The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Politics & Current Events / Retire Early Liberal Edition


Subject:  Re: Impact of Right Wing Echo Chamber Date:  12/18/2018  7:05 PM
Author:  telegraph Number:  122928 of 129861

AW""It has to do with the number of states.

The number of "small" states vs "large" states was roughly equal in the 1770s vs the current 2 to 1 ratio today, giving small states a greater proportion of the power.

So a system that was designed to give balance is now skewed."

The set up had little to do with 'population'. It had to do with the 'interests' of the states - farm states vs plantation states vs industrial center/port states vs logging/forested states vs mineral rich states, etc.

As as well as settlers vs land grant folks and every other way of slicing and dicing the various interests of people across the country.

I see no where in the Constitution where it mentions small states vs large states, nor even sets much of a criteria for a required population of a state in order to join the Union.

If the founders were so interested in having 'equal populations' per state they would have been adjusting state borders all the time, shifting federal money around to insure equal distribution of people, etc.

So what? 34 states are not big liberal cesspools? Those states are not the least bit interested in NY and CA and OR and MA and MD and CT horrendous real estate bills for gold plated services......and closed union shops and inefficiencies. And the folks in NYC have zero interest in discussing mineral rights, even though there are 20x as many as in all of WY.
When was the last time a coal mine opened in NYC? Or LA?

The only thing that goes by population is the House of Rep. Where you divvy up 450 representatives among the 50 states solely by population, and every state gets at least one.

Copyright 1996-2019 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us