US 50 states redrawn as equal population (2012)

by cryptozeus • 7 years ago

60 112 7 years ago

sgillen• 7 years ago

I feel like the bigger problem than the electoral college is the senate. I think it’s pretty crazy California and Texas have the same number of senate votes as Rhode Island. It made sense at the time and we do have a house to nominally balance that out. But nowadays it just makes some people’s votes count for a lot more than others.

SeekingMeaning• 7 years ago

Don’t forget about the house of representatives

lazyasciiart• 7 years ago

They didn’t.

jngreenlee• 7 years ago

Remember as well that the Senate was intended as a sort of administrative body, with each states senators being selected by the state government...not via popular election. In my estimation, the removal of that aspect diluted the original concept to some degree.

ddebernardy3• 7 years ago

It could be done like in Germany without the spirit of the Senate being lost. Something like 2 representatives plus some number that depends on the population.

edoo2• 7 years ago

The 17th amendment completely diluted the intent and blew open the doors to the special interest play field. It will likely be one of the primary reasons we collapse.

jquery3• 7 years ago

<del>Given our current status as a superpower,</del> I’m not so quick to judge federalism as an “obviously bad idea”. The balance between the House and Senate is a compromise that prevents the federal government from running roughshod over individual states, while still giving the larger states more of a voice. Federalism, in theory, improves the ability of local people to govern their local affairs, and treats states as semi-sovereign. The Senate is essential as a check on federal power over statehood.

bayareabadboy• 7 years ago

You should look up the Virginia plan and the New Jersey plan

billfruit3• 7 years ago

I feel the entire opposite, this distribution ensures that all states are dealt in a equal manner by the federal government. India the seats in the upper legislature are distributed unequally between the States, causing smaller states to be marginalized, which could also cause issues. Bigger states could align together and push measures that are detrimental to the intesests of the smaller states.

Iv2• 7 years ago

Which is another way to say that smaller state want a way to undemocratically leech out things from more populous areas.

Bigger states aligning and pushing measures that are in their interests rather than in smaller states interests is called democracy.

The opposite is called privilege based on state of residence.

kortilla4• 7 years ago

How did it make sense at the time but not now? The entire point of the senate is to treat each state as an equal entity regardless of population. What changed?

Redoubts2• 7 years ago

slavery.

It affected literally every design decision of this nation between founding and the civil war.

evil-olive• 7 years ago

I think it’s pretty crazy California and Texas have the same number of senate votes as Rhode Island.

A statistic that has stuck in my head is the prediction [0] that in 2040, 70% of the US population will be represented by 30 Senators, while 30% of the population will be represented by 70 Senators.

0: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/28/b...

anfilt5• 7 years ago

The senate is for the states. If we changed it, some states will have less say. It's also a problem since for example in the west the vast majority of the land is federally owned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_lands#/media/File:Map_...

How do you think Nevada would react if nuclear testing was being conducted again. How do think Montana or Idaho would react if the federal government gave logging rights to companies outside of local communities. If you reduce the states power and say over federal polices that effect them the most why even have states. Why even have tiered levels governance.

Local governments exist for a reason. Federal laws and polices can effect certain areas more or exclusively. Ignoring those people who reside in that area because the majority outside the area wish to do something is just tyranny by the majority. Therefore areas which people reside also need to voice their concerns. What we currently have is a blend.

The senate and house have to agree on things to get bills passed. The house is already based off population. Having the two houses ensures that states and peoples concerns are voiced through their representatives. States with a larger population already get more say in the house. The senate ensures that each states government is represented equally.

It's also sad that less people vote in state and local elections than federal ones since local government a lot times is much more important.

masonic2• 7 years ago

  I think it’s pretty crazy California and Texas have the same number of senate votes as Rhode Island

When CA was admitted to the Union, it had a lower population than RI.

CA had the third-lowest population of all US states, yet nobody was saying CA didn't "deserve" two Senate seats because of that.

(Source: 1850 Census)

xref2• 7 years ago

Actually, people did say that. Even the founding fathers disagreed on the composition of Congress. It’s been argued for/against since day 0.

smsm425• 7 years ago

Why is it crazy? Do you know the UN? Is it weird that countries like Benin or Qatar or Moldova have same vote in the UN general assembly as China or India or USA?

tekkk• 7 years ago

Yet in the EU parliament each country gets representatives proportionate to their size and the positions in the EU commission are filled basically how the larger countries decide? So your analogue doesn't really hold and frankly, just because UN (which gives their largest members veto-power), has one country one vote system, it's quite a stretch to extrapolate that to mean it would be a good fit for national governments too.

Or how would you feel if some rural area in your home country got the same amount of votes than the whole capital? Would make perfect sense, right? But all in all, they are so different organizations serving very different purposes that comparing them isn't even that useful.

threatofrain• 7 years ago

Why choose the UN whose story is one of inefficacy and being propped up by US power and money? The UN’s relevance has faded and nobody is optimistic for its resurgence. From that context we speak of sensible organizational practices?

The fact is the idea that somebody born somewhere else has way more power has a smell, and people are talking about that smell now and whether they like it.

Gaelan2• 7 years ago

I'm curious how Rainier's capitol ended up as Tacoma, instead of Olympia (current capitol of Washington) or Seattle (largest city)

yesenadam• 7 years ago

It didn't. State capitals are underlined, the capital's still Olympia.

Gaelan2• 7 years ago

Ah. The key's a bit confusing.

purplezooey• 7 years ago

This is neato. I wonder where the name Firelands comes from. Is it from Lake Erie catching fire in the 70s...

jmartinpetersen• 7 years ago

There's links for most of the names at the bottom.

Firelands are much older than that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firelands

mxcrossb• 7 years ago

The names are definitely my favorite part. They really express America’s mythic quality

ReptileMan2• 7 years ago

The fundamental problem of the electoral college is that the states of the United States are too disparate in size and influence.

No, that is the problem that the electoral college solves. In any federation you must curb the power of the most powerful and boost the weakest for it to work.

Instead of blaming with the institutions that are working as intended, start the dialog to convert the US from federation to something else.

adamnemecek• 7 years ago

In any federation you must curb the power of the most powerful and boost the weakest for it to work.

This is a very Americocentric view. There is in fact no such requirement in general.

The US in particular has a problem of being pulled by some small, fringe groups.

kd5bjo• 7 years ago

That statement is a corollary to “A federation must make some attempt to treat its members as equals.” While not necessarily true, deviating too far from it starts to stretch the definition of a federation.

kortilla4• 7 years ago

This is a very Americocentric view.

Well it’s how the European Union works as well. Think of each US state as an individual State in the EU of that helps you understand it.

umanwizard6• 7 years ago

Do you have any examples of federations that don't work that way, i.e., that have purely proportional representation of all the constituent entities?

peter_retief5• 7 years ago

Very important point. Democracy can destroy the Republic, the law must always be above the will of the masses. Electoral college is key to preserving the freedoms individuals enjoy. Whats wrong with a Federation?

peter_retief5• 7 years ago

I wonder if people understand how powerful the American Constitution is? Pure Democracies is essentially mob rule and has been tried and failed since ancient times

the_why_of_y2• 7 years ago

The problem that the Electoral College solves is that the constitution guaranteed the slave holding states that their political influence at the federal level would take into account the number of people they enslaved.

For the legislative branch, this was done by counting a slave as 3/5 of a person for allocating seats in the House of Representatives. For the executive branch, there is only one president, and of course the slaves did not have the right to vote themselves, so an indirection was needed, i.e., the Electoral College.

https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise

TMWNN• 7 years ago

The Electoral College's intention was to balance large states' power with small states' desire to not let large states run everything. The college had nothing to do with slavery or the Three Fifths Compromise. Slave states gained more power in the Electoral College from the extra 3/5 votes, but a) the compromise itself had nothing to do with the Electoral College's creation or design, and b) 3/5 of a vote gave less power to slave states than their preference, a full vote for each slave.

kohler• 7 years ago

Trump, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes” “ I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”

In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted. "The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."

In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin.

Presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX-1969), Bob Dole (R-KS-1969), Gerald Ford (R-MI-1969), Richard Nixon (R-CA-1969), Jimmy Carter (D-GA-1977), and Hillary Clinton (D-NY-2001).

Past presidential candidates with a public record of support, before November 2016, for the National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes: Bob Barr (Libertarian- GA), U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN),

jakeogh8• 7 years ago

Hey, everyone is wrong sometimes.

Romney was a designated loser between two "global gov" sponsored candidates. Like Jeb!

ekianjo2• 7 years ago

Ends the over-representation of small states and under-representation of large states in presidential voting and in the US Senate by eliminating small and large states.

States are not regions of a larger nation. In Federalism they have a different history and different statuses, and the US has never been built as a direct democratic system. It's a Republic. Not sure what this list of bullet points is all about: changing everything about US politics?

woah• 7 years ago

Keep in mind that this is an art project, not a serious proposal, so take it easy with the emails about the sacred soil of Texas.

roenxi2• 7 years ago

The whole point of the Electoral College is that it gives smaller states an advantage over larger ones.

Imagining other scenarios is great fun, but the point needs to be stated - the Electoral College isn't failing when someone loses the popular vote and wins the election. That outcome is the sole purpose of having an electoral college. "Preserves the historic structure and function of the Electoral College." is almost precisely wrong.

Equal-population states is a very fundamental change to the system. The advantages and disadvantages columns aren't engaging with the actual issues surrounding the electoral college.

netcan3• 7 years ago

I'm always confused by statements like "a republic, not a democracy." These words don't have clear, practical meanings.

Words like republicanism, democracy, liberal democracy, democratic republic, etc are pretty abstract... and they were a lot more abstract 250 years ago.

No nation state today is a "direct democracy," afaik. All of them are "representative democracies" with a congress/parliament. You can call that system a democracy, republic or whatever.

Point taken about the historical (and current) reasons for federalism.

That said, I don't see how/why redrawing states, electorates, changing how voting works, congress works or such has any bearing on a "democracy or republic" question.

If you're into European history during the reformations/schisms, people of that period were obsessed with extremely abstract, theology/epistemology.

Eucharistic metaphysics seemed important to them att, in retrospect it seems (literally) meaningless.

jakeogh8• 7 years ago

Republic, in the sense that we do not use majority rule; as it's inherently less stable and easier to break and cant protect inalienable rights and equal protection.

smsm425• 7 years ago

These words don't have clear, practical meanings.

They do. They mean in the US, not everything is decided by simple majority of votes of everybody living in the federated republic. Rather, there are more complex power structures where different states (note they are named states, not electoral districts or census areas) retain significant sovereignty not subject to either federal control or that of other states. It is very practical thing without which it is impossible to understand how US politics works.

All of them are "representative democracies" with a congress/parliament.

Yes, but the USA is not that either. Or, rather, not only that. People thinking it's only that misunderstand how things are.

has any bearing on a "democracy or republic" question.

Imagine there's a town where mayor decides to redistribute people between families to optimize housing arrangement - so if you have too many kids, your kid is going to me moved to a family with no kids, and if you live alone, you may be assigned a partner to live with you. For efficiency. Let's even assume this all done by proper vote of the city council and all legal formalities are in place. Would you think it's an important change which totally changes your opinion about what's going on in the city and how it is ruled, or it's a minor adjustment that is of interest only to philosophy geeks dwelling on deep meanings of abstractions? If you can appreciate answer to that question, you probably also can appreciate why "democracy or republic" is not as abstract a question as you think.

ekianjo2• 7 years ago

I'm always confused by statements like "a republic, not a democracy." These words don't have clear, practical meanings.

Erm, they do. A democracy is "just anything goes along as more than 50% of voters approve of it" (and you can end up with fascism this way if you don't pay attention), while a Republic puts a central document (in the US the Constitution) as the supreme guide that even voters will have a very hard time to change by themselves.

daveFNbuck• 7 years ago

I'm always confused by statements like "a republic, not a democracy."

You're clipping the idea too short to maintain its meaning here. Let's look at what was actually said

the US has never been built as a direct democratic system. It's a Republic.

The key word you've missed here is "direct". People say that the US is a republic and not a direct democracy. These have clear meanings. A (democratic) republic has elected representatives while a direct democracy puts everything up to a popular vote. This is the key feature people are distinguishing, electing representatives versus putting all decisions directly up for voting by citizens.

The meaning only gets lost when people try to use this idea to smuggle in other related ideas like voting power in national elections being based on geography. That's a specific choice, not a necessary feature of a republican form of government.

xref2• 7 years ago

This is a good writeup on why “it’s a republic not a democracy” is a meaningless argument:

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/11/durr-its-a-repub...

It also explains just how terrifying the Electoral College, where technically Electors and not voters have all the power, really is.

But a move by the electors to override the Electoral College and elect Clinton would be a disaster. Her presidency would be fatally hobbled from Day One. The potential for violence would be terrifying, and the presidential election system would be permanently broken—and the Republicans would declare any future Democratic winner an unqualified demagogue. The cure would be worse than the disease.

zhyder• 7 years ago

The problem with the electoral college isn't unequal size of states, it's that deeply blue or red states get hardly any attention from presidential candidates, and any individual's vote in such states doesn't matter much.

Btw check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta... for an interesting hack: not likely to happen, but still 100x more likely than redrawing all state lines

lotsofpulp3• 7 years ago

The problem is the very existence of the electoral college. If the president was elected by totaling all the votes 1 per person in the nation, then there would be no red state and blue state issues.

guelo• 7 years ago

But in that case the real national divide, rural vs cities, would be won in favor of the blues.

anfilt5• 7 years ago

This compact is a bad idea for implementing said goal.

First an amending the constitution requires 3/4ths of states to agree to an amendment. This would make a fundamental change with less than half of the states.

Secondly, it also possibly unconstitutional.

Third, it's unenforceable a state can join and if they fail to follow the agreement other members can't do anything.

Fourth, due to the questions of constitutionality when this takes effect it's going to leave the result of an election in legal limbo for possibly years. This is a big problem since the president is inaugurated only a few months after the election.

Fifth, it easy for other states who are not a member to make it useless. For instances lets say Idaho decides only to publish their their electoral votes, and keep the actually number of votes secret for six months. It is no longer possible to determine who won the popular vote (in a timely manner).

anfilt5• 7 years ago

Could someone respond instead of down voting. There is a reason the legal section is largest section on the Wikipedia article.

jakeogh8• 7 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZhVq1M3bhs

jakeogh8• 7 years ago

Oops. Wrong URL. CGP Grey The Sneaky Plan to Subvert the Electoral College for the Next Election: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUX-frlNBJY

akvadrako• 7 years ago

The states don't get attention because that's their choice. They could switch to a per-district method like Maine or proportional representation, then it doesn't matter how blue or red they are.

Redoubts2• 7 years ago

The incentives of the EC lead states to make votes winner take all. You’re gonna have a hard time reversing this without a process that looks a lot like a constitutional amendment.

radagaisus• 7 years ago

As an outsider, the easiest hack to me seems to break down states in your team’s colors to multiple states. Fight fire with fire.

kortilla4• 7 years ago

Well states don’t have the power to do that. So not a very “easy hack”.

umanwizard6• 7 years ago

This idea is about as realistic as breaking up Germany into its constituent Länder so they'd get more EU commissioners.

yyyk• 7 years ago

Illegal without 100% consent which renders the idea moot - except just maybe in the case of Texas, which had a special clause during accession to allow division into up to 5 states. It's not entirely clear though whether the clause still allows that (or did it apply only for that particular congress).

Svip• 7 years ago

It's kind of a shame that it doesn't include the US territories, since it does say 'the United States', and not just 'the states of the United States' as the headline.

Also, can we get (2012) added to the end of the headline?

shadykiller• 7 years ago

Love the state names. Far more varied and vivid than current state names.

umanwizard6• 7 years ago

The current state names are pretty diverse, tbh. My home state's name's etymolygy (probably) comes from Basque!

umanwizard6• 7 years ago

The idea of getting people from Tucson to accept living in a state called "Phoenix" is hilarious to me.

forthwall• 7 years ago

I think this person is mistaken on Orange. Orange County in New York is named after Orange in the Netherlands. Orange County in California is named after Oranges to sound tropical.

ngcc_hk• 7 years ago

Not American just a student of its politics.

As you are free to move, the argument some get more influence due to geographical distribution of vote seems a weak argument.

And the original intent is really to let the small state to come in as they would not come (or fight against it). The 17th amendment is too complicated to talk here.

dang• 7 years ago

A thread from 2013: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5220171

A bit more here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5217434

anfilt5• 7 years ago

I am sorry every state changing their border every census would be insane as proposed in the bullet points. States are more than voting bodies. They have their own laws and locally governed territory with shared jurisdiction on some things with the federal government.

Secondly, there is nothing wrong with electoral college it's working as intended. It's like a lot people forget we have states for reason. For instance a lot of the small states with a low population contain the vast majority of federal land. So any federal policy regarding that land effects them more than anyone else. How do think Nevada would react if the federal government decided to start nuclear testing again and their say in politics is reduced even more.

A lot of this I think boils down how you view the US. Are you citizen/resident of your state which is a member of the united states or are you are citizen of the unites states that happens to reside in a state? (A better/clearer way to phrase this would be appreciated)

Aeolun• 7 years ago

Seeing things from outside, US citizens generally refer to themselves as coming from a city/state combination much more often than the country.

anfilt5• 7 years ago

I mean when they think of how US is the politically structured. Sadly, less Americans vote in local elections than federal.

jquery3• 7 years ago

Pretty cool art project. I love the names given to the new states, lots of care went into this.

jimmux• 7 years ago

It's a fun thought exercise. I often wonder why Americans seem so set on having 50 states, so this was a useful basis to mock up a what-if scenario of fewer states.

E.g. if there were 10: https://imgur.com/a/gNvP9mC

Balgair• 7 years ago

I like how this map shows the density of different areas, specifically SoCal, as compared to state lines of today.

However, the map seems (possibly intentionally) to ignore geographical boundaries that are super important. Like the Mississippi River.

I know you can modify Voronoi diagrams in multiple dimensions to account for population and geography. Does anyone know of a map that has done so?

gremlinsinc• 7 years ago

Wouldn't it be more fair, possibly if we divided each state into 6 roughly equal districts by population and made each district have it's own senator? This would still give each state equal representation but it would diversify the voices by making each senator cover a smaller area, and each would have less constituents to answer to, and presumably could listen to those in their area more and deliver on what they value as priorities.

US 50 states redrawn as equal population (2012)

Related Stories