A RedState WYite/Dakotan/Alaskan Has 40 TIMES the Polit.Power In The Senate As A BlueState Cali/NYer

[SuprstitionAintthWay]

2. Now, Time To Be Fair (unlike our opponents) And Show The Reverse Analysis Of The Extreme Case

There are some very populous red states and low population blues, so this contrast of extremes can be done in the reverse, too.

Let's do that. Basing Red or Blue, as above, on Senate delegations.

2019 population in millions
Texas 29.2070
Florida 21.4777
Total 50.6847

Senators: 4, all Republican.
Equals 1 Senate vote per 12.6712 million people.

2019 population in millions
Vermont 0.6263
Delaware 0.9672
Rhode Is. 1.0573
New Hamp.1.3665
Total 4.0173
(one could argue that D.C.'s 0.7025 million residents and 0 senators should be added here; but we won't)

Senators: 8, all Democratic.
Equals 1 Senate vote per 0.5022 million people.

12.6712 mill people/R senator
÷ 0.5022 mill people/D senator
= 25.23

Therefore, the following facts, unhappy ones from the other side's perspective, are also true and could be the basis for this kind of posting on a Republican forum (but won't be, because most of them know by now that the Senate structure favors them massively overall):

A Blue State Vermonter/N.Hampshirite/RhodeIslander/ Delawarean Has 25 TIMES the Political Power In The Senate As A Red State Texan/Floridian.

In those 4 smallest (in population) Blue States the average resident has 25.2 TIMES THE POLITICAL POWER in the Senate as the average resident in those 2 largest (in population) Red States.

The converse of course being, per person, Texans and Floridians have 1/25th the political power in the U.S. Senate as Vermonters, N.Hampshirites, Rhode Islanders, & Delawareans.

Those just 4 MILLION Blue State Americans combined have TWICE the political power in the United States Senate as do all 51 MILLION of those Red State Americans combined. Due, of course to the Senate's wildly undemocratic structure and where those Americans live. The 4 million Americans have 8 senators, all Democratic, and the 51 million Americans have 4 senators, all Republican.


Footnote to the 25 TIMES analysis: Florida became the 2nd largest 2-Repub-senators state only last year. California and NY have both been reliably Blue for a good while, like Texas has been reliably Red.

If one chooses to do the analysis using the 2nd largest "reliably Red" state, Georgia, 10.6174 million population, the results change as follows:

The 2-largest Red States total population falls from 50.6847 to 39.8244 million, i.e. to 40 million compared to the 2-largest Blue States total of 59 million people. The constituents per senator falls from 12.6712 to 9.9561 million, i.e. 10 million compared to the 2-largest Blue States' 15 million constituents per senator. And the ratio of the 4 million residents of the smallest Blue States' power in the Senate, per resident, compared to the average for the 40 million residents to these two large Red States, falls from a factor of 25 to a factor of 20.

To 19.8, more precisely*, using Texas/Georgia instead of Texas/Florida (I still can't fathom ANYbody wanting Rick Scott over Bill Nelson). Compared to a factor of 40.2 for the reverse comparison of extremes in the first post.

* 9.9561 mill people/R senator
÷ 0.5022 mill people/D senator
= 19.82

(Note that similar points could be made about North Dakota's senate delgation, which also became 1-party only last year; and NH's did just 3 years ago. But the resulting numbers change very little if we choose to replace small states with the next-smallest with one-party delegations.)


So. People in ALL large states are getting screwed, badly, in terms of their political representation. And people in ALL small states are being just insanely over-represented... they have WAAAAAAAY more power in the Senate than, well, anything could reasonably justify. These disparities apply for all large vs small states be they blue, red, or purple.