[bryanl]

It actually is a problem. The residents of DC don't have fair representation. Politicians and the like are actually a very small portion of the population in DC.

[seanflyon]

If DC had 2 senators they would have ridiculously high representation per person.

[AnimalMuppet]

OK, but they only have one representative in the House. Nonvoting, IIRC.

[seanflyon]

They are under-represented because that representative is non-voting, but they do have fewer residents per member of congress than California.

[peterwwillis]

No. It would have the same representation as Vermont and Wyoming, both states that have smaller populations and larger land masses.

[seanflyon]

You are right that Vermont and Wyoming are even more ridiculously over represented than DC would be.

I may be biased as a Californian, but I don't see why a person from Wyoming should have 25% more representation in the House and 6500% more representation in the Senate.

[peterwwillis]

Two reasons:

One, band-sawing a senator into a fraction is probably bad for their health.

Two, representatives exist so that the people can hold some say over how they are governed. Right now the people in the district have no say over how they are governed, as if they lived under a kind of monarchy.

There are probably solutions to the percentage-of-representation issue you describe, like increasing the number of delegates to even out the numbers.

[seanflyon]

I agree that DC is underrepresented because they have only 1 non-voting member of the house. If that member was voting they would have similar representation per capita to California.

The point I made in my post above is that people in small states have dramatically higher representation than people in large states. This is why it is in California's best interest to split up and why there is not chance it will be allowed to.