[ALotOfBees]

It's funny that you mention Alaska, because they are the #1 overall state when it comes to Senate and Electoral College "voter power". As you said, they get the same Senate representation despite having a fraction of the population of NJ. In addition, each vote cast in Alaska counts far more towards the presidential election than a vote in NJ does.

[vonzeppelin]

This is mainly because Congress will not increase the size of the House of Representatives. If we were to give Wyoming a single representative and used that as the bar for how many citizens a representative should actually represent then California would have 82 members in the House instead of 53. California would be worth 84 points in the Electoral College while Wyoming would still only be worth 3.

[hellojesus]

That's because the federal level is supposed to only deal with federal matters and be nonexistent elsewhere.

Each state has the same weight in the senate because they are all equal players in that space.

The house has the bias towards population.

Most regulation is supposed to take place at the state level.

[joshstrange]

> Each state has the same weight in the senate because they are all equal players in that space.

Except they represent wildly different populations and all have equal say in the senate.

> The house has the bias towards population.

One that has been capped by the DC Admission Act and perverted by gerrymandering.

> Most regulation is supposed to take place at the state level.

Says who? How in the world does that work for things like pollution (which isn't stopped at state lines) or basic rights such as the right to love who you love and/or get married?

[hellojesus]

> Says who? How in the world does that work for things like pollution (which isn't stopped at state lines) or basic rights such as the right to love who you love and/or get married?

Says the Constitution... 10th Ammendment: any power not explicitly enumerated to congress is left to the states.

Article 1 Section 8 enumerates the powers that the federal government has, along with some granted through ammendments.

[joshstrange]

I'm aware that powers not left to congress falls back to the states, you specifically mentioned regulation and this is in a thread about the EPA.

How is a state supposed to, on it's own, handle regulation against pollution from it's neighbors? How do they stop the state upstream? How do they they stop the state next door?

[hellojesus]

They don't, which is why it's s federal matter. But I'm stating that each state has an equal say in the decision (in the Senate) precisely because it impacts states approximatepy equally (hence the federal matter). If it didn't, you could plausibly see a densely populated state vote to pollute their neighbor's state by tyranny of the majority.

[joshstrange]

> But I'm stating that each state has an equal say in the decision (in the Senate) precisely because it impacts states approximatepy equally

I do not agree that impacts states equally nor do I buy into the premise that states should have an equal say. We aren't seeing the tyranny of the majority, we are seeing the tyranny of the minority between the filibuster and the senate not being representative of the people.

[jaywalk]

A state isn't supposed to do any of that on it's own. Congress is supposed to pass laws regarding those sorts of things, not just create an agency in the Executive branch and let it run wild.

[joshstrange]

> Congress is supposed to pass laws regarding those sorts of things

You honestly think it's a good system to have congress be the ones legislating on every new way companies come up with to pollute?

> let it run wild.

We have very different definitions of "running wild".

All of this assume a functional congress which we absolutely don't have. I'm working with the cards dealt, you want to imagine some pie-in-the-sky idea of how congress should function. I agree it should function better but I don't see how letting companies pollute more is somehow a "win" and it certainly won't motivate the people in congress who don't even believe in climate change. All of this thinking seems to completely ignore that we need 60 senators to pass any legislation (due to the filibuster), a chamber of congress that is in no way representative of the people.