![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Small Point
It's late, and I should be asleep. HOW MANY TIMES have I started a post by saying that? Too many, I'll bet.
Anyway, this is a small point. I've often heard comments on the archaic, non-proportional representation of the US Senate. And when it's discussed in the media, they always bring up Rhode Island as an extreme example. It's so unfair, apparently, that RI gets the same number of Senators as California or Texas.
That point always struck me as bullshit. Rhode Island is the smallest state in terms of geography, but so what? Land doesn't get a vote - people do. So I kept making a mental note to myself to look up states ranked by population. And, inevitably, I kept forgetting to do that. Mental notes are easier to lose than physical ones, at least for me.
So finally I remembered, and just looked it up:
http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/phc-t2.html
Here's the interesting thing: RI is NOT the smallest state in terms of population. Wyoming is. In fact, RI is the 43rd smallest in terms of population. Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska (the biggest state geographically, which somehow seems ironic), and Vermont all have less population than Rhode Island, too. So does the District of Columbia, although of course they don't get any real representation anyway (sorry, DC; you're being screwed). California has the highest population, if you were wondering.
Anyway, I just saw an article saying that although the Republicans hold an 11-seat advantage in the Senate at the moment, the Democratic Senators represent 4.5 million more people than the Republican Senators. I just thought that was kind of interesting.
Damn, I need sleep.
Anyway, this is a small point. I've often heard comments on the archaic, non-proportional representation of the US Senate. And when it's discussed in the media, they always bring up Rhode Island as an extreme example. It's so unfair, apparently, that RI gets the same number of Senators as California or Texas.
That point always struck me as bullshit. Rhode Island is the smallest state in terms of geography, but so what? Land doesn't get a vote - people do. So I kept making a mental note to myself to look up states ranked by population. And, inevitably, I kept forgetting to do that. Mental notes are easier to lose than physical ones, at least for me.
So finally I remembered, and just looked it up:
http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/phc-t2.html
Here's the interesting thing: RI is NOT the smallest state in terms of population. Wyoming is. In fact, RI is the 43rd smallest in terms of population. Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska (the biggest state geographically, which somehow seems ironic), and Vermont all have less population than Rhode Island, too. So does the District of Columbia, although of course they don't get any real representation anyway (sorry, DC; you're being screwed). California has the highest population, if you were wondering.
Anyway, I just saw an article saying that although the Republicans hold an 11-seat advantage in the Senate at the moment, the Democratic Senators represent 4.5 million more people than the Republican Senators. I just thought that was kind of interesting.
Damn, I need sleep.