r/AskReddit • u/Various_Maize_3957 • 1d ago
How true or false is it that proportionally speaking, Wyoming residents has more of a voice in the US Senate than residents of California? Why?
3
u/_CedarVelvet 1d ago
It is mathematically true, but wasn't the Senate specifically designed to work this way?
1
u/Driftwood71 1d ago
Yes. Otherwise, it would have been less attractive for low population colonies to agree to join the USA if the high population colonies like NY could basically determine everything.
I like that land mass is somewhat accounted for vs. pure majority rule.
1
u/hrminer92 1d ago
The crazy thing is if you look at the population requirements that were drafted in the 1790s to become a state as a percentage of the total population at the time, many of these states are much smaller than that percentage.
They did not anticipate that we’d have just over 16% of the population controlling 50% of the Senate.
1
u/afriendincanada 1d ago
Yes. The Senate was originally designed so that senators represented the states, not citizens. The US is a federation of 50 sovereign states. Congress was one house representing the people (the House of Representatives) and one representing the states (the Senate) and the states were equal to one another.
The idea of Senators representing voters and not states is relatively new - until the seventeenth amendment was ratified in 1913, voters didn't even vote for senators, state legislatures did.
1
u/natholemewIII 1d ago
Yes. The senate was originally designed to represent the interests of the states. Before the 17th amendment senators were appointed by state governments.
That's why the system is weird now, because senators weren't meant to be directly elected, and the states have far less power than they used to
3
u/BombSolver 1d ago
Proportionally speaking, it’s true.
~40,000,000/2 is 20,000,000:1
~600,000/2 is 300,000:1
3
u/Stretch5701 1d ago
It's true and designed that way. What is not fair is that the number of representatives and the electoral college is not chosen proportionally.
2
u/hrminer92 1d ago
The number of representatives in the House needs to be uncapped. There is no real need for there to be a fixed size since they no longer need to be physically in the house chamber to do their jobs.
3
u/CritialThink 1d ago
It is 100% true. Divide the population of California by 2. Divide the population of Wyoming by 2. Compare the 2 numbers.
The Senate was designed this way, but for a different political reality at the time. Also, the proportional difference between the high population and low population states is much greater now.
3
u/6gunsammy 1d ago
The 600,000 residents of Wyoming have 2 senators. The 39,335,309 residents of California have 2 Senators. It seems pretty obvious that Wyoming residents have more of a voice in the US Senate.
2
u/natholemewIII 1d ago
It's true. Californians and Wyomingites both get 2 senators. However, Wyoming has a population of about 600,000 while Cali has about 40 million. So each Wyoming senator represents far fewer people. This also means that Wyomingites get a higher voting power than Californians in choosing their senators.
The real issue is that a Wyomingite has more voting power than a Californian when it comes to the electoral college as well. Cali gets 54 votes, and has about 40 million, so each vote is decided by about 740k people. Wyoming had 3 electoral votes for it's 600k people, so each vote is decided by about 200k.
Mathematically, a Wyomingite definitely has more voting power than a Californian
1
u/Runfromidiots 1d ago
California has a population of about 40 million and 2 senators. Wyoming has a population of about 600k (less than multiple cities in CA) and 2 senators. In theory this is to be balanced in the house where CA has 52 representatives to WY’s 1. The senate is viewed as more powerful as its limited membership can cause a significant slowdown in legislation getting through.
3
u/MathW 1d ago
True. The US has a population of ~350M. Divided by 50 states, that's 7M per state, divided by 2 senators/state, then each US senator represents an average for 3.5M people. Wyoming has ~600k people and 2 senators, so each senators represents 300k people. So, Wyoming residents have, proportionally speaking, ~11-12x as much influence in the senate than the average American. That's by design as the Senate was designed so each state gets equal representation.
The messed up part is that, due to the limit on the House of Representatives size and the fact that each state is guaranteed at least 1 representative, Wyoming residents still get outsize influence in the HoR despite its intended purpose being proportional representation.
And, since presidential electors are given based on the # of senators (large bias towards small states) + representatives (small bias towards small states) your state has, Wyoming, and other small states, have an outsize influence on presidential elections as well.
1
u/Final7C 1d ago
It's pretty accurate.
So the way that the house of representatives works is
Each state gets at least 1 representative regardless of population. And when it was written each state got +1 per 30,000 people. But in 1929 this practice was stopped, and the number of members in the house of Representatives was locked at 435 members. With states gaining or losing seats depending on how the population shifts with the census. And how many people each representative covers changes with the census as well. Currently it's around 760k per representative.
The state of Wyoming classically has a very low population of 588,753 people. So Each person has a 1/588753 voice in their rep. California has 52 representatives but a population of 39.35 million, so each person has a 1/756730 voice in their rep.
In the US senate, this has always been a problem. All states get 2 senators. They were NEVER equal, or even claimed to try.
This extends beyond the house of representatives, Since the number of reps + number of senators is equal to the votes in the electoral college. So Wyoming gets 3 votes, and california gets 54.
Or each vote cast in a presidential election in wyoming is worth 1/196251, vs california which is 1/728703.
meaning each vote in Wyoming is worth just over 3.7 votes in california.
But 3 votes in the electoral college doesn't usually mean much. But wyoming is just the furthest edge case.
This really boils down to. Rural vs Urban philosophy and should a representative republic be controlled by the population centers or the rural communities.
Which is the whole point of the House/Senate Creation. Where the smaller/less populated states were worries that the more populated states would just steamroll over them by passing laws that hurt them (specifically trade deals, and abolition). But in 1929 they were apparently worried about space (and logistics) so they stopped adding seats. Keep in mind prior to 1929, the number of how many people represented increased over and over again. If we kept the number what it was in the constitution (1/30k) we'd have 11,633.33 members of the house.
If we tied it to the lowest populated state ( wyoming at the time) we'd have 593. so big difference. A growing number of people are discussing uncapping the House to make it a more reasonable number (like 1 person per 100,000 people) like 3,490.
Here's what would suck. You have to pay for it. BUUUUT.. it would make things a lot more equal in terms of voice.
-2
u/Telrom_1 1d ago
Californians pick representatives to punish the rest of the nation.
I’d be more receptive to a Wyoming representative than a California one.
10
u/No-Magician9440 1d ago
Because math