People who have never been to L.A. really have no idea how insanely huge it is. Driving to my apartment from the start of city (before you even get to L.A. county) and having the city just keep going and going and going for two hours and not because of traffic jams is something you have to experience to truly understand.

  • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
    51·
    17 hours ago

    Even that is capped though, so the smaller states are still vastly overrepresented. Living in LA means your vote is only represented at ~1/100th as much as the least populated areas. Because even the least populated areas still get a representative, but the populated areas are capped on how many they can have.

    • bluewing@lemm.ee
      11·
      6 hours ago

      But the power differential between large population states and small population states matters a lot. Ain’t much national news coverage of Vermont’s or North Dakota’s senators or representatives. But a California, Texas, New York, politician can get major news reporter’s ears in a heartbeat. Low population density state politicians either need some unique point to make or be batshit crazy to garner attention. And when was the last time a viable presidential candidate came from one of those low population states? Let alone actually achieved office? On the national stage, no one cares much about what happens in Montana or Minnesota.

      While I agree that California needs more members in the House, there is also a limit to just how much the House can expand before the whole thing becomes so unwieldy that it stops to function at all. Perhaps those large population states should be broken up into smaller population states to make a more manageable system of representation. But, I suspect California’s lack of representation per person will be be solved by the untenable living conditions they have created for themselves soon enough.