People in California and New York pay 20% of federal taxes and have 4 Senators. People in 21 states

[applegrove]

RT @[e-mail]

People in California and New York pay 20% of federal taxes and have 4 Senators. People in 21 states--AK ID UT MT WY ND SD NE KS OK IA MO AR LA MS AL TN KY IN WV SC--pay 15% of federal taxes and have 42 Senators.

What's that old saying? Oh yeah, taxation without representation.

🐦🔗:

Link to tweet

Max Boot at Mastodon

[Abolishinist]

1. Not only the federal taxes PAID,

but also the revenue flowing BACK to the states. CA gets a $.69 return for every federal tax dollar paid, NY $.74.

As a resident of CA, with each of our two senators representing 20 million residents, I'm more than pizzed. But at least the 21 states with 42 senators that pay only 15% of the taxes are mostly Blue States... whoops!

https://www.moneygeek.com/living/states-most-reliant-federal-government/

[SYFROYH]

2. What an utterly ridiculous thing to tweet.

Yes, CA and NY does have representation in both houses.

[applegrove]

3. I think you miss the whole point. It is unfair and goes against the basics of democracy.. n/t

[marybourg]

4. As my parents used to tell me when I was a child:

Not everything in life is going to be absolutely fair.

There were other values to be considered, to wit, forming a nation out of disparate interest groups.

[lostnfound]

8. Yes, let's just watch country burn to ground as insurrectionists and rightwing fanatics prevail

But we can shrug and say ‘not everything I’d going to be absolutely fair’.
I think the OP is pointing at the iceberg about to sink the Titanic.
1776 is not now.what was necessary then has become our albatross.

[SunSeeker]

9. The original 13 states were all very rural, unlike now.

Last edited Thu Jan 5, 2023, 03:47 AM - Edit history (1)

In 1780 the United States was very sparcely populated, with only about 2.7 million total population, and that included slaves. Virginia had the most (538,0004 people, including slaves) and Delaware had the least (45,385 people) of the original 13 states. https://web.viu.ca/davies/H320/population.colonies.htm

All of the states were basically like Wyoming, so the Senate setup did not seem that outrageously unfair or problematic at the time, certainly not enough to impede the formation of a union, which is why they agreed to it.

We are not all Wyoming anymore. Now, the setup basically disenfranchises tens of millions of people in the most populous states of NY and CA.

[SYFROYH]

19. Not all were sparsley populated from the founder persective which is why we have a bicameral system.

In 1770 a state like DE with 35,496 people was dwarfed by PA (240,057), MA (235,308), and VA (447,016).

It was a compromise.

The issue here is that we need to win more states in the Senate and the House.

[SunSeeker]

30. Founders knew some states had more people, but all were sparse compared to Europe at the time.

The founders thought the Great Compromise seemed reasonable because all the states were sparsely populated. They all had pretty much the same interests except one: slavery.

Now, we have states that are as densely populated as Europe. Urban dominant states like California and New York are completely different culturally and economically from states like Idaho and Kansas. There is a huge divide between rural and urban states on so many national issues. And because the Senate must approve all legislation, it in essence gives rural states veto power. They originally used that veto power to keep slavery in place. That's why it took a civil war to get rid of slavery. Now they use it on a multitude of big issues, from universal healthcare, to the environment, to foreign policy. It has made it impossible to move our country forward on our biggest challenges, like addressing global warming, poverty, immigration, gun safety, and universal healthcare. It has become utterly dysfunctional. And the Senate filibuster rules make it even worse. We can't have a civil war every time we need to address a major issue.

Your solution to "win more states" is impossible with the current largely white, Fox News bubble enclosed populace of the rural states. I don't think our planet has the time to wait for those states' demographics to change. We may already be too late when it comes to global warming.

Our bicameral system is antiquated and undemocratic. We may not be able to fix it, but we shouldn't pretend that it continues to be "reasonable."

[SYFROYH]

20. No, I understand the revisionist history that our bicameral system is somehow undemocratic.

We just need to win more states with policies and leadership.

[Kaleva]

22. All bills to raise revenue (taxes) have to originate in the House

[Genki Hikari]

55. And the Senate has to agree to that, or the taxes

Don't get changed.

Your point?

[orleans]

6. california has 1 senator for more than 19,500000 people

wyoming has 1 senator for 289,400 people

if california had the same representation (equal) as wyoming then california would have 135 senators

maybe you didn't understand the point of the op
of course cal & ny have representation. it just isn't "equal" representation when it comes to the senate

[AllTooEasy]

10. You missed the point of the "Great Compromise" or the "Connecticut Compromise"

Did any of you take civics or American history classes?

Our legislative branch was designed to have the TWO parts/houses with equivalent legislative powers and checks on each other. One house gives every state equal representation (Senate) and the other gives every state proportional representation (House of Reps).

Take your non-proportional Senate Representation grievances to the House of Reps, which is what the latter was designed for.

In addition, assuming that all Reps from a state will vote the same way is an old, OLD, 1700s line of thinking. How often do all the Reps in the populous states, like Cali or Florida, vote for the same party or Congressional legislature? Uh, never.

Plus the idea of States getting Senators in proportion to their economy is utterly unfair and ridiculous. A homeless person in red TX would have more Federal voting power than someone making $100K in Mass, solely because TX has a more GDP than Mass.

[SunSeeker]

12. The Great Compromise seemed reasonable when all the states were sparsely populated.

Last edited Thu Jan 5, 2023, 01:52 PM - Edit history (1)

They all had pretty much the same interests except one: slavery.
Now, there is a huge divide between rural and urban states on so many issues. And because the Senate must approve all legislation, it in essence gives rural states veto power. They originally used that veto power to keep slavery in place. Now they use it on a multitude of big issues, from universal Healthcare, to the environment to foreign policy. It has made it impossible to move our country forward on our biggest challenges, like addressing global warming, poverty, immigration, gun safety, women's reproductive rights, and on and on. It has become utterly dysfunctional. And the Senate filibuster rules makes it even worse.

[Buckeyeblue]

15. But even the house is out of proportion because the number of overall representatives is capped

If it was truly representative, the number of representatives would continue to grow.

[Bettie]

54. The cap should be removed and representation

made proportional. It is stupid that CA and NY lost representatives. There should be a number set, probably the population of the smallest state (pop wise, that is) and from there, assign one rep per that number. New reps to be added as population increases.

[inthewind21]

21. Answer to your question

is a resounding, obvious NO.

[inthewind21]

24. Actually it is equal

Each state has the same. 2 per state. Now the house, that's a different story. CA has 52 Representatives in the house, damn near three times Wyoming's 20. Tell me again about CA under-representation.

[panader0]

28. Wyoming has ONE Representative.

[onenote]

26. Texas has one Senator for more than 15 million people

And Florida has one Senator for 11 million people.

New York has one Senator for less than 10 million people.

(And Vermont has one senator for 350,000 people).

Not sure what the point is. The Senate never was intended to be a population-based body. From the very beginning there were the same number of Senators per state even though there were wide variations in the population of the original 13 states. Virginia's population in 1770 was 447,000; Georgia's population was 23,375.

[James48]

5. Tell me again

Why California can’t become five separate states, each with two?

The Constitution doesn’t treat that any differently, if it passes Congress, does it?

[quakerboy]

7. Because its closer to 6 average size states populationwise

Also.. los angeles metro area by itself is two average states populations

[AllTooEasy]

11. Don't assume that all 5 states will be blue

Depending on how you divide/gerrymand CA, the results could produce more Repuke senators than Dem senators.

[DFW]

13. At least you get two Senators and some representation in the House

We Americans Abroad number about 9 million, more than all but 11 States. We can vote, but we have zero representation in the House OR Senate for our interests (double taxation, for example, which occurs despite outdated double taxation treaties).

[panader0]

29. And still, the District of Columbia, with more people than Wyoming, has zero representation.

Nor does Puerto Rico.

[DFW]

38. DC is long overdue,

But it would be reliably Democratic, and the Republicans know it. They would never allow it.

[roamer65]

14. So what's the solution, Kurt?

Constitutional change of which you speak is nearly impossible at this point, due to the polarized political landscape.

Yet, the document needs MAJOR progressive changes.

Quite a pickle we are in…

[Captain Zero]

25. If they can't pick a speaker, new states aren't happening.

nt

[delisen]

17. Time to Think Big and Build the Future Fair Society.

Investing in planned , liberal, green communities and cities in today’s low-population regressive states should build a much better future for all of us.

[MichMan]

18. Do you believe that wealthy people votes should count more than those of lower income people ?

We have a progressive tax system where wealthy taxpayers and successful businesses that earn more, pay higher taxes and higher rates. Many of them choose to locate in more populous states like California and New York.

If political representation should be based on tax revenues, should votes from residents of wealthy areas like Palo Alto or Manhattan count more than those from Salinas or Harlem ? Of course that would be ridiculous.

[Mysterian]

23. A fundamental and potentially fatal flaw in our constitution

Good thing the brilliant founders made it nearly impossible to pass an amendment.

[former9thward]

35. There are 27 amendments to the Constitution.

The last was in 1992 so 203 years since the Constitution went into effect. An amendment every 7 1/2 years on average. That is not nearly impossible. It is only in the last 30 years or so that it has become nearly impossible. That is due to polarization of the country -- not a defect in the Constitution.

[Mysterian]

41. So you agree with senators apportioned for real estate, not people?

Color me unsurprised.

I imagine you fully support the idiotic electoral college, as well.

[former9thward]

44. This thread is about wanting Senators to be apportioned for money,

Do you agree with the OP? Color me unsurprised.

[Mysterian]

46. I believe senators should be apportioned by population

Six year term. Two-terms limit.

I also believe the idiotic electoral college should be abolished.

What do you think?

[former9thward]

47. Without the electoral college small states would be ignored.

I am opposed to that. That is why the EC was put in the Constitution.

If the Senate was apportioned by population there would be absolutely no use for it. It would just be another House. What would be the point? The founders put the Senate in our governing structure so that legislation that was influenced by heated current events and rushed could be more carefully considered in another body. I think that overall that has worked.

[Mysterian]

52. Six-year term would keep it as a senior chamber less susceptible to "heated current events"

The person who gets the most votes should be elected president.

Small states should get the attention their population deserves. No more no less.

The constitution is not the bible and the founders were not infallible.

I prefer democracy, not an archaic system designed to protect rich landowners.

[sarisataka]

27. Does money equal votes?

Because that is what it seems he is saying

[Dr. Strange]

36. I suppose is the point is: rich people should get more representation.

I'm surprised that he's talking about "representation" but then brings up senators. Like, does he not know about the House of Representatives?

[sarisataka]

39. It appears the vast majority

Does not understand the differences between the House of Representatives and the Senate. Nor the reason for each chamber thus we get repeated complaints of "unfairness".

[BlueCheeseAgain]

48. Yes, what's next?

Someone making $500,000 should get more votes than someone unemployed?

[NowISeetheLight]

31. People in DC

Pay taxes and have NO SENATORS. But they’d be solid D pickups so you’ll never see Repugnicants support making DC a state.

[Progressive dog]

32. A representative democracy should have representation

based on population, not based on income or taxes paid.

[Yavin4]

33. And that's why there should be a SALT deduction.

State and local taxes in these states kill you as well.

[former9thward]

34. So we should determine how many votes based on taxes?

Interesting theory. Musk will certainly like that.

[applegrove]

37. Point is "without representation" .

[sarisataka]

40. Which states

Do not have representation?

[former9thward]

45. CA has more representatives than any other state.

It and the other states are represented.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

42. How about we expand the House to 574? That's (Population of U.S.) / (Population of Wyoming)

[forthemiddle]

43. The Senate does not, and never has represented the people!

It was set up specifically to represent the States interests. That is the difference.
The House represents the People.
So you will NEVER a change the number of Senators per State without an Amendment, the most you can hope for is increasing the number of Representatives.
Fair or unfair, we live in the United STATES of America, not the United POPULATION of America.

[Polybius]

49. The states were made to have two Senators

Nothing will be done about it in a year, 10 years, or even 50 years. It's a loss that people must recognize.

Now, the House should absolutely have more than 435 members.

[The Revolution]

51. Yep

The house should be expanded by at least a couple hundred members, but probably more. The limit should be placed on the size of a district, not the size of the house.

That will keep the house more in line with the population. And as a bonus, since a state's Electoral Votes are equal to Representatives + Senators, this should bring the EC vote back in line with the popular vote in most cases.

And this change doesn't require an amendment!

[brooklynite]

50. And?

Complain all you want, but without a Constitutional Amendment that will never happen, this is the system we have.

[Igel]

53. A better phrase is,

"That is our Democracy."

[Lucinda]

56. ❤️ ✿❧🌿❧✿ ❤️