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.
Dan, how does that actually work? I don't understand why we'd lose Senators since I thought representation was based on population and that would remain the same. After reading your post, I'm guessing that I'm wrong in that assumption. How does it work and why would we lose Senators?
Dan, how does that actually work? I don't understand why we'd lose Senators since I thought representation was based on population and that would remain the same. After reading your post, I'm guessing that I'm wrong in that assumption. How does it work and why would we lose Senators?
Each state gets 2 senators, big or small. After that represenatives are given 1 per every so many people in a given state. I'm not sure what that number is but most likely that would mean the two states would go from having 4 senators and 2 reps to 2 senators and 2 or 3 reps.
That reason and a few others are why ND and SD will never join as one.
Each state only has 2 senators. Right now ND has 2 and SD has 2. If we collaborated we'd have to get rid of 2. Puerto Rico would get 2 and then, even though we'd be a larger state, we'd have the same pull as Puerto Rico.
If this did happen, would that make Dakota the largest state in the country? I know Texas, Alaska and California are pretty big. I agree that the farming states like the Dakotas can not be allowed to lose more representation in Congress. I'm just curious about the land area that would result.
If this did happen, would that make Dakota the largest state in the country? I know Texas, Alaska and California are pretty big. I agree that the farming states like the Dakotas can not be allowed to lose more representation in Congress. I'm just curious about the land area that would result.
If this did happen, would that make Dakota the largest state in the country? I know Texas, Alaska and California are pretty big. I agree that the farming states like the Dakotas can not be allowed to lose more representation in Congress. I'm just curious about the land area that would result.
If you combined the two states they would be close to Montana in size, which is the 4th largest state.
Each state only has 2 senators. Right now ND has 2 and SD has 2. If we collaborated we'd have to get rid of 2. Puerto Rico would get 2 and then, even though we'd be a larger state, we'd have the same pull as Puerto Rico.
Sorry Danny, but it's doubtful that we would have any more than 2 Representatives; currently ND and SD each have one. The apportionment forumula is complex but the combined population would still only result in 2 Representatives (out of 435). When you factor in the net loss of 2 Senators (out of 100), the merger idea would significantly the reduce the influence of the Dakotas in Washington.
Okay. Well then I am glad that we are separate. We have a stronger voice. Maybe we should split each state in two along the Missouri and then we'd really have some say!
Nah, I'd miss talking to all my East River friends!
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.
How does it work and why would we lose Senators?
I didn't realize that so now I want to change my answer. Let's stay seperate.
