Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mex Alex Padilla: Dakotas Having More Representation in Senate Than CA ‘Should Change, on a Number of Fronts
On Friday’s broadcast of HBO’s “Real Time,” Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) said that the fact that there are four senators representing North and South Dakota but only two representing California “should change, on a number of fronts.”
Host Bill Maher asked, “[T]here [are] four senators from the Dakota territory that represent about two-and-a-half million people, and you represent — one guy represents 20 million. That’s got to change, right?”
Mex Alex Padilla: Dakotas Having More Representation in Senate Than CA ‘Should Change, on a Number of Fronts
On Friday’s broadcast of HBO’s “Real Time,” Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) said that the fact that there are four senators representing North and South Dakota but only two representing California “should change, on a number of fronts.”
Host Bill Maher asked, “[T]here [are] four senators from the Dakota territory that represent about two-and-a-half million people, and you represent — one guy represents 20 million. That’s got to change, right?”
Dear Mr. Maher: Kindly note that Senator Padilla does not represent 20 million people. He represents the State of California. His colleagues in the House of Representatives represent the people who live there, just like the ones from the two Dakotas represent the people who live there.
It's truly sad how woefully ignorant of our government people are.
Mex Alex Padilla: Dakotas Having More Representation in Senate Than CA ‘Should Change, on a Number of Fronts
On Friday’s broadcast of HBO’s “Real Time,” Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) said that the fact that there are four senators representing North and South Dakota but only two representing California “should change, on a number of fronts.”
Host Bill Maher asked, “[T]here [are] four senators from the Dakota territory that represent about two-and-a-half million people, and you represent — one guy represents 20 million. That’s got to change, right?”
Even leaving politics aside, in a principal of fairness, I do not understand why California has 2/3rd of the Pacific coastline (of the 48 continental) while the other 1/3rd is divided into two states.
Even leaving politics aside, in a principal of fairness, I do not understand why California has 2/3rd of the Pacific coastline (of the 48 continental) while the other 1/3rd is divided into two states.
That’s what they want, an additional five Democratic states.
The country was founded on equal representation in the Senate. California gets plenty of advantages in the House of Representatives over both Dakotas.
But if Democrats are insistent that they will walk back equal representation, and assuming they are successful, then each and every state that has a problem with that should be allowed to secede.
Because after all, when you change a contract, that deal should become null and void.
Even leaving politics aside, in a principal of fairness, I do not understand why California has 2/3rd of the Pacific coastline (of the 48 continental) while the other 1/3rd is divided into two states.
Well, lets look at historically geography. What is now California used to be Alta California, a province of Mexico (this is why there is also a Baja California). Alta California also included what is now Nevada, Utah, Arizona, and parts of New Mexico and Colorado. If you think California is big today, imagine how much bigger it was before it became part of the USA. And it became a state because gold was discovered in California. In California it has been put up for a vote several times to break up the state. Californians themselves have said no. Californians seem fine with California in its current size.
I wouldn't be worried about California's size. It's large, but its populated areas are very crowded due to the local geography.
What is now Oregon and Washington used to be part of Oregon County, a region fought over between America and the Hudson Bay Company (British Empire). This territory also encompassed the Canadian province of British Columbia. America got the Oregon Territory, and the British Empire kept what is now British Columbia. Oregon Territory was later split up into the state of Oregon and Washington Territory (which Idaho used to be part of). Idaho Territory became the state of Idaho. Washington Territory became the state of Washington.
Another question. Are you in favor of breaking up Texas? It's the biggest state not named Alaska. It's bigger than California. Amarillo (in the Panhandle) is about as close to Cheyenne, Wyoming (Wyoming's capital, not to mention, Texas doesn't even border Colorado much less Wyoming) as it is to Austin, the capital of Texas.
The country was founded on equal representation in the Senate. California gets plenty of advantages in the House of Representatives over both Dakotas.
...........
This.Rules like 2 senate seats were put in place to prevent one state having extra power over other states.
Also sounds like a backdoor hint to move to California since part of their agenda is concentrate the population centers and consolidate their power.
That’s what they want, an additional five Democratic states.
Actually, they wouldn’t all be liberal. Much of Northern California is right leaning. Like most places, the cities are liberal hell holes while the rural areas are typically strongly conservative. The oft discussed State of Jefferson would definitely be a red state if it became true. That is the reason they want to split off to begin with. The denizens of Sacramento do NOT accurately represent much of the state. The problem is the liberal loons in the cities far outnumber the more level headed residents of the rest of the state.
The whole point of the house and senate was to make it incredibly difficult to pass legislation....because government meddling in our life affairs usually ends badly. More checks and balances is good and each state having equal representation is good. Lefties would like unchecked power so they can do whatever they want....I get it. They think republicans are trying to "suppress votes" when they just want the same rules we've used the last 200 years to prevent fraud and harvesting.... So they want to stack the courts, add states, whatever it takes to give them the advantage.
Actually, they wouldn’t all be liberal. Much of Northern California is right leaning. Like most places, the cities are liberal hell holes while the rural areas are typically strongly conservative. The oft discussed State of Jefferson would definitely be a red state if it became true. That is the reason they want to split off to begin with. The denizens of Sacramento do NOT accurately represent much of the state. The problem is the liberal loons in the cities far outnumber the more level headed residents of the rest of the state.
Northeast California is right-leaning. Northwest California is more liberal. And part of the state of Jefferson that people discuss, includes some left-leaning counties.
There is something else to consider. Of California's 40 million residents, 10 million live in Los Angeles County. 1/4 of California's population lives in one county.
As for Sacramento, this is a breakdown of its demographics:
35% White
15% Black
27% Hispanic
18% Asian
California's demographics:
37% White
6% Black
39% Hispanic
15% Asian
Sacramento not being an accurate representation of much of the state, I'm going to have to critique that. Sacramento is a good reflection of California's White and Asian populations. Sacramento has a larger Black population and a smaller Hispanic population than the state at large. Sacramento is one of the most diverse cities in America, and California itself is a diverse state. Sacramento is a far more accurate reflection of California than the proposed State of Jefferson that you speak of.
Of all of the counties that voted for Trump, their populations all add up to about 1.3 million people. The most pro-Trump counties of California are in the northeast section of the state (Lassen and Modoc), and both of those counties are very small in population. They are in the section of California that people aren't moving to.
Kern County is the largest pro-Trump county in California, with over 900,000 people. It's the only pro-Trump county where Whites are in the minority. Kern County is where Bakersfield is located. Kern County is where many Oklahomans and Texans settled during the Dust Bowl. Oil is a big part of Kern County's economy.
Sacramento is far more reflective of California at large than you claim. Whether or not it's a California that you like or not, well, it is what it is.
2020 Presidential election, California voters.
56% of Whites voted for Biden
93% of Blacks voted for Biden
69% of Hispanics voted for Biden
73% of Asians voted for Biden
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
