The issue you're referring to with the Senate is, of course, the fact that each state gets two senators, regardless of population. This means that the sparsely populated North Dakota has the same number of senators as California.
This a feature, not a bug, and in fact the United States would not exist without it. The senate prevents small states from being dominated by large states, and is the only reason that smaller states like Rhode Island agreed to join the union in the first place.
If we were to alter this configuration of the Senate, the same question would undoubtedly arise--why should small states like North Dakota, Vermont, and Oklahoma remain in the Union, only to be dictated to by the citizens of Florida, New York and California?
>If we were to alter this configuration of the Senate, the same question would undoubtedly arise--why should small states like North Dakota, Vermont, and Oklahoma remain in the Union, only to be dictated to by the citizens of Florida, New York and California?
I don't know why this is a valid argument, when you can turn it on it's head. Why should states like Florida, Texas, New York and California, who (1) have the most amount of people and (2) generate nearly all economic activity, be dictated by the citizens of North Dakota? Why is it that this argument never considers the inverse?
It's clear, by looking at Federal budget inflows and outflows, that states like North Dakota need California more than California needs them. If States were countries, and if The United States were more like the European Union, Texas would naturally have outsized power, much like Germany. It would be Texas citizens bailing out North Dakota.
Because of the resources those states provide. In almost all cases, resources (food, minerals, oil, energy) flow from those more sparsely populated states to feed, fuel, etc. the more densely populated ones.
If you think NYC could be supported purely by NY state alone (or frankly even just 'Blue' states), you'd be in for a rude shock.
That much of the value add/economic activity happens in the more densely populated states isn't that surprising - but cutting off the midwest from the rest of the United States would cause catastrophic famine in very short order, to name one example.
California produces, by far, the most food of any state, ($50B for California, $27B for #2 Iowa)[1]. Texas produces, by far, the most oil of any state (1.8B barrels vs 512M for North Dakota)[2]. Catastrophic famine? The data doesn't support that assertion at all. Rude shock? I guess I'm more shocked at how much California feeds the nation, but is ruled by sparse smaller states. Your initial claim is so wrong I'm interested where you got it - maybe I'm Googling the wrong information.
Not sure you're supporting the point you think you are, or are addressing my points?
CA's central valley produces fruits, vegetables, and nuts, much of which gets exported, and a bit of, but not a huge amount of staple foods - and if you add up all California's agricultural output, it is still only ~13.5% of the US total.
[https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Statistics/#:~:text=California's%20a....]
The areas in California that produce that food are solid red, through and through. Texas is red, ESPECIALLY the areas that produce that oil - but let's set aside the intra-state conflicts on this. None of the states mentioned are 'ideologically' self sufficient in their needs (CA for Oil, despite being a major food and oil producer, Texas for food - among literally millions of major and minor needs), and NY State or NYC are most decisively not in either category.
If you look at your own chart, you'll also see that ~90% of all of the remaining entries following California (who make up the bulk of production) would be called midwest, near midwest (definitely not blue), or 'flyover territory'.
California has a LOT of people in it. 11% of the nation. While they might not personally feel the brunt of a major famine right away - running out of fuel for the harvesters, or the steel products to repair their equipment, or the equipment itself (predominantly produced in 'red' areas or imported), would mean it wouldn't be that long either.
If we look at the wider context, losing 50%+ of the agricultural products aka inland 'flyover' areas and the midwest would definitely cause catastrophic famine. And that is at least how much is there from your own links.
>Not sure you're supporting the point you think you are, or are addressing my points?
I think you are missing mine; I'm not making a blue/red distinction, I'm making a point about senate representation.
First, you are trying to prove that California, Texas, or New York could not be self sufficient. This is a meaningless point as today states like Wyoming are not self sufficient. I'm sure a state like Texas would figure out self-sufficiency much faster than Wyoming. Why do large states have to give up power to small states given that both would probably be screwed without the other, but small states would be likely screwed even more? The idea that large states must cede representative power in order to access resources is absurd - after all they are already paying them via federal budgets; surely there is no reason to double pay? The "they provide resources" argument is bullshit.
Secondly, coming back to senate representation & electoral power - there are vastly more people in rural California and conservative districts like Bakersfield than there are in Wyoming. Those voters have effectively 0 senate representation. Again, I don't care if they vote red or blue, but Wyoming gets outsized power. Why?
I don't naively believe that once California has more representative power that the whole country would turn into San Francisco. I believe states like Wyoming and other sparsely populated, deep red states, allows the Republican party to effectively ignore their voters in blue states as well. That's the reason the current system is upheld - it allows the GOP to effectively never have to answer to it's voters. It cuts both ways, the current system is bad for Americans; red & blue. There are more registered republicans in California than most other states have people and the state itself was solidly red until 1992; yet those voters don't have much of a voice.
The party affiliations do not matter - the notion that a Wyoming democrat has 4x the voice than a California republican just isn't right.
Ah - the reason being those were the terms the state joined under? If they hadn't, many likely wouldn't and the nation would not be what it is?
Anything else is 'changing the terms', and that is very likely to result in a lot of chaos - since it would be unconstitutional, unless you got 3/4's of the states to go along with it.
Pretty unlikely, since most of the states benefit from this arrangement?
Perhaps. The problem I see is that state boundaries are pretty arbitrary. The real political division is between urban and rural, and whether or not a particular state is 'red' or 'blue' depends on how those boundaries have been created. There are a huge number of rural voters in California that share more with Wyoming rural voters than Wyoming urban voters, so why should they be disenfranchised simply by living within the state of California?
If the population of a State wants to leave the Union and the Union forcibly prevents them from doing so, then the United States is no different than the Romans, or the British, or the Soviets. They all had their own state documents which declared secession illegal, of course, so perhaps you're comfortable in that company.
>Statehood is eternal.
Is that you, Louis XIV? Spinning yarns about the divine right to rule?
>Secession is quite literally treason...
Says the nation born of treason.
>..and the Civil War was in that sense constitutionally mandatory.
Any institution which is willing and able to kill a million men solely for the purpose of its own preservation is a menace. But as long as it was constitutionally necessary, I guess we're good?
This a feature, not a bug, and in fact the United States would not exist without it. The senate prevents small states from being dominated by large states, and is the only reason that smaller states like Rhode Island agreed to join the union in the first place.
If we were to alter this configuration of the Senate, the same question would undoubtedly arise--why should small states like North Dakota, Vermont, and Oklahoma remain in the Union, only to be dictated to by the citizens of Florida, New York and California?