Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
15. Political Science standard
Thu Feb 14, 2013, 02:40 PM
Feb 2013

This is a standard kind of political science exercise. I'm dubious alot of "real" work went into it. There is software these days that would make it fairly simple. I participated in something similar about 20 years ago.

What is a bit silly, is sticking with 50 states. If you really were considering ANYTHING like this, it would also be a time to reduce the number of states. We were discussing 10 because that's how many federal districts there are. Later, I realized that 13 might be a better number (historical to begin with, as well as preventing "ties" in many situations).

But the real purpose is as someone suggested, to show how flubbed up our current system is because the population/representation ratio is all screwed up. There is a VASTLY outsized influence of various areas/states because of the senate perscription for 2 per state, plus that each state gets at least one congress critter, regardless of population. There are sections of Manhattan that have more people than Hawaii. I think I calculated one time that you could have 40 votes in the senate by controlling states compromising 13% of the population.

(By the by, there is a similar exercise where one tries to divide the country into states that have far more cultural and economic homogenaity. You end up with some "city states" and some states that have almost no one in them)

Isn't that a silly idea? longship Feb 2013 #1
I think you're missing the point tkmorris Feb 2013 #4
Okay. longship Feb 2013 #7
Political Science standard zipplewrath Feb 2013 #15
But our system was deliberately designed that way. Yo_Mama Feb 2013 #21
Regarding this idea, my son was complaining the other day frazzled Feb 2013 #5
Not that I don't understand your son's point, but ... surrealAmerican Feb 2013 #6
Well, it was done because a bunch of alderman would have lost their jobs frazzled Feb 2013 #12
and the point is? cali Feb 2013 #2
I don't think it necessarily has to have a point Hugabear Feb 2013 #18
I live in the area labeled "Big Thicket". That name ChisolmTrailDem Feb 2013 #3
But, perhaps there are many Bushes in that area? Duer 157099 Feb 2013 #8
Haha! I see what you did there! eom ChisolmTrailDem Feb 2013 #10
people in Oregon would object to living in a state named after a mountain in California yurbud Feb 2013 #9
Neat. Made me recall another alternative map. PETRUS Feb 2013 #11
Better yet, Steinberg's map of the country as viewed from 9th Avenue frazzled Feb 2013 #13
Hadn't seen that! PETRUS Feb 2013 #16
I can see Russia from 9th Avenue! nt treestar Feb 2013 #20
A better idea: strip the Senate of the power to actually do anything. Spider Jerusalem Feb 2013 #14
It could be done by amending the constitution kudzu22 Feb 2013 #17
cool looking treestar Feb 2013 #19
How interesting. SheilaT Feb 2013 #22
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»One proposed map of the U...»Reply #15