you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]usehername 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Did you call back? You have the right to speak your mind to your representatives.

[–]BEB[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

He wasn't my senator; I have the nasty habit of calling EVERY SENATOR, because I'm in an extremely populous state with TWO SENATORS, while Wyoming has something like 3 people and two senators too. It's truly annoying.

[–]panorama 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Civics, your high population state gets more House representatives than lower population states.

[–]BEB[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Civics is a distant memory for me ;-) I'm just saying that it's really frustrating that tens of millions of people in one state get two Senators, whereas a state that has less than a million also get two Senators.

[–]MarkTwainiac 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

He wasn't my senator; I have the nasty habit of calling EVERY SENATOR, because I'm in an extremely populous state with TWO SENATORS, while Wyoming has something like 3 people and two senators too. It's truly annoying.

It might be annoying to you and some others, but it's not to many of the rest of us in the US. Representation in the US House is done proportional to population, but not in the Senate as part of the system of checks & balances. Giving the one state in the union that is the most populous state by far more clout in both chambers would mean CA would rule the country even more than it already does. CA has enough power and influence as it is coz it's the home of Silicon Valley/most of big tech, Hollywood/TV and the entertainment and media industries, agriculture, advertising and aerospace...

Wyoming actually has nearly 600,000 people. But the sneer is duly noted.