[skissane]

> by whom?

Well, both by the majority of the drafters of the US Constitution, and the majority of the drafters of the Australian Constitution.

And the authors of the German Constitution – the German upper house, the Bundesrat, represents the German states (Länder), and although (unlike the Australian and US Senates) it does give more populous states a greater number of seats, the number of seats is still out of proportion to population: in Bremen there are 223,830 people per a seat, compared to 2,977,586 people per a seat in North Rhine-Westphalia.

And the authors of the Swiss Constitution – the Swiss upper house (Council of States) gives two seats each to twenty of the country's cantons, and one seat each to the other six (which six are traditionally referred to as "half-cantons")

And I'm sure I could dig up more examples – globally, the majority of federations have an upper house which provides, either equal representation to each state/province, or if not equal, then at least representation that deviates significantly from proportionality to population.

> Definitely not James Madison who only grudgingly accepted this framework in Federalist No 62

I'm not sure if Madison should be interpreted as "only grudgingly" accepting this framework – but even if that's true (Madison was very much an advocate of centralized power and supporter the interests of the big states over that of the smaller states), many of the other delegates at the 1787 Constitutional Convention viewed it more positively, even as a necessity – the majority of delegates agreed to the Constitution containing this provision, and it is unlikely such a majority would have if it had been ommitted.

[kelnos]

> the German upper house, the Bundesrat, represents the German states (Länder), and although (unlike the Australian and US Senates) it does give more populous states a greater number of seats, the number of seats is still out of proportion to population: in Bremen there are 223,830 people per a seat, compared to 2,977,586 people per a seat in North Rhine-Westphalia.

To be fair, though, in the US, the House also has unfortunate proportional-representation anomalies, too, because the total number of Representatives has not changed in over a century. See Wyoming vs. California for an illustrative example.

[genewitch]

I've heard this my entire life, too. However, having lived more places than just California, I see California as having undue influence on the entire country. Prop 65 warnings pop up on things outside of California. I've even seen stuff labeled as CARB outside of California. These are trivial examples, but both of those things are California legalities. If Louisiana had undue influence on the US, more packaging would have French language as well as English; just as a trivial example.

Something that affects someone living in Los Angeles County may not affect someone in any of the other "2xxx" counties that have less population. For instance, i have a well for water. I don't worry about water shortages in California when i run my well. My water usage doesn't affect Los Angeles at all. And not even in the "butterfly" way because the jetstream goes the other way. This, again, is a trivial example.

Policing in L.A. is different than policing in LA. roadworks are different. Disaster preparedness is different. Fire risks are different. Taxation is different. Health needs are different.

What this boils down to: Californians, and specifically the valley and L.A. County residents, have a loud enough voice to push this agenda, but only when someone they don't like wins. California was happy to put a republican actor in office when the republican actor was "from California."

[s1artibartfast]

I think prop 65 warnings are about the worst example of undue political influence. Companies do this outside the state on a completely voluntary basis.

Their adoption in other states completely bypasses the national legislature due to the real world economic power of the Califonia market. They dictate external behavior by regulating their internal market.

What part of this is undue? States and individuals should have the ability to exercise power through self regulation, essentially threating to take their ball and go home.

Where I find more fault with California and Californians is when they interfere directly with external state politics. The classic example of this would rich Californians dumping money into political campaigns and ballot initiatives in other states, influencing their 'internal* politics.

[genewitch]

The joke in California is that everything both causes and cures cancer. Because of all the hippies, and the generally massive concentration of people. If someone accidentally dumps a ton(2000lbs) of lead in podunk, nebraska, it might affect 10 people. it might affect 100. That same ton of lead on Sepulveda Blvd in the basin would affect millions. So i get prop 65, i get "CARB" - in california you want small engine exhaust to guarantee no sparks, because California is a tinderbox. I gave those two examples to show that i understand that things can have nuance and be good for the general public.

Uh, i am unsure if i used "affect" correctly. Substitute "effect" if i used it wrong.

[int_19h]

California is larger than many countries, and more productive than many countries as well (at least as far as GDP goes). Of course it should have a proportionally large influence on the rest of the country; it's not "undue".

[skissane]

I think a valid question is why is California so big...

There's North Carolina and South Carolina, North Dakota and South Dakota, Virginia and West Virginia – why not North California and South California?

[int_19h]

Pretty much all state boundaries are historical artifacts at this point. We could ask the same question about Texas, or even NY for that matter.

But when it comes to changing the boundaries, you need the state legislature and Congress acting in agreement. And state boundaries are inherently a partisan political matter at this point because every new state is going to be either "red" or "blue", and this then means the corresponding adjustments to Senate representation (and House too, actually, it's just less pronounced) as well as EC. If, say, Republicans drafted a bill to split red rural areas off CA into its own state, as often proposed, what sane Democrat would ever support it knowing that it means +2 Republican senators in Congress? For the same reason, we aren't going to see statehood for Puerto Rico or DC anytime soon. The only way it could possibly work out is if states are carved out in pairs - e.g. separate deep red areas from CA, but at the same time also do the same for deep blue areas of Texas. But deep blue areas also tend to be the ones that bring in the most taxes, so Texas Republicans might balk at that on economic grounds...

Truth is, our system is too broken to recover. Too many deadlocks. It was possible in the past, when fewer issues were quite so partisan, but of course back then the need for it was also much less obvious. But now, I think it's just going to deteriorate until the dysfunction on federal level gets so bad that the country literally cannot proceed without a major constitutional reform. At which point it'll likely break apart because we won't be able to agree on the new constitution.

[skissane]

> If, say, Republicans drafted a bill to split red rural areas off CA into its own state, as often proposed, what sane Democrat would ever support it knowing that it means +2 Republican senators in Congress?

> The only way it could possibly work out is if states are carved out in pairs - e.g. separate deep red areas from CA, but at the same time also do the same for deep blue areas of Texas. But deep blue areas also tend to be the ones that bring in the most taxes, so Texas Republicans might balk at that on economic grounds...

Couldn't they find some way of splitting CA into 3 states, two "blue" and one "red", such that you'd get two new Democratic Senators and two new Republican Senators, which would cancel each other out?

> For the same reason, we aren't going to see statehood for Puerto Rico or DC anytime soon.

Puerto Rico isn't a solid lock for the Democrats. PR's new Governor, Jenniffer González-Colón, is a Republican, and prior to becoming the Governor, she was PR's non-voting delegate to Congress. Of course, it would be a gamble for the GOP, but not one they'd be guaranteed to lose. Especially if you consider Trump has made significant inroads with Hispanic voters over the last two elections, and the GOP might do even better if they were to pick a Hispanic candidate.

DC, I agree it is unlikely Republicans would agree to it.

But, admission of a new state only needs a simple majority of Congress – in a Democratic trifecta, like Biden had 2021–2023, or Obama had in 2009–2011 – that DC or PR statehood didn't happen then was ultimately due to decisions made by the Democrats, not by the Republicans – if the Democrats had been totally committed to it, it would have happened over Republican objections – but obviously they weren't.

A Democratic trifecta could easily happen again – e.g. Trump II turns out to be really unpopular, and Democrats have a big win in 2028 – but will Democrats do anything more about PR/DC statehood in 2029–2031 than they did in 2009–2011 or 2021–2023? I doubt.

[skissane]

> To be fair, though, in the US, the House also has unfortunate proportional-representation anomalies, too, because the total number of Representatives has not changed in over a century. See Wyoming vs. California for an illustrative example.

This is not unique to the US either. Section 24 of the Australian constitution guarantees each "Original State" [0] a minimum of five seats in the House of Representatives. On a population basis, Tasmania should only have 3 seats, but due to this clause they have 5 instead. This means Tasmania gets one seat per 114,240 electors, compared to one per 179,021 for NSW. This means Tasmania's seats-per-population in the House is 1.576 times that of NSW.

This is actually more disproportionate than the US House – Wyoming gets 1 Representative for 587,618 people, California gets 1 per 758,269 people – hence Wyoming's seats-per-population is only 1.290 times that of California. (Australian politicians have significantly fewer voters electing them, but that's almost inevitable with a population over 13 times smaller than the US – although consider Ireland, who have 174 seats in their lower house, but only 5.308 million people, meaning each TD only represents 30,000 people – that would be like Australia's House having 888 members, or the US House having over 11,000; if the US House had Australian-sized districts, it would have around 2000 members)

One difference is the size of the US House is at the discretion of Congress, so by increasing the size of the House, they could reduce the disproportionality. That is not possible in Australia without a constitutional amendment [1] since the Australian constitution requires the House to be "as nearly as practicable" twice the size of the Senate. Since the Senate has six states with 12 senators each, for 72 senators (plus 4 territory senators, but the High Court has ruled they don't count for this purpose), the House must be "as nearly as practicable" twice 72, which is 144 members. Currently the House has 151 members – but the 5 territory representatives don't count for this calculation, which brings us down to 146, which is "as nearly as practicable" to the required 144. The phrase "as nearly as practicable" lacks a precise definition, but it would seem any deviation big enough to significantly impact proportionality is likely to be ruled unconstitutional, while the small deviations (a handful of seats) that have thus far gone unchallenged are unlikely to make much of a difference to it. One method which wouldn't require a constitutional amendment would be to significantly increase the number of states, by splitting the existing six states into multiple parts, which in turn could significantly increase the size of the Senate and hence the House – but that is even less likely than a constitutional amendment is.

[0] an "Original State" means a state at the time of the Australian constitution's enactment. Australia currently has six states, all of which are Original States – like the US, the Australian constitution has a procedure to admit new states, but unlike the US, that procedure has thus far never been used

[1] the procedure for amending the Australian constitution is very different from that of the US – a national referendum, with both a majority nationwide, and a state-wide majority in a majority of states. What it has in common with the US constitution, is being very difficult to amend in practice – because most attempts to change the Australian constitution end up failing to pass the referendum