Not really. The political entity of a state gets to vote yes, and that does lead to different ratios of senators per person.
For example Alaska is the largest state, but in terms of population it ranks 48th. Meaning per person in the Senate it has more power per person than say California. However then you have a state like Vermont that is the 49th most populous state and ranks at 45th in size. Lower land area and population than Alaska. And yet it does have more representation per person in the Senate than Alaska. So it’s not land that votes, it’s states. Ironically the Senate was set up so “smaller” states like Rhode Island wouldn’t get outvoted by larger states like “Virginia”. Then since population densities were so much lower the larger a state was generally correlated with a larger population (more space to farm means it can support more people). Then the American west happened.
Funny to hear “voting by population” as phrase that appears to be intended to obfuscate the fact that it means “just counting the votes” like literally every other democracy does.
Also, Vermont actually has exactly the same representation in the senate and house despite a higher population than Alaska, this example supports my statement, not yours.
That wasn’t my intention. I wasn’t trying to obfuscate anything. I said it that way to directly point to the reality that it is not done the way everyone else does.
Also this is why I said senate representation per person. Since ever state gets 2 Senators per state, regardless of population or land area, this means states with lower populations get the same level of representation. Without doing a ton of math this late in the evening let’s say in California it’s 1 senator per 15 million people. In Vermont its 1 senator per 300,000 people. That in effect is more representation per person. Same thing applies to the electoral college.
And yeah the same representation for Vermont and Alaska proves my point actually. It’s not based on size its based on state. It’s not land voting its the state that votes. If land voted Alaska would have more representatives than Vermont.
The urban-rural border
This looks more like the coverage maps Verizon would display in television commercials.
And both are basically just population density maps anyway
All that red is mostly empty space/farmland. It’s not what it appears. Land doesn’t get to vote.
It literally does in America.
Not really. The political entity of a state gets to vote yes, and that does lead to different ratios of senators per person.
For example Alaska is the largest state, but in terms of population it ranks 48th. Meaning per person in the Senate it has more power per person than say California. However then you have a state like Vermont that is the 49th most populous state and ranks at 45th in size. Lower land area and population than Alaska. And yet it does have more representation per person in the Senate than Alaska. So it’s not land that votes, it’s states. Ironically the Senate was set up so “smaller” states like Rhode Island wouldn’t get outvoted by larger states like “Virginia”. Then since population densities were so much lower the larger a state was generally correlated with a larger population (more space to farm means it can support more people). Then the American west happened.
Funny to hear “voting by population” as phrase that appears to be intended to obfuscate the fact that it means “just counting the votes” like literally every other democracy does.
Also, Vermont actually has exactly the same representation in the senate and house despite a higher population than Alaska, this example supports my statement, not yours.
That wasn’t my intention. I wasn’t trying to obfuscate anything. I said it that way to directly point to the reality that it is not done the way everyone else does.
Also this is why I said senate representation per person. Since ever state gets 2 Senators per state, regardless of population or land area, this means states with lower populations get the same level of representation. Without doing a ton of math this late in the evening let’s say in California it’s 1 senator per 15 million people. In Vermont its 1 senator per 300,000 people. That in effect is more representation per person. Same thing applies to the electoral college.
And yeah the same representation for Vermont and Alaska proves my point actually. It’s not based on size its based on state. It’s not land voting its the state that votes. If land voted Alaska would have more representatives than Vermont.
It sure fucking does.
44 million Californians have the same number of senators as a herd of buffalo in Wyoming.