by the Constitution, other than to give entrenched power an advantage over upstarts and grassroots movements.
Yeah, but it's not like that would change anything. I have a hard time imagining how an 18 year old could possibly get elected, unless maybe they come from an immensely wealthy and powerful political family like the Kennedy's. Which would not really be much of an improvement on the current system.
I don't know whether it would or not, but I really can't come up with a good reason why an 18-year-old shouldn't be allowed to run for a Congressional seat, regardless of whether or not he has a shot at winning.
I'd love to see some primary threats against some of these old, conservative fucktards from some new, young blood (Feinstein and Boxer, I'm looking at you).
Congress, by definition, cannot be unrepresentative, as it is elected through the sovereign will of the people.
I'll admit it's the most messy branch of government, but that's what you should expect from a democratic institution
Even if you ignore the extra-constitutional systemic issues (which are fucking enormous), this isn't anywhere close to true.
The Senate, as implemented by the Constitution, is entirely unrepresentative.
I'm willing to concede the Senate is an outdated relic. The aristocratical part of our government is already being fulfilled very satisfactorily by the Judiciary.
Yes, why don't we take a look at the supposedly representative House, then.
Wyoming has 563,000 people, and one House rep. California has 37,000,000 and 53 House reps. This means one vote in Wyoming is worth 125% of what a vote in California is worth. But that's okay, because Wyoming is 99% white, so they deserve the extra representation, right?
Of course, Washington D.C., which is 50% black, has a population larger than that of Wyoming's, and yet Wyoming has over a billion percent of the voting Congressional representation of D.C. (in that they have voting Congressional representation). Coincidence? I think not.
Not to mention the fact that currently, we are shipping young, black men from urban districts to rural districts against their will, counting them in the population of the rural district, then forbidding them from voting. So, the people who allegedly represent them have no reason whatsoever to listen to them. Talk about unrepresentative.
Not to nit pick, well actually, only to nit pick; a billion times zero is still zero.
I think we should either let the Observing Member from DC vote in the House or split the city up, send its parts back to Virginia and Maryland, and keep the bit with all the monuments as our "capital".
I'm not sure what exactly you're nit-picking...? What did I say that was wrong?
And I think we should just make D.C. a state. It wouldn't even be the least-populous state.
Ah, don't worry about it, I was just trying to have a little fun.
I would say that if DC has the population to get statehood, it should at least be an option. And it shouldn't be illegal since you're only prohibited from making states out of larger states and DC hasn't been a part of a state for, well, ever.
There is a non-state capital district required unless we amended the Constitution. So you'd have to carve out just the areas with the Capitol, White House, Mall, Memorials, etc.
Anyway, Thanatos, disparities will always happen unless we remove the concepts of states entirely which leads to administration issues, even if it solves certain other problems (the Senate). That one is particularly severe, yes. It could be solved if we increased the size of the House moderately, but that creates other issues.
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
There is a non-state capital district required unless we amended the Constitution. So you'd have to carve out just the areas with the Capitol, White House, Mall, Memorials, etc.
Anyway, Thanatos, disparities will always happen unless we remove the concepts of states entirely which leads to administration issues, even if it solves certain other problems (the Senate). That one is particularly severe, yes. It could be solved if we increased the size of the House moderately, but that creates other issues.
To eliminate them, we wouldn't have to eliminate the concept of states; we'd just have to eliminate the idea that individual states deserve any sort of special representation at the national level. The country is made up of people, not states, and the national government should be concerned with the well-being of the nation, not the well being of a tiny handful of swing states.
However, there are a lot of ways to mitigate those disparities, without eliminating them entirely. It's something we should really look at.
Does this something also argue that areas with white minorities will always be dicked over district-wise?
What?
You're arguing that DC doesn't get a real seat in the House because most of the residents are black. If that's the case, then other majority-minority areas of the country should also have their voice stifled in Congress by drawing districts to pack and crack them, right?
There is a non-state capital district required unless we amended the Constitution. So you'd have to carve out just the areas with the Capitol, White House, Mall, Memorials, etc.
Anyway, Thanatos, disparities will always happen unless we remove the concepts of states entirely which leads to administration issues, even if it solves certain other problems (the Senate). That one is particularly severe, yes. It could be solved if we increased the size of the House moderately, but that creates other issues.
To eliminate them, we wouldn't have to eliminate the concept of states; we'd just have to eliminate the idea that individual states deserve any sort of special representation at the national level. The country is made up of people, not states, and the national government should be concerned with the well-being of the nation, not the well being of a tiny handful of swing states.
However, there are a lot of ways to mitigate those disparities, without eliminating them entirely. It's something we should really look at.
OK, so: Wyoming is a state and is guaranteed a representative in the House, right? Its population is its population. Those people get one representative. There is also a federal statute that caps the membership of the House of Representatives at 435 (sidenote: DC statehood removes the possibility of an electoral tie, as there would be 537 electors; another good reason to do it). This makes the math bad. What's your proposed solution? Again, the obvious one is to lift that cap, but that basically means it continues escalating forever and it becomes unwieldy at some point (you could argue it already is).
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
Does this something also argue that areas with white minorities will always be dicked over district-wise?
What?
You're arguing that DC doesn't get a real seat in the House because most of the residents are black. If that's the case, then other majority-minority areas of the country should also have their voice stifled in Congress by drawing districts to pack and crack them, right?
DC doesn't have representation in Congress because most of its residents are Democrats.
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
There is a non-state capital district required unless we amended the Constitution. So you'd have to carve out just the areas with the Capitol, White House, Mall, Memorials, etc.
Anyway, Thanatos, disparities will always happen unless we remove the concepts of states entirely which leads to administration issues, even if it solves certain other problems (the Senate). That one is particularly severe, yes. It could be solved if we increased the size of the House moderately, but that creates other issues.
To eliminate them, we wouldn't have to eliminate the concept of states; we'd just have to eliminate the idea that individual states deserve any sort of special representation at the national level. The country is made up of people, not states, and the national government should be concerned with the well-being of the nation, not the well being of a tiny handful of swing states.
However, there are a lot of ways to mitigate those disparities, without eliminating them entirely. It's something we should really look at.
OK, so: Wyoming is a state and is guaranteed a representative in the House, right? Its population is its population. Those people get one representative. There is also a federal statute that caps the membership of the House of Representatives at 435 (sidenote: DC statehood removes the possibility of an electoral tie, as there would be 537 electors; another good reason to do it). This makes the math bad. What's your proposed solution? Again, the obvious one is to lift that cap, but that basically means it continues escalating forever and it becomes unwieldy at some point (you could argue it already is).
If we're admitting DC as a state, I don't think adding a seat to the House is really going to be a very big deal.
Does this something also argue that areas with white minorities will always be dicked over district-wise?
What?
You're arguing that DC doesn't get a real seat in the House because most of the residents are black. If that's the case, then other majority-minority areas of the country should also have their voice stifled in Congress by drawing districts to pack and crack them, right?
Yes. It happens all the time. Also, they close down DMVs, make picture IDs mandatory, and ban early voting to do it, too. It's the new Jim Crow.
Posts
so... you expect people to be ready to die, in order to cast a ballot?
THE REPUBLIC FIRST! NATIONALISSSSSSMMMMMMMMM!!11
But no really the choice is obvious, not that it should have to be made in the first place. But some employers are shit.
Yes, going to cast your vote into a ballot is a very dangerous action, the urns are surrounded by ravenous beasts and gluttonous monsters, ready to devour you in a moment's notice. Your family might even starve, out of the blue, if you go voting. We should also take into account the likely event of pigs flying, having a heart attack mid-flight, and crushing you as they fall.
You were the one who brought up the quote about Liberty and Death. Where were you going with that, exactly?
The Daily Show had the author of this book: http://www.amazon.com/Republic-Lost-Money-Corrupts-Congress--/dp/0446576433/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1324525265&sr=8-1
on last week talking about this issue.
Ultimately, you need money to run and stay in government. And only the smallest sliver of the US donates. And since politicians are almost constantly running to stay in office, they are most concerned with the wants and needs of the tinniest sliver of the US because those are the people who's opinions really matter to them.
It's not even conscious. These are the people with access to the politicians, so these are the views they think about the most, without even meaning to.
There are 23 members of Congress under the age of 40. There are none under the age of 30. 26% of the adult population is under 40. 4% of Congress is under 40. A little over 5% of the population is over 70, about 17% of Congress is over 70.
Around 18% of Congress is female.
About 17% of Congress isn't currently married. About 60% of the general population isn't.
There is one openly Atheist Congressperson, and six "decline to state," so a little over 1%, versus between 6% and 15% of the population. 7% of Congress is Jewish, versus about 1.5% of the general population. Most of the rest of the Atheists are represented by Protestants and Catholics.
85% of Congress is white, versus about 70% of the general population.
And while I couldn't find numbers, I would be shocked if there were even one member of Congress that didn't own their own home, versus a third of the general population.
Yes.
The Senate, as implemented by the Constitution, is entirely unrepresentative.
There is really no reason for the age minimums established by the Constitution, other than to give entrenched power an advantage over upstarts and grassroots movements.
I'm willing to concede the Senate is an outdated relic. The aristocratical part of our government is already being fulfilled very satisfactorily by the Judiciary.
No.
We actually had a pretty scary thread on this issue, specifically. I don't remember seeing anything about shutting down DMVs, but I'm willing to take Cap's word on it.
Fuck those laws. Bill Nelson's bringing that up to the courts in Florida. Here's hoping it actually gets overturned.
Rick Scott promised to cut all the programs to save money. To his credit, he cut all the programs, but he's had to defend himself and his office from so many lawsuits because of his probably illegal shit that the money saved is negligible.
I've heard whispers about it, so I'm fairly certain it's a thing.
Wyoming has 563,000 people, and one House rep. California has 37,000,000 and 53 House reps. This means one vote in Wyoming is worth 125% of what a vote in California is worth. But that's okay, because Wyoming is 99% white, so they deserve the extra representation, right?
Of course, Washington D.C., which is 50% black, has a population larger than that of Wyoming's, and yet Wyoming has over a billion percent of the voting Congressional representation of D.C. (in that they have voting Congressional representation). Coincidence? I think not.
Not to mention the fact that currently, we are shipping young, black men from urban districts to rural districts against their will, counting them in the population of the rural district, then forbidding them from voting. So, the people who allegedly represent them have no reason whatsoever to listen to them. Talk about unrepresentative.
Pet peeve of mine!
Seriously though, that C-SPAN thing has me seething. And Boehner will get away with it scot-free, I have no doubt.
Not to nit pick, well actually, only to nit pick; a billion times zero is still zero.
I think we should either let the Observing Member from DC vote in the House or split the city up, send its parts back to Virginia and Maryland, and keep the bit with all the monuments as our "capital".
Yeah, but it's not like that would change anything. I have a hard time imagining how an 18 year old could possibly get elected, unless maybe they come from an immensely wealthy and powerful political family like the Kennedy's. Which would not really be much of an improvement on the current system.
And I think we should just make D.C. a state. It wouldn't even be the least-populous state.
I'd love to see some primary threats against some of these old, conservative fucktards from some new, young blood (Feinstein and Boxer, I'm looking at you).
Ah, don't worry about it, I was just trying to have a little fun.
I would say that if DC has the population to get statehood, it should at least be an option. And it shouldn't be illegal since you're only prohibited from making states out of larger states and DC hasn't been a part of a state for, well, ever.
Anyway, Thanatos, disparities will always happen unless we remove the concepts of states entirely which leads to administration issues, even if it solves certain other problems (the Senate). That one is particularly severe, yes. It could be solved if we increased the size of the House moderately, but that creates other issues.
However, there are a lot of ways to mitigate those disparities, without eliminating them entirely. It's something we should really look at.
OK, so: Wyoming is a state and is guaranteed a representative in the House, right? Its population is its population. Those people get one representative. There is also a federal statute that caps the membership of the House of Representatives at 435 (sidenote: DC statehood removes the possibility of an electoral tie, as there would be 537 electors; another good reason to do it). This makes the math bad. What's your proposed solution? Again, the obvious one is to lift that cap, but that basically means it continues escalating forever and it becomes unwieldy at some point (you could argue it already is).
DC doesn't have representation in Congress because most of its residents are Democrats.